Changing of the conservative guard

http://reason.com/news/show/29311.html

I think folks are really overthinking the McCain thing.

Is it really such a stretch to think that, out of an extraordinarily weak pack of candidates, McCain emerged as the least objectionable to the biggest cross-section of the base electorate. Nor is 'movement conservatism' in the throes of some sort of crack-up. NRO is not some monolith of thought: John Derbyshire is as different from Jonah Goldberg as P.G. Wodehouse is from James Thurber. And there is as much bunker mentality outside the NRO bunker as in to judge from the siege mentality of some of the web's alt-conservative narratives.

What is remarkable is how, once again, the Democrats have been handed an incredible electoral advantage (weak opposition, unpopular war, uncertain economic indicators, unpopular sitting president, sympathetic press, etc.) and somehow this thing becomes a horse race after all.

Cheers,

Basil Seal
The Cow and Acres

It's not good for "Republican unity," but really, is that the point of conservatism? To hold power no matter what? The Republican Party does not deserve to hold on to power, given how badly it has governed. It's time for a new conservatism.

What worries me about this type of talk is it so often followed by a new conservatism that really is liberalism.

Frankly I'm very surprised that anyone gives what Land or Limbaugh (etc.) say much credence at all.

First, contra Rubin, I don't think it's clear that the Republican Party is choosing John McCain. His victories are largely due to crossover voters, independents and Democrats voting in GOP primaries. Most are simply expressing disapproval of Bush, but McCain is probably the most Bush-like candidate out there. He's far more neocon than any of the others.

Second, on Cole's laundry list of complaint, I really don't see how McCain will change very much of that, except, maybe, the waterboarding issue--which has not really been playing in the campaign. Nor are Democrats likely to object to this stuff either. Do you really see HRC or even Obama trying to limit the executive? Before Bush's odious "signing" statements, we had the "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool" philosophy.

Very well said. Frankly, it would be a great joy to me if next January were to find Rush and his mynah birds confronted by a Republican president who owes them nothing.

And frankly, G.O.P. primary voters simply may find Mr. McCain’s heretical support for campaign finance reform a lot less significant than personal character traits like honesty, courage and persistence.

This is a howler. McCain is stubborn as a mule and he has chutzpah, but honest he's not, as his silly surge-flogging proves.

Well said, David. There is no implosion inside the Democratic party. You won't see the leading liberal pundits calling anyone "unliberal" because of their stand on torturing prisoners. You won't see convoluted arguments, like the one that being anti-illegal immigrant is a cultural conservative cornerstone. If Obama wins, everyone will be happy. If Clinton wins, fewer people will be happy but everyone will get on the bus.

Obama beats McCain in a walk. Clinton beats McCain, but it will be closer. Both of them would make mincemeat out of Romney, who won't be able to carry either of his homestates (Michigan or Massachusetts).

To me, the other interesting question is who will the conservative movement blame in November when election day comes. Will the neo-cons get blamed, will the Wall Street conservatives get blamed, will the social conservatives get blamed?

To me, the other interesting question is who will the conservative movement blame in November when election day comes. Will the neo-cons get blamed, will the Wall Street conservatives get blamed, will the social conservatives get blamed?

Oh, that's easy. The evangelicals, because they don't have any serious press organs. The neo-con hawks, who deserve the lion-share of the blame, will land on their feet, as they always have.

I agree with Derek. The religious and social conservatives will get blamed, and for precisely the reason he identifies.

After watching last night's debate, I'm going to disagree with those who think the Democratic candidate will win in November. I think the Democrats are still out of touch with the majority. Heck, both candidates spoke of raising taxes and growing the government! I think the country still likes the way Republicans manage the executive branch, notwithstanding the failure of the present administration.

The majority prefers most Democratic positions to Republican positions; it's why Republicans have to keep lying to get elected.

Lieberman was called on the carpet by the netroots, who are not really party of the liberal establishment. They aren't the National Review and Rush Limbaugh and the conservative pundit class. And he still won. And Lieberman was once the VP candidate, not exactly an indication of being on the outs with the party and liberalism.

"Or how about the fact that every time a Democrat wants to become a national leader he/she has to pay lip-service to pro-choice values, even if that person used to be pro-life (Gore comes to mind here)."

I think this is more a fantasy of the pro-life movement. Really, truly, in 2008 liberals and progressive don't spend all that much time chatting about abortion and pro-choice values. It's not the obsession it is on the right. Admittedly, there is general agreement and respect on the issue. Pro-life people, in 2008, are not treated like pariahs the way pro-choice conservatives are. Core Democrats and liberals went and campaigned for Sen. Casey in Pennsylvania, despite his pro-life views. This isn't 1992. The DNC gave significant money to pro-life House candidates.

I'm a conservative. I would never celebrate the victory of a pro-legal abortion candidate like Jim Webb who would block a Supreme court justice that would weaken or overturn Roe. Not when it means losing a solid pro-life senator. And, I don't see anything particularly conservative about rounding up a bunch of simple working people regardless of the complex legal residency status of their families and throwing them over a police-state like, militarized border. Sounds more like the busy-body liberals who rounded up my Japanese neighbors and locked them up in concentration camps. I don't find that prospect very conservative and neither does John McCain.

But, I do understand that conservatives can take different positions for very different reasons and still be conservatives. Which reminds me that at one time Rod was casting various people out of the conservative movement by some standard of his and my response was "Who made you Pope?). My guess is that we all get mad and impatient with our compadres and want our view to win. Human nature I guess.

quote: "I think this is more a fantasy of the pro-life movement. Really, truly, in 2008 liberals and progressive don't spend all that much time chatting about abortion and pro-choice values. It's not the obsession it is on the right. Admittedly, there is general agreement and respect on the issue. Pro-life people, in 2008, are not treated like pariahs the way pro-choice conservatives are. Core Democrats and liberals went and campaigned for Sen. Casey in Pennsylvania, despite his pro-life views. This isn't 1992. The DNC gave significant money to pro-life House candidates."

Liberals and progressives don't spend much time on the issue because they all agree that to be one of them you must be pro-choice to the utmost degree (both Clinton and Obama support partial birth abortion). Of course, they have figured out that backing pro-life Democrats in swing states can benefit their party, but there is a glass ceiling for pro-lifers in the Democratic Party.
The GOP (unfortunately, in my view abortion is murder) has had two candidates this year who were either pro-choice (Guilani) or have flip-flopped on the issue (Romney). When is the last time the Democrats have had a pro-lifer running in a presidential primary? It's been a very long time, and the reason for this is that liberals and progressives would never tolerate it. So yeah, they don't spend much time discussing the issue. They don't have to because they have completely shut out those whose views differ from their views on abortion.

rr

OK Derek,

Then do you propose regularizing the status of people who are currently here in addition to creating your "enforcement regime?

And also, please describe to me what the "enforcement regime" would consist of. While there are some large employers who use undocumented immigrant labor, at least in my area most of the undocumented are employed casually by smaller employers and even individuals. Would we be going after these folks? Just how big of a nationalized police force do you propose building to enforce this regime? Sounds like big centralized government to me.

If you've studied history you know this kind of hate the stranger rhetoric has always tended to get out of hand. "Nice people" just want to get control of things and eventually hand power over to the thugs who do the lynchings and since we're quoting Mr Dylan here these days: '... It wasn't us that made him fall. No, you can't blame us at all."

Daniel I think you are comparing the Democrat Party and its flexibility with Conservatives and their rigidity. Essentially you are right, but my point is that Liberals and Conservatives both have standards that they do not want crossed when supporting someone for an office as important as President.

Lieberman was a VP candidate in 2000. From what I recall the Iraq War wasn't an issue in that election.

The Democrat Party certainly has room for pro-life politicians, especially when they are trying to win more conservative districts. There are plenty of pro-choice politicians in the Republican Party. But when talking about national leadership it's very hard to imagine anyone who disagreed with the pro-choice plank being acceptable to the Democrats because of the reaction of the liberal part of the party. Even if the candidate was solidly liberal on every other issue I just don't see that happening. Heath Shuler isn't running for president anytime soon.

As you even pointed out, there is so much uniformity on the Left about abortion that it isn't even an issue. The GOP has viable leaders who disagree on abortion and this makes it a lively issue on the Right. But again, what the parties do and what the ideological wings of the parties support are often different things.

The following response is anecdotal, of course. Full discloser: I'm a registered Democrat...

The support of Casey the Younger had far more to do with being anti-Santorum than pro-Casey.

This describes my vote exactly.

...many of the Pa State democrats were upset...

Being represented by Democrats who routinely run unopposed for re-election in the primary and general, I think we should find ways to upset them more.

"Being represented by Democrats who routinely run unopposed for re-election in the primary and general, I think we should find ways to upset them more."

Franklin, I didn't know you were a Pittsburgher! ;-)

Thanks for your comments Derek and the link. While on "views from the right" did you see Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes saying she would vote for Hillary if McCain is the Rep nominee? Its pretty funny.

Here's my take on a Hillary presidency: After her first two years there will be a republican sweep of house and senate (like '94) The only thing she will be able to get through is getting our troops back home. We'll get balanced budgets, stale-mate (aka limited) government, and maybe, if we are really lucky lower oil prices. Maybe Hillary is the true conservatives candidate...

What worries me about this type of talk is it so often followed by a new conservatism that really is liberalism.

Can you give one or more examples?

Faith based initiative
Prescription drug plan

"It's fun to watch the conservative ideologues get put through the meat grinder."

Indeed. As was brought up on another thread recently, as soon as a given 'conservatism' starts to be an ideology, it ceases to be truly conservative.

DavidTC,

Ah, yes. Continue to pretend that hatred of the Clintons exist outside of the right repeating over and over that it exists.

Just as you say, but please inform the folks at Harris of this, they must be missing something...

That said, as the field narrows on both sides I'm no longer convinced that the race is a lock for the Dems. In fact, their candidates seem as implausible as the remaining Republicans. Clinton is widely disliked, even in her own party (actually, outside her party she is widely despised). Some, not all, Obama backers will probably stay home if she is the nominee. Mainly because of the embarrassing spectacle of the last two weeks (e.g. voter intimidation in Nevada). Because the next election is going to be a base election it all comes down to which side is more motivated. If W were on the ballot, I'd say advantage Dems. But he isn't so off-setting penalties.

But all this is off-topic. There is a lot more under the conservative sun than just NRO and Rush Limbaugh. My post was intended to point out that just because certain conservatives have become intellectually flabby by no means proves that the philosophy (and its many variants) is at some sort of dead end. Only a very modest overlap exists among various conservative philosophies and the Republican party. Most of this soul-searching that is going on of the moment has to do with the heretofore dismal prospects for Republicans in the next election (and to a lesser extent the drubbing in 2006).

But the immediate fortunes of the Republican party are really of little interest. I take many of the ideas advanced in Rod's book (and this blog) and those of other influential thinkers (Kirk, Berry, Burke, etc) to be about building up communities without waiting for the Chosen One to be elected. The application of conservative principles and ideals is most powerful on the personal, local, and regional levels.

Considered from that perspective conservatism is quite lively and healthy which is why I am always a little impatient with the crack-up narrative. Conservatism as a brand may do poorly in November but as a transformative philosophy of life it is very much a large and growing part of our country.

Cheers,

Basil Seal
The Cow and Acres

Then do you propose regularizing the status of people who are currently here in addition to creating your "enforcement regime?

Only after a few years of maintaing an inflow of 10% or less what we have now.

And also, please describe to me what the "enforcement regime" would consist of.

Employer verification, a border barrier and an end to public benefits for illegals.

While there are some large employers who use undocumented immigrant labor, at least in my area most of the undocumented are employed casually by smaller employers and even individuals. Would we be going after these folks? Just how big of a nationalized police force do you propose building to enforce this regime? Sounds like big centralized government to me.

We already have a big structure and we already have requirements to hire citizens or legal residents. Those who violate the laws should be fined heavily, or lose their business. Once the risk grows greater than the benefits the problems will drop.

Really, given your alternative, we're going to grow the government far larger with increases social spending because it's going to be an open invitation to anyone to come in. For the sake of stroking your sense of compassion, you're selling out my kids' future.

If you've studied history you know this kind of hate the stranger...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, here comes the moral preening and self-congratulation that borders on the utterly mastubatory. The only real hate going on when you get down to it is the utter contempt you have for your neighbors, who have the temerity to ask for some law and order.

Be compassionate with your own kids, steve. Move out of Silicon Valley and put your kids in a school in the central valley, where teachers and funds are being diverted to deal with aliens' kids, who can't speak any English. Live with the constant threat of drunk drivers. We have what seems to be about a person a week killed here in Houston by drunk illegals. Live with the gangs, the crowded neighborhoods, the degraded social environment, the exhausted infrastructure and the lowered wages before you get on your high horse, sneering at us mere mortals for asking that the law be enforced.

"What is sure to cause many a sleepless night for some today must be the realization that, once an entitlement is granted to a broad portion of the electorate, it has never been revoked. Consider Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And too note exactly how many other democratic governments have ever returned to private health care, notwithstanding all the horror stories and demagoguery that accompany nationalization."

Once Leviathan has a hold on something he is loathe to let go.

And too note exactly how many other democratic governments have ever returned to private health care...

Actually, the French, British and even the Canadians are starting to use privatization to control costs.

The irony is that despite the handwringing among the conservative elite about McCain's bona fides, he is--and will continue to be--viewed by the electorate as a conservative. Democrats will have no trouble painting him as a Bush-like conservative who panders to the religious right. The proof is in his very conservative voting record, not in what Rush Limbaugh and his ilk think of him. Voters aren't going to be fooled by the whining at NRO or on conservative talk radio. The man's a conservative, which is why Republicans are choosing him in the primaries and why he is going to be labeled as one in the general election.

The French, the British and the Canadians are not eliminating government health care, they are making accomodation for the ones with the money who, as the song goes, "want it all and want it now".

Why not just call them "wreckers, saboteurs and counter-revolutionaries" and get it over with?

JLF, if I am remembering correctly it was actually the Canadian court system the pried the right to private health care out of the grasp of the bureaucracy, not politicians seeking votes. Strangely, no matter how much and how many voters want to level the playing field some people have the nerve to think they have rights that the majority will can't impinge upon.

Strangely, no matter how much and how many voters want to level the playing field some people have the nerve to think they have rights that the majority will can't impinge upon.

Rest assured, JLF will see to these ingrates, come the revolution!

The AFA and the FRC (and the old "Moral" "Majority") and the Benny Hinns, the John Hagees, the Ted Haggards, the Jimmy Swaggarts, the Pat robertsons, the Pat Buchananas, etc., have no "serious press organs"???

These are inside baseball, except maybe Buchanan's venues. Preaching to the choir, although, apparently, they had you going for a while.

Derek Copold
Actually, the French, British and even the Canadians are starting to use privatization to control costs.

You know, I'd love to see privatized health care in this country.

...by 'privatization' you mean the government contracts with private business to provide specific services, and pays them for it, right? Cause that's what everyone has always called 'privatized'.

Often, the right's objection to government-provided health care seems to make them unaware there are two entirely different systems. There's the British one, where the government owns all the medical facilities, and there's the Canadian one, where the government simply pays for the medical care done at private facilities

The British model is cheaper, paperwork-wise, as hospitals don't need to send any information about anything on upward to get paid (Like DMVs don't get reimbursed per-license issued.) but has no incentive to keep costs low. As a result, some places are, in fact, experimenting with privatizing operations, which is:

In the Canadian model, provided services have set costs, so hospitals attempt to lower their cost to make more money(1), but conversely, a lot more paper work is required to show each and every expense they incurred to get reimbursed for. OTOH, it's less paperwork than currently. This is called 'privatizing' a government service. Private industry runs it, the government pays them for their work.

As for how Canadians can privatize with a system already like that, Canada's health-care is actually a good deal more patchwork than talk about 'its system' would recognize. It varies by province, with government operated facilities in many areas.

Be compassionate with your own kids, steve. Move out of Silicon Valley and put your kids in a school in the central valley, where teachers and funds are being diverted to deal with aliens' kids, who can't speak any English.

My kids attend a public school which is greater than 50% (actually it might be more) latino and a large number of limited english speakers. I don't have the exact numbers but if you really need them, I'm sure I could get them. One of the largest and most successful bilingual (Spanish/English)immersion schools in the US is at the end of my block. I'll send you the URL for our school district and I'm sure you'd get the picture. I put my feet where my mouth is, Bubb. And don't forget, I'm paying much higher state taxes than you are in Texas.

My son was the only anglo on a soccer team last fall coached by a non-English speaking dad. They don't scare us. They are normal people trying to make a living. I attend church with many of them on Sunday. They may wear less expensive clothes and have inferior dental work but they are hard-working people who aren't drinking or drugging in bigger numbers than the US born folks that I know. They earn less (on average) so of course they pay less in taxes but they are decent human beings nonetheless.

Land and borders are a funny business and making treaties under force and then expecting them to stand without transgression might just be a little naive on your part.

Otherwise, I'd like to request that you keep any discussion of your personal practices of intimacy private and I promise to do the same. It is just the sort of anger that you express that repels lots of fair-minded Americans who see their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents in the faces of the new immigrants. Face it, your issue has failed at the ballot box. If Tom Tancredo had gotten as much support as Ron Paul, politicians would have had to take notice. As it is, he faded away like a ghost.

Well, Loudon, I suspect you enjoyed Saddam's brutalization of his people, like all good Catholic Just War folks? I suspect you wanted Saddam to backroll terrorism (as he did with the Palestinian suicide bombers), like all good Catholic Just War folks? I suppose you want the chaos in Iraq that would result without representative government so that al-Qaeda could exploit the situation and murder more innocents, just like all good Catholic Just War folks? I suppose you want Islam to gain the upper hand in the world, just like all good Catholic Just War folks, who have been brainwashed by their false shepherds into believing that Islam is a legitimately holy faith, like Judaism and Christianity?

Loudon is a Fool: An appropriate name if there ever was one!

Since when did Iraq become our colony or protectorate?

Are you saying Iraq isn't our protectorate?

The border was set over 150 years ago. That's longer than most borders in the world have stood.

And it has been transgressed many times during that 100 years. When the bloodbath of the last mexican revolution occured (in which US Masons were knee-deep in), about 1/3 of the mexican population joined us on this side and their children are now our fellow US citizens. The territories were pretty empty then, the social benefits few and the need for documentation non-existent. That was pretty much the era and conditions under which my grandparents came to the US from Italy and Poland.

There were problems but things seem to have worked out pretty well with the immigrants from that era. Not that there weren't nativists in that day. My father told me about seeing the bigots chasing his dad, throwing snowballs at him and calling him a wop. Same crowd now. In the mid 19th century, they even had a political party. Called themselves the Know Nothings. I can't imagine a better name.

I can solemnly swear that I have never thrown a snowball at a Mexican in my entire life.

Joey,

Sharks and polar bears are an enemy of man. When faced with the choice of killing all sharks and bears, or showing caution at the beach and avoiding the frozen wastes of the north, the later seems an easier row to hoe.

But you go, Kurtz.

There is still lots of land left in the US especially since the boomers decided not to have kids and thought it would be better to abort than raise a new generation. After all somebody is going to have to provide the labor-intensive care required by the boomers as they are aging.

With what are we going to pay them. Illegal aliens consume more in public services than they pay in taxes. That'll only worsen when they're made legal, as they'll then be eligible for a whole raft of new services, and they'll import their kids AND their older folks, too. We're not just going to "legalize" 12 million this round. It'll be more 40 million or more when all is said and done.

And then there'll be NEXT wave hoping for yet another amnesty.

That's why we on the restrictionist side insist on having a serious enforcement regime in place before we hand out the amnesty candy. Again, we're not saying there'll be no candy, but all we're asking is that we don't find ourselves in the same spot in yet another 20 years. How this merits dark implications of Manzanar and the Know-Nothings simply escapes me.

Hey my granddad lived through his abuse at the hands of the knuckleheads of his time (just the price he had to pay I guess) and his children and grandchildren moved along and made a fine life and the US a better more prosperous place than it would have been without them.

They could do this because their wages weren't being undercut by yet another wave of immigrants at the time. They were further pushed into assimilation because you didn't have more people coming in from the old country. While the motives behind the 1924 cut-off were less than noble, the effect was to tighten the labor and increase wages across the board and force a sense of unison on the people here.

In two generations, nobody will notice a difference between the children of todays undocumented immigrants and anyone else.

Given your plan that'll be because we're going to have to deal "undocumented immigrants" (trans: illegal aliens) from Indonesia, China, Pakistan, or wherever else cheap, indentured labor can be found.

Derek, et al. I think you've mistaken observation for advocacy. It matters not whether I want government to provide this service or that, should the people receive a benefit that they value, they will be loathe to give it up. That's human nature . . . which always trumps ideology.

Derek, et al. I think you've mistaken observation for advocacy.

Then I apologize for my sharp elbows.

"Well, Loudon, I suspect you enjoyed Saddam's brutalization of his people, like all good Catholic Just War folks?"

Good one! Yes, I'm sure he did "enjoy" Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship!

Seriously folks...is this 2003? I thought we were all past this kind of stupidity.

Thanks but no thanks el,

Us wops didn't need any help figuring out that assimilation was the way to go to improve our lot. And we enticed you all to assimilating to us more than you think. We sure made the food here better for one thing. American cuisine was a running joke among our kind.

I don't know if I think I'm being moral or not. I just know that I haven't seen any particular virtue that people have because they were born in a particular place. I also have no patience for self-righteous bullies. And finally, it is just much more peaceful and heartening to see the obvious good in others than to see them as scapegoats and stereotypes. It's better for your heart both physical and spiritual. When you really know and live with folks, the differences just disappear and you see the common humanity.

Steve,

The ugly truth is that most of the immigrants we're getting are not only not going to solve the education problem, but are going to make it worse, much worse. I mean look at your lead sentence:

"If you think we are coming close to graduating from high school enough students who are in any way prepared for a college curriculum in science and engineering you are indeed naive."

To quote another wop, "Who's being naive, now?"

Do you think taking in tens of millions of people with grade school educations and a high tendency to drop out is going to fix this problem? The money and resources we'd otherwise put into graduating engineers and scientists now has to go to getting people to speak and read basic English. This is not just a first-generation problem, either, as we've discussed before. It's one that goes on to the second and third generations.

Its a cultural problem of our own and even if it worked to raise the level of compensation to some height that would attract US students, we would not be world competitive and the technology industry is far too international control this at the border.

Then let's just get of borders altogether, because you can make this argument about any aspect of our lives.

American cuisine was a running joke among our kind.

I had a really tasty pulled pork sandwich for dinner Steve. Ought to try it sometime. And its strange that someone that stresses 'our common humanity' should be so hung up on 'our kind.'

You are the typical xenophiliac open borders type, Steve. Look at the hate you direct against 'frat boys.' Well here's a history lesson for you SVS. Silicon valley was founded by a couple of guys from the midwest, at a time of very low immigration into the US. As was Microsoft, as was Apple. 'Frat' boys used to go into the sciences and engineering like crazy, and American-Americans produced a heck of a lot of innovation. Ever hear of Claude Shannon, SVS, how about Don Knuth? Couple of midwest boys, just like Hewlitt and Packard. Before the tech field was cheapened by hundreds of thousands of H1-Bs it made sense for a young white man to go into teech. Now its better to choose a protected profession like law. And of course maybe we would have more funds to spend on tech and science if they weren't going to ESL.

And yes it does matter where a person was born. Indeed our constitution specifies this. Not only that, our law confers citizenship on children born to citizens abroad. So obviously there are legal distinctions. Moreover look at the special honor weWe are a political community, we have the right to say who belongs and who doesn't. Cross the border from San Diego to Tijuana, and you will understand about difference SVS. And as you do, notice the gigantic American flag telling the Americans 'this is Mexico!." We all have common humanity, sure. But we all are also part of distinct groups.

Do you people even know what mass evil looks like? Or are you so intoxicated with your fantasies that you've become addicted to them?

No, they have come to believe them true.

The reason McCain will beat Romney is because voters want a president who has convictions, even if they don't always agree with him on everything. I don't doubt that Romney was a successful businessman. Success in business depends on an ability to read the demands of the market and to respond to those demands. By changing his positions on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, it would seem that he was simply responding to the demands of a different market, which makes perfectly good business sense. The problem is that a president sometimes has to make unpopular decisions, and the voters know that. By taking a strong stand in favor of the surge in Iraq, at a time when it clearly carried a political risk, McCain demonstrated the strength of conviction that voters know a president needs. Romney has yet to say or do anything that isn't obviously calculated for political gain. So even many voters who agree with his platform of the day find him unacceptable as a candidate.

"The reason McCain will beat Romney..."

is perhaps because Romney is not a regular Protestant...
America might be ready for a woman president or a black president...
but...
(I wish there was good data)...
apparently a large segment of Protestant Republicans won't even consider voting for a Mormon...

faith hope love joy peace to all...
Romney/??? 2012

Joe writes: "The reason McCain will beat Romney is because voters want a president who has convictions, even if they don't always agree with him on everything."

I agree. Romney is a cipher and that makes him a bit spooky. We don't mind a son-of-a-bitch as long as we are certain they're *our* son-of-a-bitch. Romney could well be a great President. The experience with our current President certainly teaches us that having an uncompromising stance isn't always for the best. The only trouble is, with a cipher, there is no simple way to know how the guy will go.

What really irks me is that if Romney was 5-foot 7-inches tall and had a couple crooked teeth, I don't think he'd even be in the running.

What really irks me is that if Romney was 5-foot 7-inches tall and had a couple crooked teeth, I don't think he'd even be in the running.

Well, let's face it. Politics is pretty superficial. Would a Senator 2 years into his first term be a viable candidate in the Democratic party if he was white?

While I agree Romney's apparent lack of passion is a drawback, the guy has a decent resume compared to any of the other candidates.

Joe:

Evidently war hawks narrowly outnumber the "deport them all yesterday" crowd.

I agree. I think both political parties in the US have reshaped over the years. It seems each time they lose power for a long period of time it forces them to stop and listen to the people of the US. Both parties tend to be a mixture of either leftist or rightist political ideas. In some nations around the world there aren't such coalitions, but instead each of these ideas are represented by individual parties. In the US we have the two parties and the variations within the parties and people vote for candidates from these variations. Based on who the people vote for that sometimes lets the party know in what direction people's thoughts might be going at the time. If there is one thing that is always consistent, it is change. The majority may be towards the right one moment and then the left another moment. We need only look at history to see which direction people seem to go. In the end as I talk with people it's rare that most people are completely to the left or to the right. We're simply just not that simple minded...instead our own perspectives and ideas about the world and how to resolve problems is often incredibly varied. And over the many years of US history there have been many compromises on all sides in order to seek resolution to a particular problem that was faced at the time (how many times did your US History book mention "the great compromise of (insert year)". I think that says a lot about how our government works. At the end of the day what makes the US work is our ability to look at one another despite all the differences and say "we got to do something" and then work towards compromise. If the parties simply had their way they'd probably keep playing the game of simply getting people elected. However we've seen from our history that if the parties don't actually get things done...that not only will the people get tired of the party, but the party itself may cease to exist and new a party of a coalition of people born to take its place. All that I know is that today the parties do seem understand that change is always necessary in order to stay relevant. Change can be difficult, is inevitable, and ultimately for the best of everyone..including the party. The Republican party of today isn't the Republican party of the past just as the Democratic party of today isn't the Democratic party of the past. They've changed as times have changed, refocusing within the larger coalitions that make up both parties and striving first for compromise amongst the inner coalitions..and the compromise between the two parties themselves.

I do not trust McCain. He has a temper and uses the F word in meetings but no one seems to care about this part of his character.

Obama came out of nowhere (like Jimmy Carter..!), but with less public service ..and I dont trust him either. Or Hillary.

Actually, I only trust Romney but the press will see to it that he won't get in ...

Too many politicians have gone to the far left or are corrupt in one way or another.. There are not many who could look the Lord in the eye and say he was doing what's right for the people. It's sad.