« Thanks, New Hampshire | Main | Consider This Precedent, Republicans, In Light of the Fact That One Year From Now the Attorney General Will Likely Be Working For Hillary Clinton »

02/07/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Oh I can't wait to see the response to this post!

Cue fish making popcorn!

Eh, so what? I half agree, half disagree. I'd disagree that Romney is a Bush "conservative"; I think that McCain is much more a Bush "conservative," but he's Bush on steroids (i.e., even worse).

Since I live in the People's Republic of Mexifornia, my vote in November would never have mattered in the first place, but I find myself without a Republican candidate to support. So, like Ann Coulter, I'm behind Hillary.

Of course, it's a purely tactical move. Four years of Hillary will be disastrous, but she and her policies will be easier to oppose than Obama or McCain. Any criticism of Obama will immediately be deemed racist™, so he will get a free pass. Brain-dead Republicans will stand by "their" man McCain (just as they stood behind the liberal Bush the Lesser), and the destruction of conservatism that has progressed so far under Bush would be completed under McCain. In contrast, four years under the thumb of Dear Madame Chairwoman should revitalize conservatism and give us a conservative Republican president in four years.

Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!

OMG....I kind of agree with Squid! All except for the conservative Republican in 4 years part....those remaining now should all be extinct by then!

Oh yeah....Squid....where (generally) in the peoples republic do you reside? We may be neighbors.....

Well, I won't disappoint you Fish.

Tom, this is pure, unadulterated, Sullivanist dreck. Which is to say, there is so much wrong here it's almost impossible to correct.

Lets begin, with the tone. Rather Bushian of you, don't you think. Full throated, insulting, a white knuckled commitment to the One True Truth. Like your hero, the great Ron Paul endorser, you look at your idealogical adversary, reject virtually everything you believe they stand for and do so with the very same intemperate tone that you wish to indict them for!

As for Romney being a Bush conservative there really are two things wrong with your contention. First, Bush ain't no conservative. Oddly, you seem aligned with your personal white whale, Limbaugh, in believing that he is. Fine, if it gets you through the day but that don't make it true, brother. Secondly, the handsome Mitt, if he is a conservative, and this remains in doubt, is more of the Eisenhower mold. This, more than anything else is why the man couldn't get nominated; the world has moved on and we need a leader for the era after history ended, to borrow Fukyama's term.

As for McCain's great failing, I must confess I haven't a clue or a care as to what Limbaugh says, but for most conservatives, it is that the guy has pursued some very unconservative goals in the course of his senate career.

Finally, Romney was spot on in his comments on O'Bama and Clinton's approach to terror. O'Bama, by withdrawing from Iraq will embolden radical jihadists. As for Clinton, we've seen the way the two headed beast fought terror in the nineties and if their response to the many attacks that occurred on their watch wasn't surrender, then I don't know what it was. Indeed, one of the reasons Bill is running so forcefully for Hill is that he now realizes that his appeasement of the terror masters is his true legacy and he is desperate to do something to reverse it.

Oh, and another thing. I love how you routinely insist that Iraq is not central to the war on terror, with the same vociferousness as Bush insists it is. On this one he wins. Try, for a moment, to put your hatred aside and think about it strategically. Terror in the middle east emanates from Iran, Saudi, and Syra for the most part. There are other players, but these are the big suppliers of money and man power. Currently, we are beholden to Saudi for obvious reasons. Success in Iraq, which is admittedly by no means assured (in part due to the actions of the Democratic Party to undermine our efforts), would give us a second outpost in the middle east from which we could influence the behavior of the terror triad. This is why McCain is precisely correct when he says he could see us in Iraq for 100 years. He doesn't mean in a perpetual state of war, but rather in a country that allows us to use our influence against the others. It is clear that this may not work, but to through in the towel now as O'Bama and Hill want to do would be to preemptively cede any chance we have of improving an already weak hand.

Pursuit,

Right on.

Fish,

Four years of Chairwomyn Hillary will give conservatives a fightable enemy. Her socialist policies will be so awful that we'll have an enemy to rally against. Under President Moonbat, the midterm elections will see a decisive Republican takeover of Congress, and two years after that, the White House will be R again.

Incidentally, I live in the Central Coast area.

Well we're not exactly neighbors.....I'm closer to Sacramento.

I'm having some difficulties with the operable definition of "conservative". Who in your (either You Squid or Pursuit) qualifies as a legitimate conservative? I used to think I was.....no longer!

Additionally Squid, I think you're arguing with facts not in evidence when you say that the midterm elections will bring a republican sweep of the federal legislature. I say this for two reasons: I'm not sure that the financial structure of this country will allow Hillary to do much more than talk about her bold proposals. Second I think that the demographics will work against you the democrats are importing potential democratic voters in job lots.

I very much doubt that a Hillary presidency will bring conservative president. The last Clinton presidency didn't bring us one.

Conservatism, for me, is defined by this single phrase: rugged individualism. Getting the federal government out of our daily lives as much as possible to allow freedom and liberty to flourish. This, more than any government program, is what has made this country great and what will continue to see her prosper.

The problem with every single Republican candidate since Reagan is that they all want to spend all their time comparing themselves to Reagan instead of outlining what their plan for the country is. The Contract with America was such a sweeping success because they did the exact opposite. Politicians actually pledge to fight for a list of principles, and once elected they did just what they promised. Of course, after they were in power a few years the Republicans did what every lifetime politician does; become full of their own self-importance and think the system depends on them and exists to create more power for them. Couple that with a President who preaches "compassionate conservatism", signs every spending bill put before him and refuses to reevaluate the strategy of the war until it is almost too late, and you see why Democrats were swept into office in 2006. They didn't even take as long as the '94 Republicans to become full of self-importance and thumb their noses at the general public.

Basically, we're going to be stuck with mealy-mouthed, weak knee conservatives until someone comes along who has the stones to stand up on national television and tell the American public that the government is not their parents and does not exist to dole out money in the form of social programs to every man, woman and child in the country. It's the job of the government to get the hell out of the way so people can grab their own bootstraps and lift themselves as high as they can.

And we are going to have a presence in Iraq for the next 100 years for the same reason we still have a presence in Germany, Italy, England, Japan, the Philippines, and most every other country we set foot in during WWII.

1. To provide a second strategic foothold in the region to compliment our forces in Turkey.
2. To ensure that neighboring countries don't "help" Iraq realize the error of its ways by rejecting an Islamic state.
3. If we stay big buddies with Iraq, it helps keep a reliable source of oil open to us. Say what you will, but our culture depends on oil and it is in our vital interest to ensure we have a ready supply of oil on hand.
4. This conflict, while vastly improved over last year and getting better daily, is far from over. Despite Tom's constant claim that the Democrat's plan for withdraw is the same as Bush's, they keep trying to prove him wrong. Just this week Murtha submitted yet another bill calling for withdraw by the end of the year. As good as things are, if we pack up and go home, Iraq is going to be thrown in to chaos, the Islamo-Fascists are going to declare victory and become more emboldened and press even harder for the ultimate defeat of, well, pretty much anyone who isn't Muslim. They've just proposed a law in Iran making it a crime to leave Islam, punishable by death. They've been thoughtful enough to include anyone living outside Iran as well. Oh yeah, they also included children not raised Muslim when at least one of the parents is Muslim.

One more thought, this time on the original post.

Mitt did the classy thing. Instead of staying in the race and further dividing the party, he did the honorable thing and stepped aside to allow the inevitable winner to take control. Something Nixon did when he could have contested the election, but stepped aside to allow Kennedy to begin governing, because sometimes there are things greater than the individual asserting his/her "rights".

Something the Democrats don't seem to get, especially since Gore and the 2000 fiasco he put the country through.

I would think that you would recognize this for what it was, instead of playing the role of the partisan hack you usually try to stay away from.

Conservatism, for me, is defined by this single phrase: rugged individualism. Getting the federal government out of our daily lives as much as possible to allow freedom and liberty to flourish.

Frank, who did you or will you vote for in this election (If its not something you want to keep private.)?

Fish,

My personal beliefs lined up most closely with Duncan Hunter, who didn't stand a chance. I held out hopes for Fred for a while, but he fizzled. When there were three left, I planned on voting for Romney, just because he was the least distasteful of the group. Now I'm not even going to bother with our primary when it rolls around, because it's a moot point. Come the general election I will probably hold my nose and vote McCain. But it's still a long time between now and then.

When there were three left..

I know there are technically three left now, but Ron Paul never enters my thinking, because that man is bat shit crazy. If he were the actual nominee I would do something I have never done before, vote for a Dem. for president.

"Facts not in evidence." Fish, are you channelling Conrad?

As it now stands, there are three awful choices for president: Clinton, McCain, and Obama. Who's worst? Depends on how you define it.

I maintain that McCain will continue in Bush's footsteps. Neither one is a conservative, yet conservatives will continue to allow themselves to be led astray in the name of "party unity" or some such rot. Conservatism is already weak; President McCain would drive a stake into its heart and kill conservatism for a generation. Worst-case scenario.

Obama is the most liberal senator. He is becoming a messianic figure for his followers. His content-free campaign is about generic "change"--and him, the "magic Negro" (and before you get your panties in a bunch, follow the link; it's an article written by a black man for the LA Times). His race makes it nearly impossible to criticize him; as soon as someone does, the race card will be played. He will be able to implement the destructive and socialist policies that are Hillary's dreams. Awful.

Hillary brings with her all the venality, viciousness, and corruption we've come to expect from the Clinton brand. However, it's precisely because she is such a polarizing, divisive figure that even though she has the worst policies of the three, she'll be the easiest to fight. She will energize conservatism, rather than kill it, and that's why I'm willing to take my lumps for four God-forsaken years.

Lots more analysis along these lines at View From the Right.

Conservatism, for me, is defined by this single phrase: rugged individualism. Getting the federal government out of our daily lives as much as possible to allow freedom and liberty to flourish.

This is why I enjoy the cognitive dissonance theater here at F/A!

Batshit crazy.....Paul was the only candidate who would have given you a shot at the "Rugged Individualism" that you cherish! He certainly is the only candidate who would have reduced the scope and intrusiveness of the Federal government

! Vote for a democrat......instead of the only member of the who does more than pay lip service to the constitution. Whatever! Enjoy the next 8 years of triple threat democratic party legislation.

No need to worry though he really never stood a chance anyway!


Squid,

I know you like to type but perhaps you could take a moment, answer my question and explain to me why you expect a republican sweep in the midterm elections under a new Clinton administration. The dems will hold all three branches for two years at a minimum...I think you can count on every last illegal alien achieveing some sort of legal status with...voila...the right to vote! You're doomed! Sorry!

I agree that Ron Paul is the most adamant about following the constitution, but he is also a 9/11 truther (or at least refuses to distance himself from the large number of his followers who are), an isolationist, and a racist. via Ace

"“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

That is why I would never vote for Ron Paul.

The vast majority of Islamic terrorists are from the Middle East and Central Asia.* Therefore Islamic terrorists are provisionally identifiable by the color of their skin (i.e., their race). This is one part of the crime-fighting technique known as profiling, which has a proven track record of being highly effective.

I think the passage Frank quoted has been abridged to the extent that it can be misinterpreted as Frank did--but that's not Frank's fault. However, I don't think there's anything "racist" at all about using race as one factor in identifying potential terrorists, just so long as we understand that it's not the only factor.

Having said that, I'd never vote for Ron Paul either, but that's because he's a Libertarian and a Rockwellite.

fish,
More later.

*Which, of course, begs the question: why do we allow people from this part of the world into the West in the first place? When we were at war with the Japanese, Germans, and Italians, we did not allow them into our country. During the Cold War, we did not allow citizens of Communist countries in either. Why, then, when we are at "war" with Islamic terrorism, do we allow Moslems into the country?

"Basically, we're going to be stuck with mealy-mouthed, weak knee conservatives until someone comes along who has the stones to stand up on national television and tell the American public that the government is not their parents and does not exist to dole out money in the form of social programs to every man, woman and child in the country."

If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

Thank you.

Pursuit

Pursuit in 08: The NonCandidate none of us can get behind!

Trust me Fish, hearing you won't be behind me is the best possible way to finish the week!

Actually I wasn't referring to his blaming of terrorism on Muslims, I was referring to his antisemitism. I just didn't quote it all.

Here are a couple more quotes directly from his newsletter.

“Last month I reported on massive, illegal spying by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith against its perceived opponents, as revealed in California. The ADL keeps track of people and groups from left to right, and purchases illegally obtained information on Americans from its agents in police departments in order to prepare and maintain hundreds of thousands of dossiers.”

He also hinted that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was perpetrated by the Mossad, but said that it "mattered little" whether it was done by Islamic terrorists or by the Mossad. Which, I would think, would be a distinction with huge ramifications. YMMV.

Frank,

I see, and agree. Anti-Semitism is an intellectual rat-hole from which there is no escape. According to the anti-Semites, Jews, who account for about 0.2% of the world's population and less than 2% of the US population, are not only responsible for all of our problems, but are also a bigger threat to us and our existence than Moslems (who continue to try to kill us and whose world view is actively hostile to us) and illegal aliens (who are subverting our laws and have already started to displace us)!

Fish,

Let me quote Ann Coulter:

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

More discussion here.

As for your prediction that illegals would get amnesty during the third Clinton term, never forget the power of the minority to block majority legislation--as has been happening since the last mid-term elections. Recall also that the minority Republicans defeated amnesty twice in 2007--even though it was backed by "their" president! Yes, it's going to come up again, but it's not a done deal.

Re: amnesty

Squid, from your lips to gods ear!

fish,

It's up to us to make God's will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; He won't do it for us. This means we have to keep on top of attempted legislation, and the best site I know of for that is Roy Beck's NumbersUSA, which was instrumental in fighting the recent treasonous attempts at amnesty.

So, Squid, I need to remind you that "Moslems" are not trying to kill us. Some Moslems are trying to kill us. Others are helping us. Most are just going through their daily lives. The fact that you've turned all Moslems into threats is one of the symptoms of your bigotry.

Now to your concept that "treasonous attempts at amnesty" are thwarting God's will.

I challenge you to find a single passage in the New Testament where Christ says we need to protect ourselves from the poor, unfortunate and outcast. Cite, for my education, a single passage that supports the idea that a nation -- any nation -- should round up its least fortunate and exile them, or should build a wall to keep people away, or do whatever is necessary to protect the nation's own wealth and privilege.

Christ's message was, in fact, exactly the opposite of all that. The idea that doing "God's will" has anything to do whatsoever with cracking down on immigration is ridiculous to the point of being blasphemous.

One of the unintended consequences of thinking of the United States as a Christian country is that protection of the United States then becomes a Christian cause. Any means can be justified so long as it serves the end of preserving the status quo nation. Hence, the defense of obviously un-Christian policies can be justified. I've heard self-professed Christians argue in favor of torture, for example. That's what you're doing here: arguing a profoundly un-Christian policy in the name of the preservation of the Christian nation.

(The irony that the poor and helpless you want to round up and exile as you execute "God's will" are brother Christians should be noted. And scorned.)

Christ wasn't ambiguous about how we should treat the poor. He didn't say "protect yourself and do what you can from a position of safety." He said surrender your wealth and follow me. He said go to the lepers, give up your lives and families and status. He said die with me that you might know eternal life.

That you can use that to justify racist immigration policies is beyond my ability to comprehend.

The comments to this entry are closed.