Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
What this McCaniac wants, another Olive Branch
By IAFstudent555 Posted in Archived — Comments (92) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I want say first and foremost that I was really moved by EPU's eloquent address of Fredhead thought. The opening precepts of what the problem is are absolute spot on, the olive branch itself is for the most part quite fair, and the explanation of the fredhead position was interesting and helped me more fully understand their point of view. In that spirit I will attempt to lay out my own feelings and positions as a McCainiac and why some portions of the Olive Branch rankled me personally a little bit. I don't think it was intentional but rather comes from miscommunication and so I want to lay out my own point of view on this.
First of all I commend and agree entirely on the definition of TrueConservatism. Traditional moral values that include moral absolutes, traditional family values, law & order, primacy of personal property and basic freedoms, personal responsibility and accountability, recognition that humans are both noble and utterly untrustworthy, and the humble recognition that as a good rule of thumb, that government which governs least, governs best; these are the quintessential essence of conservatism and it's a useful starting place.
I really did not understand the Fredhead obsession with Fred until reading this post. I was, rather quite convinced that it had more to do with Fred's southern drawl than anything else. But upon reading EPU's post, I get it and youre right. Fred did embody core conservative principles, and it did it in such a way that was persuasive rather than in your face angry.
Most of the olive branch is perfect with a few exceptions that really rubbed me the wrong way as a McCainiac. First of all, is the notion that we need to stop refering the McCain as a conservative and that we do not need to actually BE TrueConservatives. These points came across (though I doubt they were intended to be) offensive to me. Looking at EPU's definition of Conservative I would consider myself to fall under that category. I believe in limited government, I believe in law and order, I believe in traditional family values, I believe in the primacy of personal property, I believe in all of that! And I believe that the VAST majority of McCain supporters on Redstate do as well.
There may well be many moderates in the McCain camp. By here at Redstate those who have supported McCain from the begining are absolutely conservative by EPU's standard and I resent the notion that I don't "have to become a TrueConservative" as part of the olive branch. I would like some recognition that you can be a McCainiac and STILL be a TrueConservative.
The flip side of this is McCain himself. Conservativism is a principle of government it is not a candidate. No candidate, not even Fred himself can possibly live up to and govern in a manner that perfectly embodies this philosophy because it is exactly that, a philosophy and philosophy has to give way into reality sometimes. Reagan himself, though one of the closest presidents we've ever had to a TrueConservative, departed from conservative principles himself during his governing time.
As EPU pointed out, Fredheads don't love Fred because of his Senate Achievements, they love him for his expression of what TrueConservativism is. That's completely understandable, but some of us, equally as conservative, consider the reality of governing as well when chosing a candidate. I recognize that it is imposible for a candidate to constantly live up to TrueConservativism and as such I choose the candidate who is the best vessle available to move the country towards TrueConservativism and who I believe will govern in a way that mostly adheres to said principles while still getting things accomplished. After all it does little good to have a candidate who expouses TrueConservativism but is unable to drive a legislative agenda and has his Veto's constantly overridden. McCain was and has been, for me at least, the best vessle available for TrueConservativism and his record bares out that, taking into account the difficulties of governing, his Conservative inclination.
What I would like is an explicit recognition from Fredheads that it is possible for TrueConservatives to have considered McCain the best available option for advancing the TrueConservative agenda in good faith. They do not have to agree with this choice, but they need to recognize that it was a choice that could be made in good faith.
I think it was interesting to hear EPU's assertion that TrueConservatives have only had their candidate win between 1980-1988 and that they are angry about this somewhat. As a McCainiac that sounds somewhat obnoxious because in 2000 when we went for McCain the TrueConservatives largely went for Bush and they won!
Bush is a dilema in this fight. It appears to me now, after having read EPU's diary that this is what occurred. In the 2000 primary, there was no Fred equivalent, there was no TrueConservative principle expouser like there was in 2008. As such most of the Fredheads rallied behind George Bush early, considering him the best of the bunch for one reason or another, but never really connecting with him. Those of us who backed McCain never really took this into account and merely saw that Fredheads were big Bush supporters early on in the primary. Thus when Fredheads complain about always having to settle and never getting their conservative prophet, McCainiancs tend to get annoyed because Bush won! But I suppose Bush was never really the candidate of Fredheads or McCainiacs, he was the candidate of the establishment.
Anyways, what I propose is that we agree on a set of principles and then move from there. The first of which should be, regardless of whether or not you consider McCain a TrueConservative, he is in fact the most Conservative candidate still in the race. Second, with a McCain presidency Conservativism will be advanced and certainly advanced more so than under a Democrat.
In order to achieve the goals of a McCain presidency I propose the following.
Fredheads must:
*Acknowledge that McCain's Redstate supporters are in fact TrueConservatives.
*Acknowledge that McCain is a vessle (imperfect or not) for TrueConservativism and that the principles of TrueConservativism can and will be advanced through his Presidency.
*Accept the fact that on some things such as the NCGOP ad, McCain was not being "anti-GOP or anti-conservative" but MAYBE just MAYBE he wants to win the election in a battle of IDEAS rather than trying to win by beating up the other guy. While you are free to dissent from his view point and free to express your dissatisfaction with his point of view, please do not throw out statements like "McCain is a liberal traitor to the party because of..." thats bombastic and causes anger on our side.
*Stop all the other stuff EPU offered
You don't have to:
*be silent when McCain makes a mistake, just don't crucify him for it
*be silent if someone misuses Conservativism, but be sure that they actually are misusing. If someone says McCain is the PERFECT conservative, then by all means let them have it. If someone says McCain IS a conservative, don't jump down our throats about it. He is a conservative at heart, he just strays on a few points as all (even Reagan) had to do in order to govern.
For our part:
*We'll understand that you're not overly enthusiastic about Johnny and try to be sensitive about that.
*We will not describe McCain as a Perfect Conservative or deny that in some areas he has come up short.
*We will not beat a deadhorse about McCain's accomplishments.
We Won't:
*Stop speaking about why we support McCain.
*Let annoying Fredheads who want to dismiss our/McCain's conservativism get away with it.
*Stop being TrueConservatives.
Deal?
Do we really need another one of these? -nt-
by NightTwister
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Yes
by simpson316
because the last one worked out so well.
[No offense EPU, it just wasn't meant to happen. There are deeper divisions that will have to be addressed, but now seems not to be the time.]
Now also found at The Minority Report
You made my point for me.
by NightTwister
I'm not getting into this. Erick asked that it stop, and I'm respecting the Directors' wishes.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Nice graphic skills two thumbs up
by speciallist
n/t
"This is the future we can all look forward to when these cultist "society" creators are swept into power by the sodomites and coke fiends of the press corps."...GO
Even better, where can I get one that says "Iraq War Veterans for McCain"?
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
You can get the bumper sticker
by NightTwister
Thanx!! n/t
by Ed54
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
Deal? yeah not!
by Jaded
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
not be changing....so the best thing is to keep doing what you and I and everyone else has been doing and one other item.....ignore those who dismiss your opinion and tell you to suck it up and get in line and follow the paymaster...they just don't understand that being conservative none of those things are an option....
I see cliques on Redstate and if that is what keeps the sanity until November so be it.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
didn't seem like a "compromise" to people trying to get McCain elected.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Most of that works for me
by youthgrunt
"*Acknowledge that McCain is a vessle (imperfect or not) for TrueConservativism and that the principles of TrueConservativism can and will be advanced through his Presidency."
My issue is that I just don't KNOW this to be true. I believe that McCain is a vessel for many TrueConservative principles. But his maverick status says that he is willing to do whatever he thinks is right rather than follow a party or an ideology.
By the way--in many ways I consider this a great strength of McCain's. But his history is clear that while McCain holds mainly TrueConservative positions, he is willing to compromise out of them in more instances than some of us would like to see.
My one other issue is that I would agree that many RedState McCaniacs are TrueConservatives. I don't know that I can say that all of them are. That is a quibble that I don't think you mean the way that I have interpreted it here.
For my part, I am a FredHead who will go beyond what you propose and will actively support McCain. There are too many very positive characteristics of McCain to waste energy bashing him or his rabid supporters.
Hence there will always be subjectivity in the application of those principles to the real world. Many people seem unwilling to consider that McCain could reach a different conclusion for a policy issue while following the same conservative philosophy that they do.
That is why labels such as True Conservatism are useless and counterproductive. A movement stagnates and dies when it ceases to grow intellectually and starts to demand dogmatic adherence to settled doctrine.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
With a few responses
by Adam C
It seems FredHeads prefer the "olive branch" written by the FredHead. You know the deal where we agree that the GOP nominee sucks and then they'll only point it out once in awhile.
How about we stop with olive branches and focus on winning the election. It's not like we're ahead right now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
No true
by JSobieski
My proposal is that both sides stick with the folowing:
McCain is most conservative candidate running for President in 2008. He is the candidate must likely to bring about conservative change.
You want to go further, you will get a fight. But there is no need to go further.
Amen.
by Adam C
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
That's what I said.
by NightTwister
Enough of these.
But you're wrong about this:
You know the deal where we agree that the GOP nominee sucks and then they'll only point it out once in awhile.
Feel free to attribute that to us anyway though.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Part of that "olive branch" was: "in that vein, do NOT recite (as a debating point against a Fredhead) the list of things McCain has said and/or done that ostensibly "prove" he's actually a conservative. As you should know by now, we have our own list which shows quite the opposite."
So it was "don't argue McCain does good things."
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Again
by Hooah Mac
You conflate "good" and "conservative", add that calling someone not good is an attack, ipso facto saying that John McCain does not meet the full definition of a conservative means calling him bad.
You can say John McCain does good things all day long, in general and specific terms and never once violate what that quote was asking. You can say John McCain has conservative positions on whatever issues all day without violating it. It's that sneaky point where one trys to assert that x list of conservative positions makes him a Conservative and dissent is unwelcome...that's where the division lies.
I think it's debatable
by Adam C
but that's the point. The EPU "compromise" was that you couldn't argue that McCain is a conservative. That's not a fair deal. It's debatable and it will be debated, especially because "conservative" has changed in meaning. I mean McCain was solidly on the Reagan side of the Reagan/Rockfeller fights. Back then McCain would have never been considered anything but conservative.
I just don't think these "olive branches" help because they continue to argument. I think that was the fight we are supposed to have in the primaries. And we did. Oh we did.
But the primaries are over. It doesn't matter who's "right" about McCain. We need to win an election now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
What you willing to give on? Anything?
by JSobieski
Compromise is both sides getting something and both sides giving something.
What are you willing to give?
I think you should be willing to give up the need to comprehensively characterize McCain as conservative in exchange for FredHeads to refrain from arguing that McCain is not conservative.
I am willing to help McCain win, but I am not going to stand by and refrain from responding to characterizations of McCain as being a Reagan conservative.
Willing to give
by Adam C
I don't even understand this construct. There is no compromise when we are all on the same side. I've never suggested people shouldn't argue about McCain's conservatism. But it's a big distraction from winning and writing anti-McCain diaries with upside down logos hurts the GOP's effort to win. This isn't the place for anti-GOP and anti-McCain efforts.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
agreement.
Are you being purposely obtuse on this? Did you not preceive the purpose of the blog to be to eliminate the vitriol regarding McCain on this site?
I am not one who feels compelled to write negative thins about McCain. However, if you insist on defining McCain as a conservative in the mold of Burke, Reagan, Kirk, Buckley, et al. then I will argue with you in ways that are not flattering to McCain from my point of view.
Then this is moot
by Adam C
If the anti-McCain diaries are over, then this is all moot. If they aren't, I will keep responding.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
As you well know
by youthgrunt
primaries answer who the candidate is. It does not say that the candidate is a TrueConservative. Stating it the way that you did is just slapping FredHeads and is not needed.
The effort of the "olive branches" are to help various factions understand their respective sensitivities. You may not like it, but sensitivities are important. McCain supporters don't like their candidate being labeled a liberal or even "not a conservative". OK, fine. FredHeads (who are not just supporters of a candidate but of a particular philosophy) do not like being told that their philosophy is meaningless because they lost the primary or that McCain IS a "TrueConservative" because he did x, y or z.
If we can avoid stepping on each other sensitivities, we will both get more out of the process. FredHeads will work harder to win the election. Since that is your stated objective, it would seem that you would want to be a bit careful to make it easier for a vocal group of people to support our candidate.
Interesting...
by youthgrunt
That part of the olive branch was to not try to checklist conservatism. It is kind of a one upsmanship. You MUST say "here is a great thing McCain is pushing" and I would argue that FredHeads are responsible to do the exact same thing. For instance, McCain is pushing the exact right thing on Justices and Ethanol.
But what was being requested is that neither groups of people bring out the checklist of activities and USE THOSE CHECKLISTS to argue that McCain is a TrueConservative or that he is not a TrueConservative. That is not productive.
But you should never stop argue the good things that McCain does.
Well personally, I don't agree with either one.
by NightTwister
We are individuals after all.
I'd prefer we all just STFU as Erick said and move on, but apparently some folks feel they gotta get a few parting shots in.
Whatever. I've moved on. Hopefully others can too.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Amen NT.
by Adam C
And honestly, if we stop posting diaries like this one and the anti-McCain ones (i.e. upside logos), then we can move on to winning the election.
But I unfortunately doubt that has happened. And if people insist on writing more anti-McCain diaries, I'm going to respond in them.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Have you noticed that
by youthgrunt
the upside down logos have gone away?
Why?
not all of them
by Adam C
ace and mbecker still have some. And as I've said repeatedly, if the anti-McCain diaries stop, this is all moot. It's not like there's a barrage of "Fred Sucks" diaries that we need to stop.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
You really don't get it, do you
by JSobieski
I don't care what you say about Fred. This is not about a person. This is about defining what conservatism means. If you insist on calling McCain a conservative in the mold of Reagan, Buckley, Burke, Kirk, et al. then people are going to respond.
Again, point to one diary
by Adam C
titled "McCain is a perfect conservative." I don't see it. But the slew of "moderates vs. conservatives" and "Flip your logo" diaries are plentiful. When the anti-McCain people stop their campaign, this will end.
Those of us trying to win the election are too busy to try to pick a fight with the 1% of the party that voted for Fred.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Works both ways
by Ed54
If you insist on saying that McCain is not a conservative in the mold of Reagan, Buckley, Burke, Kirk, et all then people are also going to respond.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
Until recently you have been extremely patient in
by JSobieski
dealing with criticism of McCain. You and absentee have both been quite impressive in that regard.
However, you recent characterizations of what we are saying are clearly not a good faith attempt to actually reach common ground.
There is no reason to keep characterizing McCain as "TrueConservative." Lets just say what we like about the guy, and leave it at that. Not sure why you need more, but I think you understand that neither side will give up and let the other define what it means to be a conservative.
Thank J
by Adam C
I really thought the in-fighting would end after the primaries. And yes I am quite frustrated with the continual anti-McCain diaries, logos, etc. I don't think the site would have tolerated this activity if Fred was the nominee. If there were a bunch of diaries attacking him and putting his logo upside down, they would have been run out.
I'm not saying McCain is the TrueConservative. I'm saying that when people write anti-McCain comments or diaries, I will respond. If they act like being for comprehensive immigration reform is anti-conservative, I'll respond. If they assume that McCain is bad on judges, I'll respond.
I'll note again that I'm not writing diaries about these fights. Everything I'm doing is responding to people who are leading the anti-McCain efforts, whether it be upside down logos or threats to not vote for the nominee.
If those diaries stop, I can go back to focusing on polls and Senate races.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Translated
by Hooah Mac
"How about we stop with olive branches and focus on winning the election. It's not like we're ahead right now."
-- 'Shut up and get in line.'
"It seems FredHeads prefer the "olive branch" written by the FredHead. You know the deal where we agree that the GOP nominee sucks and then they'll only point it out once in awhile."
That is a disgusting strawman and illustrates why YOU specifically are one of the driving forces behind the unhappiness here. Is that what EPU said? Is it even close? No, but you can't very well insult him for what he actually said, and since he doesn't agree with you, insulting him is necessary.(Although you do it so brilliantly carefully, without mentioning names and in a different diary - almost plausible deniability).
I for one am focused on winning the election, and I am focused on winning the debate in the arena of ideas (ground that the GOP ceded after about 2004). I am sorry that you disagree with me, and I am sorry if you insist that we need to change our definition of Conservatism from its historical meaning so that supporters of a certain candidate don't get their feelings hurt.
I don't agree with John McCain on some things, but I will do everything I can to get him elected. I will NOT pretend that my principles are no longer important or that John McCain is something he is not.
So what was the compromise
by Adam C
I asked in the comments several times. It came down to "don't assert McCain is a conservative." And no, that's not a fair deal.
If the deal is let's stop this fighting and go win the election, then there wouldn't be a big fight.
But the bottom line of EPU's diary was "don't call McCain conservative" and we'll move on.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
it is a fair compromise
by JSobieski
You refrain from defining McCain as a conservative and we refrain from saying that he is not a conservative.
You can say plenty of things about McCain, including that he has quite a view conservative policies. If an attempt is made to define McCain as conservative in some comprehensive/aggregate manner, you are going to inspire what you perceive to be a negative response.
Every time someone asserts that McCain is comprehensively conservative, someone else will respond that he isn't. Both sides have every right to fight about what it means to be conservative.
Sorry J
by Adam C
McCain won the nomination. I'm not even sure why each losing candidate has the right to "negotiate" on this in the first place. We have a nominee.
And when others assert that McCain is not conservative, I will respond. If the anti-McCain diaries stop, then this is moot.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Ah, so now the truth comes out
by JSobieski
Your compromise is that we give in?
No thank you.
Sorry.
Not going to happen.
I thought you were acutally engaged in a good faith attempt to reach common ground.
Obviously I misjudged your intentions.
No plea. No agreement. No deal.
Well I never suggested a "deal"
by Adam C
We're a Republican site and we support the Republican nominee. We had a primary and it tore us apart. I had hoped when it ended we would come back together. Alas some people can't get over the primary.
I've made my position clear. We fight in the primary. Then we try to win. Then we argue about what to do, and that is always more fun with an ally in power.
We're done with the fight phase. We're in the win phase. If you want to try to make the GOP lose, then you're in the wrong place. If you want to help the GOP win, great. If you can't help the Presidential nominee then focus on house or senate races.
I want to reach common ground: winning.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I want the Republicans to win
by JSobieski
I don't want your definition of conservatism to prevail.
Are you trying to make me choose one over the other?
If so, this is not a good strategy for unity.
diaries, we're fine. It's the escalation of things like the upside down logos and the "I won't vote for McCain unless he does X, Y, Z" that starts these fights.
When people start posting anti-Fred diaries, I'll decry them too. But that's not where these problems are starting.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam's right.
by NightTwister
RedState is the place to fight for McCain and the general election.
It's not the place right now to fight over what and who is conservative. I'm taking that fight elsewhere.
Agreed
by Hooah Mac
I just keep banging my head against a brick wall thinking that somehow common ground can be found amongst the various factions.
I should have used the Hinz rule a long time ago.
Is now
by Adam C
It was a Republican site when I joined and became a contributor. Either way, the site has endorsed McCain and I'm not sure why it should tolerate anti-McCain diaries that don't try to help him in any way.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Reagan named Bush as his VP to bring
by JSobieski
in moderates. He was the winner of the nomination, but he took some efforts to reach across to moderates.
FredHeads ask merely that conservatism not be redefined in our view. We ask merely to understand that we will take the time to refuse a redefinition of conservatism.
You are not seeking a compromise so there is no deal.
Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
Why did you play with the FredHeads into thinking you were actually interested in reaching some kind of accommodation?
Here I was thinking you were actually trying.
You will not attrack a lot of flies with the honey you are selling.
What compromise?
by Adam C
There aren't two sides in my mind. I don't see "FredHeads" and McCain supporters as two groups. I'm a supporter of both and I would love to have either as the nominee. We have one. We're all GOPers. And we should support the nominee.
There's nothing to compromise about. I don't know what I'm trying to "attract people to." If people oppose the GOP nominee, they're in the wrong place.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I am not opposed to the Republican nominee
by JSobieski
I am opposed to characterizing him as a conservative in the Kirk, Reagan, Burke, et al. sense of the word.
J
by Adam C
Can you point to a diary that made that point? Because almost all of my pro-McCain efforts are in response to anti-McCain diaries. I haven't argued people should think McCain is perfect. I've argued that trashing him is a bad idea and will not be allowed without response.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
then why not accept the compromise
by JSobieski
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I really do want to end the exodus of people leaving, taking sabbaticals, not feeling great about visiting this site.
I am trying to reach a workable compromise here. I have put forth the core issue, requiring both sides to refrain from one simple thing so that the other side is not provoked into creating an endless argument.
Don't seek to characterize McCain as conservative and I will not feel compelled to characterize McCain as NOT being conservative.
This is the only way we will be able to avoid getting stuck in this same argument every day from now until November.
I can just repeat my same position
by Adam C
I don't write diaries called "McCain is a true conservative."
But when someone posts a "McCain Again Pokes Conservatives!!!!," I will respond.
If people want me to stop responding, stop posting anti-McCain diaries.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I understand
by JSobieski
but we all need to stop --comments and blogs--if the compromise will work.
The compromise relates to comments as well as diaries.
I'm really trying to make things better here
by Hooah Mac
Another point of confusion-
"There aren't two sides in my mind. I don't see "FredHeads" and McCain supporters as two groups. I'm a supporter of both and I would love to have either as the nominee."
The "FredHeads" we are referring to is not synonomous with "people who supported Fred Thompson for the nomnation". Those of us here as self-defined "FredHeads" are all of a pahticular view when it comes to Conservative thought. Fred was an embodiment of that view. Restated, we are not "FredHeads" v. "McCainiacs" because we want Fred as the nominee, or because we aren't over the primaries. The nomination has nothing to do with it.
I know you don't understand this, I see it in your every reply. Is it too much to ask that you simply agree that you don't understand where we are coming from and stop pushing?
My point is that
by Adam C
many people committed to conservatism supported McCain in the primary and continue to do so. So the idea of "fredheads" (meaning TrueConservatives) being opposed to McCain supporters (meaning not TrueConservatives) is not a conception I buy into.
Some conservatives supported McCain and some supported Fred. Many support McCain now. The holdouts who want to conduct anti-McCain diaries are not going to go unchallenged.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
You posted a link to an interesting
by youthgrunt
article by Rick Santorum. You labeled it as him "coming around" though I do not think Rick would agree with that term. What Rick does in that article is argues that McCain is an 80% conservative and so he deserves our support. I agree with him.
Seriously Adam
by Hooah Mac
Read it in the spirit intended. I know I've laid this out time and again. McCain is a conservative in the sense that his positions, on balance, are more conservative than anything else. He is not a Conservative in the sense that his positions flow from a Kirkean worldview. That is not an insult, and certainly not something that will cost him any votes by being stated here. It is what it is.
You want to take that kind of statment as some kind of attack on McCain - and you take it personally too.
You will never convince us that John McCain is a Conservative, because by our definition, he is not one. Period. Don't read any more or any less into that than we mean and there is no reason to get angry. The word sucks doesn't fit into that in any way.
I will agree that anti-McCain commentary gets out of hand, but most of the stuff you are reacting to isn't from the "Fredhead" contingent, although we tend to get sucked into it. Almost like the Sunnis and Shiites in Balad in 2006. Someone loosely affiliated with one group came in and made a mess, and by the time people started thinking clearly, a whole lot of people were pushing up daisies.
Good to hear
by Adam C
"I will agree that anti-McCain commentary gets out of hand, but most of the stuff you are reacting to isn't from the "Fredhead" contingent"
As long as the anti-McCain efforts stop, then really all of this is moot. I just don't think they will. I expect more of the same. I hope to be wrong.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, based on your responses elsewhere
by eburke
I don't know why I would think that after much more eloquent attempts to explain this to you I would think that somehow I would find a way to explain this to you but my stubborn conservative nature compels me to try:
For whatever reason, you have decided to take criticism of McCain's positions and his tendency to shoot his mouth off to attack his own party as 'disloyal' to him and the party. Didn't we conservatives serve up no end of grief to feminists for their unswerving and unwavering support for Bill Clinton while he was engaged in "activities" that were the antithesis of what they stated they believe?
Just because you don't view some of McCain's 'maverick' stances to be abandonment of conservative principles doesn't mean other don't. And to keep repeating the tired meme that he's our candidate now so he's beyond criticism reeks of hypocrisy.
And, if that didn't work, let's just cut to the bottom line: your stated position is that you want to do all you can to see that McCain is elected. Posters such as absentee have drawn me toward that position. Your unrelenting insistence that your guy won so the rest of us need to shut up and not criticize your guy is pushing many, such as myself, away.
In fact, I will probably not read RS in the last couple of months before the election because by that time Barack will have convinced me that I really do need to vote for John and I'm afraid that I'll read one of your many 'my way or the highway' posts that'll rankle my independent nature and make me change my mind. In other words, you're doing more harm than good to your cause right now.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Criticizing
by Adam C
I think criticism is good if it's in the spirit of helping him win.
Ex: "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?"
The first is constructive and trying help him win. The second is an anti-McCain screed that doesn't serve the purpose of this Republican blog that had endorsed McCain for President.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
5555555555....nt
by aaronbg
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I agree with you here-
by c17wife
"...Posters such as absentee have drawn me toward that position."
Caleb has been a great advocate for McCain. GC and I screamed in despair when he flipped from Fred to McCain. But his reasoning made sense and he is probably the best, realistic advocate Johnny Mac has on this site. He sure convinced me without a fuss.
There are several that could take cues from him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
in good faith. Perhaps we prefer the one that comes without us being called annoying.
And yes, let's please focus on winning the election. I think we can all agree on that. But it will be hard to come together as long as there is animosity such as name calling.
Seriously, this was a fairly decent diary until the end.
Given that you recommended it, might I assume that you are okay with us being called annoying?
If so, that is not a way to win friends and influence enemies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
The other "olive branch"
by Adam C
presumed that McCain supporters weren't conservatives. I agree that the name calling is a problem. I think it's a symptom of the anti-McCain diaries.
But if what people on this thread are saying is true, then the anti-McCain efforts are going to stop. If that's true, I suspect the name calling will stop as well.
We can hope.
P.S. I recommend good diaries, often ones with theses I disagree with. Disagreeing with one word would not stop me from recommending.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Nor have I been overly critical of him. In fact, I wrote a "get in line" diary way back in Feb.
As for disagreeing with one word, I think you are missing the big picture. By tacking that "one word" at the bottom of his diary, the author is basically smacking our hand as it reaches for the olive branch. Nothing compromising about that. In fact, it is down right offensive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
As I wrote upthread
by Adam C
I don't really get this whole "compromise" thing anyway. I don't see two groups fighting. I see one group trying to get McCain elected or at least not trying to hurt him. If someone is not in that group, they're in the wrong place.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
doubt here.
If you want people to join your fight, you might not want to call them annoying. 'Kay? Could you at least5 acknowledge that in a bold way?
You may have the last word.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Sure
by Adam C
The only annoying people are the people who come to a GOP site and write anti-GOP or anti-McCain diaries (and people who go through the comments insulting people). That isn't a large group, thankfully.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I don't get it either.
by NightTwister
I've gotten caught up in the fray too often myself. I'm glad this has all come out because it's given me clarity.
1. I want John McCain to win the general election. RedState is committed to being a place where he is regularly promoted and not denigrated. I support that decision.
2. I want my government to be led by conservative principles. I am NOT willing to compromise AT ALL on what that means to me.
3. Because of #1, I need to take my fight for #2 elsewhere until the general election is over.
Clarity is a beautiful thing.
Ok Adam I got a serious question for you.
by aaronbg
You keep talking about his phased approach to the election and that we are in the how do we win phase. But when do we have the platform discussion? I mean how do we win. Have we already decided the policies of the platform by picking McCain, or did we just pick the person we want to carry those policies. Shouldn't we have a frank discussion about what policies we want John to campaign on or is it up to him to dictate to us what policies will be championed. I am new to all this for the most part so I really don't know. I personally think the primary is about picking a person not necessarily the policy. I am of the understanding that up until the convention the policies can and should be debate so as to not disenfranchise any faction within the party. Am I totally off base with my assumptions? I really don't know, like I said I am new to political activism/blogivism.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I think those discussions are great
by Adam C
as long as they aren't anti-McCain diaries which is what started happening. I wrote this upthread and I think it applies to issues as well as strategies:
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 difference applies to all kinds of diaries. But diaries that have the intent or effect of hurting the GOP nominee instead of helping him will be argued with. If Paulites come and start arguing for platform changes to end the Iraq War to embarrass McCain then that should be shot down.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
That's one way of putting it
by Adam C
I think the best way to think about it is remembering the short run goal is winning the election. So while arguing about other things, don't do it in a way that hurts the short run goal.
But your formulation is close enough for me to be hppy.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Adam, question for you.
by asleep06
On an unrelated note, how the heck do you keep track of so many conversations at once? Do you just constantly refresh or something?
It's my day off
by Adam C
I use refresh and then search-find for "new!"
We actually added the explanation point to make that possible.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Wish I would have thought of that
by simpson316
Gonna have to use that Find "new!" trick. I wonder if that will work on RS 3.0?
Now also found at The Minority Report
In some ways
by youthgrunt
the primary was a winnowing field for positions. The primary change for McCain came on immigration. He was getting trounced on this site as well as in debates and on the stump with his stance on immigration. McCain made it clear that he still agrees with his stance in the Senate, but that the people had spoken clearly and he would not pursue that. His position since then has been in line with what most of Americans and certainly the conservatives have requested.
Both parties have pretty much left the age of the platform. The closest thing that we have had with the 1994 Contract with America. We have pretty much gone the approach of books written by the candidate to understand their personal "platform".
But McCain had to do coalition building in this primary process--which implies taking planks from other factions--and fit them into your personal platform. There may be more to come at the time of the convention. Things like VP candidate could fall into that category.
Like a policy platform. I think that unless we republicans, no matter the flavor, define our platform the Dems and the MSM will be happy to do it for us, which I am sure none of us want. Now I know John McCain is building a coalition and polling that coalition to determine the platform, but since when has a poll been considered better than a discussion? I can agree with Adam that some of us need to tweak how we frame our discussion but the discussion needs to be had regardless of how we frame it. This is how I believe we can bring about the win that Adam and pretty much any Republican wants to see in November. And from the looks of this diary and the many others like it, wee have a long way to go in defining our platform and not too many months to do it. I believe we should hash this out now so that we can come out of the convention with guns blazing against our common enemy, OBAMA. I mean Obama is literally a gift from above when you think about the arena of ideas, but we have not yet even defined our ideas so how can we beat Obama in the arena of ideas. I really don't know. Anyhow I am a rookie at this and these are my concerns. Define our party or prepare to be defined and defeated.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
No deal--the first two points are not acceptable
by JSobieski
While I can agree not to start a debate about whether or not McCain is a TrueConservative, I cannot sit on my hands if I (in my view) see the term misused.
You are free to define conservatism a certain way. I am free to disagree and to hold a different definition. Your compromise is no compromise but an attempt to bring about capitulation.
If you really wanted to reach a compromise in good faith, you would ask us to admit that McCain is the most conservative person running for President, and leave it at that.
I have never crucified McCain, and he has been a lot more insulting to me than I have ever been to him.
That being said, I support McCain.
I doubt McCain even knows you
by Ed54
How could he insult you?
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
IAF - it's a good diary
by E Pluribus Unum
and a very decent try and trying to find a common ground. Without going point by point (maybe I should, but I'm on the clock at work now) I'd say there are points of brilliniance, and some points that I don't agree with, in terms of characterizing what my side stands for (mostly good though), and there's a couple of your proposals that I'm not down with.
In something of a better environment, I'd love to hash it all out with you and with outhers.
But Adam is a one-man wrecking ball on this - there ain't going to be any peace of any kind, I'm sad to say.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
this in good faith, you will drop the "annoying" part. It is condescending and counterproductive for what we are all trying to accomplish.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Look, I enjoy pounding on Sen. John McCain as much as anybody ..
by Martin A. Knight
... but wouldn't it be more fun to pound on President McCain?
I firmly believe we should not allow in-fighting to deny us that pleasure.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
because I was almost ready to deal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...