Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Not an Olive Branch
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (218) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After participating in two threads ostensibly geared toward bridging some divide between FredHeads and McCain supporters, I wanted to put my thoughts into a coherent reply.
First, I don't think there are two such camps that are at loggerheads. As someone who supported both of them, I resent the idea that if I am inspired by Fred's ideas and philosophy that I can't be a strong supporter of McCain for President. I don't see any need for a "compromise" because I don't see two factions here. I see a lot of people who support McCain for President because he is the best choice of the candidates.
Second, I think both threads failed because they want to stop debate about McCain's views on issues and philosophy. You can't tell people they can't say "McCain is conservative" or "McCain is not conservative." That's a debate that will happen. The effort should be to do it respectfully and with the intent to win the election.
Third, we are in the election phase right now. We had a time when arguing every detail of a person's record with emotional fervor was appropriate. And trying to talk people into or out of voting for someone was appropriate. That's over. We're now trying to win an election. If you oppose McCain for President, if you support Obama, if you support Paul, if you support Barr, if you support Count Dracula, then you may be posting at the wrong place. RedState has endorsed McCain for President. If you are opposed to that, blog about other issues or candidates but don't write anti-McCain posts. It's not "get in line," it's "get out of the way."
Fourth, criticisms of McCain's campaign or the GOP are obviously a part of RedState and they should be just as criticisms of Bush and the administration occurred here. In other threads, people seem to think McCain supports want to stop all criticism, that's not true of me. But the criticism should be respectful and geared toward helping the campaign and Party, not tearing them down. This is an example of the difference in my opinion:
Good Example: "McCain could have dealt with the NC GOP ad better than he did. Obama even says that Wright is a legitimate issue. The GOP should make this an issue to associate Obama with nefarious figures in his life. McCain would be better served by allowing people not related to his campaign to use these ads even if some will come them racist"
What many did instead: "McCain hates conservatives and is poking us in the eye again. He needs to STFU and get out of the way. He doesn't control us or the NC GOP. Does he even want my vote?"**
That's an anti-McCain diary. I will not stand by while those diaries are on RS. I will respond in them forcefully and call out those who insist on taking a position in opposition to this site's support for McCain.
Overall, the point is that efforts to sabotage and attack the campaign, candidate, or Party are not helpful to anyone and lead to big fights. The upside down logos are just the most visible example of these efforts. I sincerely hope that if something good came out of the dueling "olive branches" it is an end to the anti-McCain campaign in the diaries. There haven't been any in a few days and hopefully that is over. If so, I think it will go a long way toward stopping the in-fighting.
----------------------------
None of this reflects the view of the Directors or other Editors. They are entirely my opinion and I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself.
**Note that I didn't disagree with Sen. McCain on his criticism like many here did. I'm not trying to debate whether it was a good or bad strategy. These are just examples of the difference between constructive criticism vs. anti-McCainism.
Bingo! <nt>
by Adam C
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Avoiding the Christmas Rush
by SteveLA
You guys got it wrong.
By Christmas McCain will be the President in waiting, so these folks are shopping for lumps of coal in advance to beat the Christmas rush.
Just saying.....;).
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Good way to put it
by gensec
I can't wait for McCain to kick Obama's butt, so I can start pounding on McCain!
Heck, I fully expect McCain to sling more provocations that bait me into pounding him a few more times even before the election. And maybe Adam and I will end up snarling over what's appropriate criticism of our nominee.
Where I'm emphatically with Adam is how silly it is for McCain opponents (for the nomination) to be laying down "olive branch" terms. Especially the self-centered drivel that conciliation supposedly requires McCain supporters to in effect concede that the McCain opponents are really right. The self-appointed True Conservatives' olive branch sounds like the Democrats' idea of bipartisanship.
It won't be acceptable then either
by jackbenimble
I'll be really surprised if criticizing President-elect McCain will be tolerated much more then criticizing candidate McCain. In my experience, that is just not how the dynamics of how these things work.
Whenever anybody criticizes McCain they will be met with the words, "You knew about that when you voted for him". I believe Adam C said something very similar to that to me once not so long ago with respect to President Bush and shamnesty.
It took 5 years after President Bush was elected before criticism of him was tolerated and not just here but on every Republican forum.
The goal now is to whip us into compliance through November. When we get past that date, we'll be required to hold our tongues and support our President no matter how egregious, because 2010 is just around the corner. And because you voted for him, the argument will be that you endorsed his policies and gave him your mandate.
Yeah jack
by Adam C
I remember RS standing firm for McCain-Kennedy. Oh wait, you don't remember that either. Maybe you remember the calls to action to stop it... on the front page.
If you've been around long enough, maybe you remember our criticisms of the current GOP leadership including calling for them to be kicked out. Maybe you remember our front page articles with titles like "The End of Fiscal Conservatism."
And did you even read the diary. It explicitly says that we should criticize "nominee McCain." But don't let that get in the way of your "I'm being oppressed" mantra.
Yeah, we don't tolerate any dissent from the President. Shut up and get in line.
Whatever.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
rules of engagement
by pilgrim
I think I understand the process, and if I am wrong I have no doubts about someone stepping forward to correct me. We have gone through the nominating process and all of the battles that it entailed. We now have a nominee, and the next step in the process is to get this nominee elected Pres. We don't succeed in getting him elected if we spend all of our time arguing about him for no good reason.
I highlighted that part for this reason. I think it is possible to offer a criticism when you do it for the good reason of getting the candidate some input to help him move forward. The worst thing anyone can do is surround themselves with 'YES' men.
Another bad thing to happen to a candidate is for him to simply not get any attention. Several at RS have made a point that they want to see increased activism and increased turnout for this Presidential race. And in the next breath they ask people stop writing about the Presidential contest and focus on a local election instead. This does not make any sense to me. How can you expect to gin up activism and turnout for the Presidential race when you don't want people to write about the Presidential race anymore?
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
I agree fully
by Adam C
I will just point up at my two examples of how criticism can be helpful rather than just venting. If there are people who continuously vent unhelpfully, I am suspicious if they claim to be wanting increased activism and turnout. Attack diaries don't help either. I hope we are beyond those.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
555 - nt
by gamecock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"How can you expect to gin up activism and turnout for the Presidential race when you don't want people to write about the Presidential race anymore?"
Help, help I'm being repressed!!
What is with all of the "don't tread on me" indignation around here? No told you not to write about the Presidential race. You aren't being censored and neither is anyone else. This is really getting absurd.
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
thanks absentee for your reply
by pilgrim
You and I are cool. No rightious indignation on my part. It is always nice to get encouragement to write.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
good
by absentee
... but as long as you are taking suggestions, put a graphic in when you post a blog. It's cooler that way!
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
Olive branch / rules of engagement
by Desert Conservative
I read EPU’s “olive branch” and the responses. Bravo to Adam C for speaking on the issue and doing the work for us more passive observers.
I think this “True Conservative” stuff is just nonsense. No one here, not even the authors mentioned by EPU, gets to define “True Conservatism,” who embodies it or who has strayed from it. (Remember the Monty Python & the Holy Grail sketch regarding the witch? – You can get into some pretty absurd tests determining who is what.) Conservatism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I’ll defer to Adam C, as to olive branches or rules of engagement, but how about this?
· Don’t feel that you can dictate who is or isn’t a conservative.
· Feel free to point out disagreements you have with McCain’s position on any issue – without referring to your preferred position as “the” conservative position. Use objective facts in arguments, not labels.
· When trying to convince you that McCain is right, his supporters will not claim that theirs is “the” conservative position.
· Be open-minded and be willing to be convinced that McCain was or is right on an issue – regardless of whether it fits the preconceived notions of your ideology.
· Be open-minded and willing to accept that McCain was or is wrong on an issue (see above). If he was wrong, work to convince him that he was wrong.
· If you can’t convince someone (including McCain), do not assume they are unreasonable or irrational. We are not all robots built from the same mold - and McCain will have a lot of balancing to do. The people here who are irrational will be obvious quickly enough – and “blamming” will weed them out.
· Don’t support or oppose John McCain based on one or two issues – take him as a whole. Realize no one will be perfect - not even (cue heavenly light, music and angels) Fred! That doesn’t mean you can’t prioritize.
· Feel free to actively engage in serious, rigorous, thoughtful – even angry –discussion / argument over the issues. As a nation, we desperately need bright ideas that can withstand rigorous testing and vetted by a collective group with diverse thoughts, experiences, education, livelihoods, etc.
· Supporters: Don’t get too uptight with jokes about McCain – he’s actually pretty rough on himself. Detractors: Try not to go overboard.
And now, some obligations:
· If you voted in the Republican primary, then vote for John McCain in the general. The primary is where we, as a group, decide whom the Republicans are presenting as our candidate to the American people. Since you volunteered to be part of that group that calls themselves “Republicans” you should agree to be bound by the decision of that group – even if you didn’t like the outcome. McCain was properly elected under the rules in place at the time. Republicans, unlike Democrats, don’t change the rules in the middle of the game – we won a 7-2 Supreme Court decision on that point. And, no, you don’t get to stay home.
· If you didn’t vote in the Republican primary because the issue had already been decided, you couldn’t vote, too busy, etc., then vote for John McCain in the general election – for the same reason discussed above. Since we are Republicans, we can be trusted to use the honor system.
· If you didn’t vote in the Republican primary because you didn’t like any Republican presidential candidate (or aren’t a Republican), you have no obligation to vote for John McCain in the general. We must convince you.
· If you absolutely can’t stand John McCain but voted in the Republican primary, vote for him in the general and then decide if you can stay in a party with him as the party leader – we will respect your decision if the answer is “no.” If you stay, we will accept it when you support someone else in the primary in 3 years.
· Just because you get to vote for McCain, doesn’t mean you have to actively support him with money or time.
· If you can’t actively support McCain, actively support a Senate, House, state or local Republican who does hold the same beliefs as you. Try to build the party in the way you would like.
· Don’t undermine those of us who are trying to convince others to vote for McCain.
Overall, this is a “get in line” kind of directive, but it’s not a “shut up” directive. Adam C, any objections? (Gotta go -I’ll now sink into the background again).
(cue heavenly light, music and angels) Fred!
by pilgrim
Why do you do this? We already know Fred Thompson lost. You do not have to continue fanning flames and pouring salt into an old wound. EPU and nobody else is dictating what is the definition of conservative philosophy. The books have all been written already on the subject. I will believe it when I see it that the supporters of McCain will not make the argument by saying that their argument is the conservative position. I hope this is so.
Like Adam said can we please move along and not get in the way of electing our nominee? I think that Fred Thompson and John McCain are much friendlier to each other than the supporters of McCain are to the supporters of Fred Thompson. When Jeff wrote his 'Out with a whimper' blog on the night of the SC primary some of the rudest comments posted on that blog came from McCain supporters. The primary part of the process is over. Please stop with all the snide sarcastic comments about Fred. He lost.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
pilgrim
by Adam C
"I think that Fred Thompson and John McCain are much friendlier to each other than the supporters of McCain are to the supporters of Fred Thompson. When Jeff wrote his 'Out with a whimper' blog on the night of the SC primary some of the rudest comments posted on that blog came from McCain supporters."
Amen. I just went back and looked at Jeff's thread. I can see why it hurt and it probably didn't help anyone. I do want to ask you go back and read the comments. The FDT supporters start laying into McCain almost right away. I won't cut and paste out of a desire to move on, but it reminded me how much the site was FredState and that included a feeling that anti-McCain statements were acceptable and warranted.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I read the comments
by pilgrim
IMO McCain supporters set the tone of snickers and giggles and nyah nyahs before I read the first attack on McCain. One of the rudest commenters did post an apology toward the end of all of the comments. A lot of damage was done before then, Everybody needs to be reminded that Fred and John are friends, and all of this sniping and digs have got to stop. PERIOD.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
Okay, I'll point them out
by Adam C
#11: "The McCain Stream Media was too much for him."
#16: "If McCain or Huckabee get the nomination, the party will no longer represent my values to any meaningful degree, and I will not support it."
#29: "I will not vote for McCain or Huck. Period."
#30: "I can't vote for McCain because I DON'T TRUST HIM, based on his past record in the Senate. I see Huck and I see another JIMMY CARTER, and I can't live through that again!"
I'll stop there. But it sure reminded me of how acceptable it was to say "I wouldn't support McCain." I agree that some of the comments (and the diary) were a poke in the eye. I hope others can see that 3 months of diaries like this is what it was like for McCain supporters at that time. So it's hard for us to feel really bad about the one diary that people got so offended by. That said, I agree that it was unnecessary and hurtful. I hope you understand why McCain primary supporters feel just as put upon based on the primary time.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
re: OK. I'll point them out
by pilgrim
comment #2: That’s gonna leave a mark....n/t
comment #15: Been saving this
I'd have preferred the Dandy Don Meridith version, couldn't find it, but this one's not bad.
Sorry Fred Heads, the song says it all.[an embed vid of ‘Turn Out the Lights]
comment #64: Don’t count me in the likers. He creeps me out.
comment #68: If Fred hadn't been so apathetic, he might have engendered a little more animus. But he got a little bit o' hate now and then.
comment #139: See ya, vote McCain.
Sorry, the man just didn't care about this at all.
comment 165: Hey Haystack, :P :P :P :P :P
comment 203: And that’s really sad
Their disappointment rests with him. I'm rubbing it in HIS face, not theirs. He deserves to be called out on his lack of commitment. It has nothing to do with the people that supported him. They couldn't make him do something that he didn't want to do in the first place.
comment 213: Aren’t you the martyr.
Again, I bite my thumb at Fred, but feel free to take it personally if that's how you roll.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
Pilgrim, thanks for the reminder
by peg c
of what really killed a lot of my love for RS. No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm glad to see what I thought was so nasty and uncalled for that night really was.
Folks, this is what RS has become down deep. There is a grinding animus between a lot of us on the right that cannot be papered over. I expect an all-out war in our party once McCain becomes president.
The Dems are ripping themselves apart over elitist racism and elitist sexism, but in the end they are all cozy in the same boat ideologically. The ideological differences in the Republican party are soul-deep. The future of this party is at stake.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
pilgrim
by Adam C
I stopped at #30 for a reason, b/c my point was that the Fred people started attacking McCain first as they had been doing in the diaries for a long time before that. I said that there were harmful comments (although many of the ones you cite I don't recall being form McCain supporters). But right away and without provocation (Jeff was surely not a McCain supporter), people took it out on McCain. I'm not going through the whole list to find all of the anti-McCain comments. But in the first 30, you listed 2.
And honestly, looking at that list I can't believe how thin skinned Fredheads are. It's not worth going back and finding them, but there are about 20-50 diaries that had harsher attacks on McCain during the primary. The fact that this one diary still bothers people makes me rethink my assumption that conservatives aren't as ready to be offended by the drop of a hat.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, I think you have totally
by c17wife
missed our point in all of this.
No sense belaboring it anymore.
At any rate, EPU has an excellent diary about conservativism up right now. It has little to do with Fred and everything about what our message is. And frankly, it one of the best I have seen in a while.
The rest of us have said our piece and are moving on. It would be nice to get back on message and stop the back and forth on who can be outraged more.
Johnny Mac is our nominee. We are all dealing with that. We all want to see him beat Obama or Hillary. We do not think he fits our bill 100%, or as well as some other candidates. We know he going to irritate us. We are prepared for that. Despite that, he is our candidate and we are planning to vote for him. (At least a vast majority of us are.) Please respect that and move on.
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Amen c17
by Adam C
"We all want to see him beat Obama or Hillary. We do not think he fits our bill 100%"
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Apology to pilgrim
by Desert Conservative
Just a quick line, I haven't read the whole thread.
I apologize for the comment. I was being sarcastic, but I meant no offense - I was just teasing. I like Fred Thompson and was disappointed when he said no to the AG. I just never understood (and still don't) how he became the "conservative" standard. I've never tried to pour salt on any wounds when a Rep. candidate bowed out. I'm happy McCain won, but I don't mean to throw that in your face.
Thank you, Desert Conservative n/t
by pilgrim
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
This statement is wrong on so many levels
by Jack Savage
"Conservatism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder."
No, it is absolutely not. If there is ANY political and personal philosophy that is NOT subject to the eye of the beholder, it is conservatism.
And that is all I have to say about that.
5
by aesthete
I was about to say the same thing, but you beat me to it!
Your typical Spartan warrior clinging to spears and gods:
not exactly
by jarrod21
If you want something that is not subject to the eye of the beholder than you really need to call it something else.
"Conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. Here in America we know what conservatives and liberals are. However, in some place like China one who adheres to conservatism wishes to kill political dissenters and ensure that the government controls the means of production while the most raging liberal just wants to perhaps look at the internet without the government reading his emails.
Nail...meet hammer! Thanks Jack!
by eburke
No, it is absolutely not. If there is ANY political and personal philosophy that is NOT subject to the eye of the beholder, it is conservatism.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The idea isn't to create a bucketful of rules. It's that this is a conservative and Republican site, and it doesn't advance either cause to attack McCain as a candidate. There is no worthwhile third party choice, let alone what the Democrats have to offer.
Attacking McCain's positions, calling him a moderate, and other what-not, is fine as long as it's done for constructive purposes. Playing dog-in-the-manger is not constructive. Trying to push the party to the right might very well be. The difference may be subtle sometimes, but I think it's clear some posts veer too much towards the former. Curbing that is worthwhile. So is curbing the "Get in line!" stuff, which I assure you doesn't make McCain look any more attractive.
I reject these. No one gets to dictate whom I support or for whom I vote. I would never lay out a laundry list of do's and don't's for you.
I am an unhappy Republican but happy conservative. John McCain is our nominee and I expect to vote for him in Nov. but I won't like it. My hubby, a very conservative Vietnam vet, literally cannot stand McCain but will vote for him because of the alternatives. If McFCain continues to poop on conservatives, though, there is a chance I will write in Fred's name. The above is true for many of us RS'ers who consider ourselves loyal Republicans (as in we never, ever vote Dem but always vote straight Republican, always vote, and often contribute $$). Nothing you write can change this.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Typo there in McCain's name
by peg c
although might just as well be a Freudian Slip.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
That's not being loyal then
by Adam C
If you only vote for Rs when it's the R you like, that's not loyal. I'm glad right now you intend to vote for the R. I hope you stay loyal because that's what keeps the party together. We had the primary to find who would be our nominee and it was a fair fight.
If conservatives en masse sit out or vote against McCain, they are acting like Ron Paul supporters or big L Libertarians. That's a quick way for people to start believing they aren't interested in being part of the coalition, they value purity over winning.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, fuses are short
by c17wife
and comments like this are not helpful.
Please quit challenging people's loyalty.
Remember, we are a big tent here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Yup C
by simpson316
This is where the "shut up and get in line" notion comes from.
You jump in every chance that you can get to knock someone down who says that they have serious concerns about voting for McCain.
Now also found at The Minority Report
Huh? I'm confused, simpson.
by c17wife
I am trying to get Adam to stop doing that very thing.
I want Johnny Mac to win, and I will tell people to vote or suffer the consequences, but I don't think I am the poster child for "shut up and get in line". My diary to that effect was like 3 months ago and was more geared towards the media and being careful about how we worded our diaries.
and, I don't hink it is awful for us to voice our concerns when he bones something up ie...LaRaza.
I'm so confused by this comment of yours!!!!! Help!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
I was supporting your point
by simpson316
The headline was in support of you. The body was directed at Adam.
Sorry for the confusion. That's what I get for thinking faster than I can type.
Now also found at The Minority Report
Okay. No worries. I do that
by c17wife
all the time when I talk.
Makes hubby all confused. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
No, in that case c17
by simpson316
It's because you start speaking in that mystical woman language that you guys have (and have never bothered to translate into English for us)
;)
Now also found at The Minority Report
Heh. good one, simpson. n/t
by c17wife
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
We banned all of the Paul supporters
by Adam C
because the Directors more or less thought they weren't really Rs. They had their own agenda that conflicted with Republican goals. If "TrueConservatives" are putting their own agenda ahead of electing the GOP nominee, I'm not sure why they expect to be treated differently.
I said I was glad that we had the support. I truly don't get why people think it's fine to help elect Obama on a GOP site. The original diary talks about how criticism to help win is great, but threatening to vote against McCain is not to help win. It's disruptive and goes against the purpose of the site.
That's true if someone is voting for Obama, Barr, Keyes, or writing in a name. Why do you think we should let people opposing McCain use RS for their purposes?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
They had some special requirements placed upon them because the vast majority of them didn't contribute to the site. They merely tried to shout down anyone who didn't bow down to Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! and added nothing productive to the site.
Their requirement was pretty simple: establish that you can engage in reasonable conversation before pimping your candidate.
*And not all of them got banned. A very small minority were able to meet the simple requirement.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Unlike Adam
by Erick
You must have been paying attention that day.
You must have been in class
by Erick
You must have been in class that day because this is a *total* mischaracterization of why we banned the Paultards.
We banned them because they added nothing to the conversation except Zionist conspiracies and threadjacks to ask why we weren't talking about Ron Paul.
Why do you think we should let people opposing McCain use RS for their purposes?
If McCain were to pick someone like Charlie Crist for Veep, I'd be opposing him openly and publicly on the front page.
We're here for all sides of the center-right coalition, just not those who'd threadjack to play up their zionist conspiracy theories.
because in that case the site has shifted more than I thought since I joined it. If people use the diaries to pimp the Constitution Party candidate, is that acceptable? Because I thought the "Republican site" part of the equation still meant something.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Who here is doing that?
by Erick
Who here is doing that? Don't strawman me. We can continue to support the GOP and, as RedState has become, the center-right coalition, while not working for McCain. There are plenty of state and federal candidates beyond him.
I intend to work for him. But I'm not going to shut out those who can't bring themselves to stomach him. I'd ask them to let us do the business they don't want to do while they do no harm, but if McCain sticks his thumb in our eyes, I have no problem throwing a deserved punch.
Adam C,
by M Penny
this is an old/wise adage that you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Put down that stick you are beating conservatives with -- we may be the heavy lifters and plow horses for the GOP, but we prefer carrots.
M Penny
5! <nt>
by BrianH
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!!!!!!
by General Confusion
"If you only vote for Rs when it's the R you like, that's not loyal."
Um, perhaps they where simply "Mavericking". He kind of set the standard.
Hey General C
by Adam C
Name one Democrat (besides Lieberman) that McCain has supported over an R?
No, he went around the country helping fundraise and elect Rs everywhere. And since his appeal was bigger than Bush's he could go places where Bush would be seen as a negative. He even helped Santorum, who returned the favor by writing a bunch of attack columns against him.
He's been a loyal Republican despite the MSM's incessant effort to say he thought about running as an I or being Kerry's VP. He never did anything like that. He has been loyal R, it's part of his character.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Please Adam...
by General Confusion
McCain made his name by crossing the party at many important junctures. That's why he is called the "Maverick". My point is simply that calling someone disloyal for not supporting McCain is simply to ignore McCain's body of "work" up to this point. McCain was "disloyal" to the party when it suited him.
I should have simply said loyalty is not the best argument to use when trying to convince someone to support McCain.
P.S. I really don't care who he did or did not support, I DO care about what he has done, and let me tell you, not all of it was good.
We had the primary
by Adam C
GC, I understand those critiques. We went over them ad naseum during he primary. People said you should vote against him because he didn't yell at every Democrat every time he saw one.
But the primary is over. So anyone trying to talk themselves or others out of voting for McCain is helping elect Obama. I don't think that is in line with the purpose of the site.
McCain has been a loyal R and done more for R candidates than any of us. He supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and campaigned for him.
I don't care if "not all of it was good." I care that people don't use RS to campaign against McCain, write anti-McCain diaries that aim to hurt him, or try to convince people not to vote for him.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Like a moth to a flame, am I
by Jack Savage
Like an idiot, I dropped by. Like an idiot, I will post.
Comments like these from ANY McCain supporter, not just Adam C, make me almost pass out:
"I hope you stay loyal because that's what keeps the party together."
Again, the reason we are even having this debate about the nominee is that he absolutely, flatly refused, for many long years, to do the very thing that is being asked of conservatives now - be loyal. The only reason the party is fractured now because of maverick "moderates" like McCain. I cannot believe that the notion of "loyalty" is EVER introduced by a McCain supporter, particularly in order to "keep the party together".
I would have listened to any other argument, but not that one. Please.
Jack
by Adam C
Please tell me when McCain supported a D over an R. He has campaigned for everyone from Bush to Chafee, from Santorum to Collins. He has been a loyal Republican.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, it's a losing battle
by Jeff Emanuel
And arguing that the party will fracture if people don't reflexively support a guy whose highest-profile legislative and interpersonal actions over the past several years have involved "compromise" with Ds across the aisle on far-from-conservative ideas and legislation is a losing activity, period.
I think we've reached a point where the best course of action is to take a step back, breathe deeply, count to 10, and work from a positive-reinforcement-only point of view from this point on. The arguments being made here are not persuading anybody, not winning friends and influencing people, and not helping the nominee get more support.
Let's drop this, at least for now, and stick to the positive. Sound good?
Oh sweet Jesus! A voice of reason. n/t
by c17wife
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Jeff
by Adam C
I wasn't going to respond, but I think you mischaracterize my diary.
"And arguing that the party will fracture if people don't reflexively support a guy"
I have not said people should reflexively support a guy. I've said that people should not use RS diaries to attack the GOP nominee in a destructive way. I've explicitly said we should argue over his views and should criticize him. I'm not sure why that's not enough for people. Why do people feel the need to be destructive with the criticism?
And no, I won't stop responding when people say McCain has not been a loyal R. Or they say he supported amnesty. Or they use "gang of 14" and assume it a knock against him. I am saddened that there aren't more people defending McCain, but if others are going to let people attack him without response, I will respond.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, are you familiar at all with jujitsu?
by JSobieski
With every defense (on each side) the fight is fanned like additional oxygen for a fire. If we stop, it will stop. Our own motion and energy is being used against us.
I think you, because of you incredibly impassioned defense of McCain are ending up attracting more of these comments than what would otherwise occur.
I think we've hashed this out for so long that it has taken the life of a federal agency.
I think if we stop, it will simply end--starved for oxygen if you will.
I personally vow that this is my last comment on the McCain/anti-McCain squabling.
------------------------------------------------------------
Vote McCain---he's the most conservative candidate running
Federal agency...heh...good one
by simpson316
Did you read Jeff's post?
by M Penny
55555 -- what Jeff wrote.
Adam please -- put down the stick -- you are not helping the nominee---
and I for one greatly admire McCain and am more than willing to work to get him elected -- but I am not going to be the true believer I was in 2000.
M Penny
Adam, I'm not even referring to your diary.
by Jeff Emanuel
I'm referring to the thread of comments above. That's all that needs to be said publicly; anything else can be taken off line.
Rush trashed McCain daily for
by Doc Holliday
years, that is the real reason so many can't support him. If Rush had not done this, we would be much more unified. Trust me, when Rush did this he had no clue McCain would be our presidential candidate.
Of course McCain has caused a lot of his own problems. But it was not McCain, but the big government "social cons" that lost the Congress and have most added to poor Republican poll numbers.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
well I think many are
by Doc Holliday
more than they want to admit. Rush trashed the guy worse than any Democrat for YEARS, tell me that made no difference. People will not want to admit it, but it had an effect on conservatives.
Anyway, so we get the worst of both worlds, we wound the guy and elect him, lol, so like Repubs lately, the gang who can not shoot straight.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
He is good at articulating what people like my parents think in a way that they themselves might not express as clearly, but I don't think he changes that many center-right minds.
I do think he converts a fair number of liberals/mushy independents.
I think that's right
by Adam C
Well put. I know many more Is and liberals who had epiphanies from Rush listening than moving center-right people further right.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
to be clear Jsob
by Doc Holliday
I love Rush. I have listened to the man since 1991. I still think his personal animus towards McCain hurt his show and is now comming back to hurt Rush AND McCain. There are no winners here. Rush could have been much more classy about it and not made the guy a punching bag and person of ridicule.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Rush and McCain
by olsmithie
Doc,
If you would help us out by giving a couple of examples where Rush lied about McCain, that would help make your case.
Regards
I never said he lied about McCain
by Doc Holliday
I said what I have said for a long time, Rush has a PERSONAL problem with McCain, and is now in so deep he can never pull back. Anyone who regularly listened to Rush since 2000 will know what I am saying is true. Rush did not just dipute policy, he mocked the man, he compared him to captain Queeg, he damn near threw his show away just to trash this one man on a daily basis.
I have no interest in debating this, I know what I heard and I know others did as well. Rush tried to stop McCain in the primary but it did not work. Rush did do much damage, this is what always happens when mud is slung on a daily basis.
I have many problems with McCain, but they are not personal. I know he is our nominee and the alternative is just awful. For others to drone on and on like there is some other option, jsut shows how week our party is at this juncture.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I am!
by General Confusion
(If you’re a Monty Python fan you will get this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1LIrzsgqA
If you don't have time for the clip, right to the point:
Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch!
I would argue that Rush was merely the messenger.
by General Confusion
Twas the "Maverick" with the "Bi-partisanship" in the Senate camber.
Another question comes to mind, social conservatives where responsible for No Child Left behind and Medicare Part D? I thought that was all part the compassionate conservativism or New Tone?
the big gov social conservatives
by Doc Holliday
bought into the compassionate conservative "stuff". Look at Bush, Frist, et al. If we had to put any name on the 2006 rout, it would be Frist, if we could not use Bush. I am not attacking social conservatives, I am blaming big government "social conservatives". It happened, trust me on this.
I respect your opinion Confusion, but I will always believe it was personal with Rush. I think he is beside himself that McCain got the nod, and actually feared at one point that he had no influence. I also think Rush dammaged his show with the incessant McCain attacks, they certainly did not stop him from becomming the nominee.
In the end, I think the whole Rush vs. McCain affair has been just one more sad note in our party's waning influence and lack of focus. I say we will never really get back the argument, as we had it in the Reagan days, until we redisover Goldwater Conservatism, AKA true conservatism. IMHO :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
5 on...
by General Confusion
"I say we will never really get back the argument, as we had it in the Reagan days, until we redisover Goldwater Conservatism, AKA true conservatism."
It goes much, much deeper than that
by Jack Savage
And we are going have to agree to disagree.
Over the past few years I have enjoyed the debate at RedState, and it has helped fine-tune some opinions and reinforce arguments. Comment threads like these (LOYALTY!) and the current Republican nominee, have also helped me to decide to leave the Republican Party after 30 years and post here much, much less (although not quite the zero posts that were my goal at one point).
But I will answer your question in this way, then go turn some steaks on the grill:
Do you think it would be possible for a husband to outwardly love and cherish his wife, while cheating on her as often as he could? Or more to the point, do you think it is possible for someone to actively campaign for others in his party, create chaos and disorder in that same party, then ask for a chance to fix things? Would you support someone who did that? And as a side note, do you believe conservatives like me enjoy the current situation and the decisions we are having to make?
Last, and most important - if liberals have friends in both parties, how long do you think America will last?
Sorry jack
by Adam C
I'm sorry you left the Party. Good luck with whichever Party you choose to join or your independent status. If pro-life, anti-earmark, pro-troops, pro-marriage, good on judges candidates are driving you out of the Party, that's your problem.
The rest of us are trying to prevent a lurch to the left in this country.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Actually, they didn't drive me out
by Jack Savage
Sanctimonious comments like that one sure as hell helped, though.
Again, my point was that IMO, any argument for McCain is palatable - just not the "loyalty" one. And I look forward to reading your opinion about how long America will last if liberals have friends in both parties.
Soon moderate Republicans will be able to take credit for losing even more seats in the House and Senate, substantially weakening the Republican Party, and very possibly losing to the weakest Democrat presidential candidate in modern history. I am just not going to be part of it any more, and will base my support on what I think of an individual candidate, not what is best for The Party. Pretty simple, actually, and an additional benefit is that I don't have to listen to anyone berating me or laying out a series of rules I must follow. Like I have posted before, I would much rather be a free conservative than a captive Republican.
Preventing lurches to the left begins at home, adam.
I been able to make points that are contrary to 1/2 of the focus of this site and against the wishes of the hosts many, many times, they have been more than gracious, and I feel some ice cracking beneath my feet. Good day.
Call me a bitter FredHead, then
by Andysforsmalgovernment
But as I have said before, I'm just a little bit ticked and a lot disappointed that I DIDN'T get to vote for anyone because the extremely few states that got to have primaries before me, along with the MSM decided for me that McCain was my nominee.
Oh, yes, I will toe the line and vote for him. I respect his service, his sacrifice and his willingness to put up with all of it just to hold the office. I will not bash him or berate my fellow RS residents, but I'm not happy, dangit. We may not be like Dem's and change the rules in midstream, but can we change them after so the Libs in New Hampshire can't select my next candidate for me?
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
Andy
by Adam C
First, I too wish my vote counted. Being an NC resident, I just voted this Tuesday. Wa-hoo! I do wish we would move toward more states mattering.
Second, "libs in NH" didn't select your candidate. Moderate and conservative Republicans did. And they were joined by moderate and conservative Republicans in SC and FL as well... and in NY, OK, CA, MO, etc.
Specifically, the NH electorate was 55% conservative, 34% moderate, and 11% liberal. You can do the math from those polls, but even if every single "liberal" vote was dropped, McCain would win NH.
All that said, I hope we do change the system to allow more states to have their say. I'm actually a little envious of the Ds system that allows them to run in almost every state and everyone gets a week where they are in the spotlight.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Nah, I'm in MO and it was over before
by Andysforsmalgovernment
It got to me.
By libs in NH I'm referring to the Dem's that crossed over to vote for McCain (I heard some quoted by the press as doing so), maybe not a big crowd, but I'm bitter about it anyway.
We need a compressed schedule, that's all. Too much weight is given to the early primaries that may or may not truly reflect the will of the party.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
I generally agree Andy
by Adam C
A compressed schedule or regional weeks (South, Midwest, Northeast, West). Something to give more states a choice.
At least you got to choose between 3 possible candidates and MO was a close WTA state. That's something. I got to choose between Ron Paul and McCain and no one cared at all who won. If Romney won MO, I think he would have stayed in the race.
Yes some Ds crossed over who supported different candidates. Many supported McCain, but many supported others. Importantly, they crossed over because they actually supported the candidates, not in an effort to throw the election.
It bugs me more when sites like Kos did the "Dems for Mitt" campaign to try to elect the person they saw as easier to beat. Or the Operation Chaos whose purpose is to wreck havoc. I hope we do attract some D voters to the R candidate this year, just as Reagan did. But only if they support us, not if they are just messing around with our primary.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Since you addressed my work, let me respond
by E Pluribus Unum
In general I got nothing to say wrt this thread, but since you brought up me and my deference to the Fathers.
I think this “True Conservative” stuff is just nonsense. No one here, not even the authors mentioned by EPU, gets to define “True Conservatism,”... Conservatism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
So then, is the definition of 1 liter, 1 meter, and 1 gram, similarly 'in the eye of the beholder'? Words have meaning. The authors I mentioned are *not* "EPU's List of Cool Guys". They are the widely acknowledged standard-bearers of conservatism, starting with Edmund Burke, who is the putative Father of Conservatism by any standard (oh, I forgot, standards are probably in the eye of the beholder too).
You defer to Adam C, but you don't defer to Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, or Edmund Burke? Mmm hmmm, think about that for a minute. Take your time, it's a tough one.
Ask the ACU, ask CPAC, ask Human Events or even a sorta-conservative mag like National Review who THEY defer to, inre the definition of conservatism.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Politics as theology
by gensec
In Israel there was (and probably still is as far as I know) a long running controversy over who is a real Jew? And theologians, credentialed (by whomever) and armchair, argue about whether this or that group are really Christians. Some Sunnis and Shiites dispute whether the other are really Moslems.
And here we've got pronouncements on who is a True Conservative according to the proper interpretation of the prophets Burke & Kirk.
widely acknowledged standard-bearers of conservatism
What percentage of American voters who use the term "conservative", either favorably or unfavorably, defer to your "widely acknowledged standard-bearers" in what they mean by "conservative"? Not many. Too bad if you think that just goes to show what a bunch of idiots most of us Americans are.
In a national election we are talking about how Americans judge a candidate, so it is their/our understanding of "conservative" that counts, not the foot stamping of those who whine when we don't bow to their pronouncements on True Conservatism.
If you really take your "True Conservatism" so personally, that you get into a snit whenever somebody uses the term in a way not sanctioned by your prophets, you shouldn't have such a self-centered view of life to think that means everybody else here will see that as a reason to defer to your definition. Maybe you should set up your own site where like minded "True Conservatives" have exciting discussions on how many Whigs can dance on a pinhead, since discussions of real life politics that you find here can only sully your moral superiority.
McCain is a conservative. I disagree with him strongly on some issues, and on some of those I'd say his position isn't conservative. On top of that he's a sanctimonious jerk (almost as sanctimonious as True Conservatives) and a media whore. But he's still a conservative by any real life plain meaning of that word, as commonly understood in American politics today.
this ain;t wikipedia, pal
by E Pluribus Unum
I already mentioned some people qualified to say (ACU, CPAC, HE, NR). But add to that "widely acknowldeged" the national Republican Party, political scientists, the history books.
Since you, along with some others, are rolling your own definitions, I see no point in discussing it further. I'm right, but you are determined to call it your way. Thank you so much for playing.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Not Wikipedia, it's election for POTUS
by gensec
So we'll use terminology relevant to that discussion. The next President of the United States will be selected by over 100 million Americans, and what most of us consider "conservative" matters a whole lot more than your interpretation of the prophets of True Conservatism.
I see no point in discussing it further. I'm right ...
Is that a promise? Please, please.
Look, I have absolutely no problem with you being firmly convinced that all of us great unwashed masses of America are rampantly misusing the term "conservative".
The problem is with your ridiculous "olive branch" proposal, where you expect people to submit to your demand not to call McCain a "conservative". If you don't want to call him a "conservative" according to your definition, that's fine. But to think McCain supporters should appease you by abandoning contemporary American English usage, to avoid hurting your fragile feelings about the word conservative, demonstrates an inflated view of your own importance in the grand scheme of things.
You wanted the last word - it's all yours
by E Pluribus Unum
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Gensec, it goes both ways
by JSobieski
so if you want to go around saying McCain is a conservative according to your way of thinking, many are going to take the time to explain how he is not.
You are demanding EPU to submit on the basis of who is he to say, or Kirk to say, or anyone else to say.
On that basis, he and others are free to also challenge and dispute everything you say about what being a conservative means.
This website has had many debates over what words and concepts mean
RHINO
amnesty
living breathing constitution
conservative
Is EPU somehoe off base for making an argument?
You are doing more than refuting the assertion he is making, you are arguing that he should be allowed to make to assertion, or that somehow making the assertion makes him a jerk.
He is arguing about the truth as he and many others see it. If you want to chase out such discussion, RS will be a much poorer place for it.
Freedom both ways is what I like
by gensec
if you want to go around saying McCain is a conservative according to your way of thinking, many are going to take the time to explain how he is not.
You are demanding EPU to submit on the basis of who is he to say, or Kirk to say, or anyone else to say.
I'm fine with anybody saying McCain is or isn't a conservative, and people rebutting either. I'm not demanding anything of EPU, other than he stuff his ridiculous "olive branch" demand that McCain supporters not call McCain a conservative. I spelled that out in another comment in this thread.
this ain;t wikipedia, pal
by E Pluribus Unum
I already mentioned some people qualified to say (ACU, CPAC, HE, NR). But add to that "widely acknowldeged" the national Republican Party, political scientists, the history books.
Since you, along with some others, are rolling your own definitions, I see no point in discussing it further. I'm right, but you are determined to call it your way. Thank you so much for playing.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
not to thread jack but
by kyle8
... so let's get him over the finish line first.
Romney/Pace 2008