Mood of the Country

Obama moving the country further right? Are more Americans identifying themselves as conservative?

The RINO who finally came out of the closet....

....he'll be a pain in their arse, as well.

Purging the Party to Win Future Elections?

In a thread about something else entirely altogether, the discussion turned into one about McCain-blame and party purging. I thought I'd share my comments which I don't expect many movement conservatives to agree with; but I figure since this is my blog, I should narcissistically share with readers what I think and how I feel:


Comment #10:

@b1jetmech:

The core circle at LGF believe the republicans need more moderates which it didn’t turn out will as history tells us.

The only reason McCain lost the election was because of McCain, not the base.

Bullshit. You said it yourself: You held your nose and voted for McCain. Conservatives did come out to bat (whether for McCain, for Palin, or against Obama), because we knew the alternative was far worse.

McCain ran a lousy campaign with an inconsistent message. The timing of the economic crisis in September, his response to it, a media that didn't do its job, an American public that was Bush-fatigued, all worked against us in this election cycle. Compound that with an uber-candidate that not even a Clinton shoe-in/birth-right nomination could overcome, you have an election that was bigger than laying scapegoating blame on McCain. Any conservative dream candidate would have had an uphill battle to wage this time around. Just look at the messianic-like fervor of Obama supporters; the desire amongst many Americans to see the glass-ceiling break, of putting into office a non-white president.

Like it or not, when the country is split down the middle 50/50, you're going to need the wishy-washy conservatives like myself and center-right/center-left moderates as well as cross-over Democrat voters to win future elections. You're not going to win elections by shrinking the party. I do agree, however, that conservative principles and ideology should not be abandoned, but better espoused. Which is why we need a better 'delivery system"; someone who can charismatically get across the conservative message and make it "hip" and "cool" and attractive. Substance alone isn't enough without good packaging/marketing- something Obama has in spades (minus the substance).

I really don't think McCain lost because "he wasn't conservative enough". Look at how candidates in state elections who are hard-core conservatives fared even worse than McCain. He lost because Obama ran the better campaign, had the more appealing "packaging" and "message".

McCain didn't lose because he isn't conservative enough; and Obama didn't win because he's liberal too much. It all comes down to how you're able to market the message.

From my comment #26:

@b1jetmech:

Wordsmith: The country isn’t 50/50 it’s 60/40, 60% conservative/center right. The republican party can’t be “all things” to all people. McCaine tried that and failed.

Agreed. McCain had an inconsistent message, and I think that might be due to his campaign handlers trying to get him to "say all the right things". The base were aching for him to hammer Obama hard on his radical ties; when he relented, it was in a half-assed manner, providing fodder for liberals in the media and Democrats to characterize McCain as running a negative campaign. The whole Palin comment about "palling around with terrorists" worked against the McCain campaign, because they never followed through with why it mattered; when McCain finally mentioned Ayers in the debates, it was as though he expected the media to do the public's homework for them and report to the electorate why the ties mattered- which was more than about what Ayers did in the 60's. McCain should either not bring the topic up at all, or he should go "all the way" and highlight, underline, and underscore why Ayers mattered.

As far as "republican party can't be 'all things' to all people", I agree; which is why I said in comment #10 that "conservative principles and ideology should not be abandoned, but better espoused". Hence my talk about having a "charismatic" "delivery system".

This may be insulting to the American people, but the truth of the matter is, there are a number of voters who will turn out on Election Day and vote without being well-informed. There's a reason why campaign slogans like "Country First" and "Hope and Change" become mantras for candidates. Messages often need to be condensed and simplified for public consumption.

From Hugh Hewitt's 2004 book, Ch14 on Majorities Require the Votes of Some Not-Very-Bright People, pg 85:

Huge numbers of people who simply cannot read a sentence vote in elections.

~~~

Just like the uncomfortable fact that all elections depend upon the votes of grade school and high school dropouts. Except for criminals, everyone gets to vote if they want to. Even though most illiterates don't vote, vast numbers do as do vast numbers of dropouts.

Elections are decided by people you wouldn't want to change your oil or make change at the local supermarket.

Which explains why politics requires simple messages.

A lack of education does not mean a lack of character or a lack of patriotism. It can often mean, however, that the individual without much education is not in a position to respond to intricate arguments and big words.

Politics often comes down to slogans and pictures and music because candidates need to communicate with broad ranges of people, some of whom don't have the mental equipment to deal with policy papers.

The mandatory simplicity of a lot of politics puts off some people.

They want to talk big ideas and they scorn simple speech.

A lot of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals fall into the trap of ignoring the need to communicate with every possible voter.

Hence my fixation in this thread on "packaging" and "marketing" the message. We conservatives may think we are the party of ideas and substance, but it does us no good if we are unable to communicate the ideology. The image of the GOP and conservative ideology has been successfully (mis)characterized by its opponents: We're supposedly the "party of the selfish rich", "religious nuts", racists, anti-gay bigots, uncaring of the poor and the homeless, warmongers, anti-environment, and close-minded; a party primarily made up of an "old white men's" club.

Even though most conservatives I know espouse what I deem to be the correct message of MLK, which is to not obsess over skin-color, unlike Democrats who's election wins depend upon "the black vote", from a political standpoint, the Jindals and the Steeles are important to the party....*sigh*....because of skin color. It's a frustrating paradox. But for the sake of image, the Jindals and the Steeles are important to the future of the GOP, because they are eloquent conduits of conservative principles and ideology. And for the side of the aisle who is still "stuck on race", they might not be tuned into listening to a Fred Thompson; but they just might prick their ears up for one moment and forget the oreo-throwing to listen to the message of the messenger who is not your stereotypical old, white, rich Republican.

If we need the moderate vote or Democrat vote we do it by having them come to us not compromise our principles for them.

Which is why I'm not too keen on the concept of "bipartisanship". At least not in the sense that it means diluting oneself of conservativism, creating an inferior and lameduck product.

But when you say "have them come to us", well of course! But sometimes that does mean "compromise" and exercising "diplomacy". The "all-or-nothing-at-all" angry conservative who will sit on his hands come election time because a candidate is never "pure" enough for them is childish and will lose us elections. We never agree with anyone 100% of the time. If that's the candidate we're looking for, then we should nominate ourselves each time.

When Mike talks of me being "nice" to the opposition, it's not a matter of me trying to "go along to get along", as Mike put it in another post somewhere; it's a matter of exercising "civility" to ultimately get what I want; which is more converts to the conservative cause. You don't do that by bludgeoning people over the head with your message; you don't do it by throwing out the moderates and alienating them with insults. Usually when you insult people and resort to name-calling in debates, all you will succeed in doing is make the other person defensive and bunker down rather than listen, ponder, and engage the merits of what you're actually saying.

The Republicans who lost this last go-around were mostly moderates in liberals states. They should have sailed through re-election because they were all things to all people but they didn’t.

Republicans who fared better than McCain in states with close elections were those candidates perceived, like McCain, as as "independent" or "moderate" (like Lindsey Graham, Gordon Smith, and ....er....Susan Collins- doh!).

In those places where McCain was on the ballot with a local conservative candidate, I don't recall a single state where a Republican further to the right than McCain ran better than him.

In regards to the claim that McCain received "5million votes less the GW Bush in 04′", this was due to him losing the votes of self-described independents. The number of Republican voters who turned out was about the same in '04 as it was in '08. The base became energized by the Palin-McCain ticket and were highly driven by an anti-Obama fervor.

In order to win elections you need the independent voters and self-described moderates. You don't do that by pissing away at voters within the party you deem too impure. Yes, there are CINOs that drive me as crazy as they drive you within the Party. But this RINO witch-hunt is somewhat of a losing strategy. More focus should be paid to communicating conservative ideology in an inclusive manner that will attract voters to adopt conservatism in order to "grow the Party"; not shrink it. The way you build a majority is by dealing with people who are different from yourself in a way that will win over converts.

Your Chance to Air Your Opinion to the RNC

Ever felt a "little" bit peeved at the RNC for any reason? Especially in the last several years? Well now's your chance to voice your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism through RNC Grassroots, and have some influence.

From Lorie Byrd:

I am working on one of the subcommittees that will be reporting to the RNC regarding tech/grassroots. We are trying to get as many ideas, suggestions, comments, etc. as possible from as many people as possible. If you have ever criticized the RNC, this is the time to make your voice heard because they are listening. If there is anything you believe the RNC has done right, this is the time to let them know so they can do more of it.

Read more »

The Republican Party Needs an Image Make-Over

If Republicans could have swayed even 30% of the black vote, we would have our first female vice president, today.



The conservative message needs a better delivery system than the one we've had. The Democratic Party has successfully painted Republicans as the party of racists, bigots, and the wealthy class who oppress the poor.

If conservative ideology were better understood, if the Republican Party were more faithful to conservatism, then there's no reason why we should ever lose another election ever again.

More written on my cross-post at Flopping Aces.

My Party, Right or Wrong

Posted at Flopping Aces

Where is the Republican Knight in Steele Armor?

Who will occupy the RNC Siege Perilous? Michael Steele or Newt Gingrich?

Amanda Carpenter reminds us why Newt not running for the RNC Chair is probably a good thing:



And it would appear that both men might be on the same page.

Bill Sammon's sources tell him Steele may announce as soon as Thursday, and is courting the endorsement of Newt Gingrich, which if landed, would do much to scare off the incumbent and possible challengers:

The source also contradicted a report in Tuesday's Washington Times that Steele and Gingrich were competing for the RNC post.

"There is no fight," the source said. "This tension between Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich is totally fabricated and, in fact, Gingrich and Steele are working together to create a new strategy for the direction of the GOP."

In a statement issued by the former House speaker, Gingrich said he was not interested in seeking the post of Republican party chairman.

"A number of people have asked me to consider running for Republican National Committee chair. They have been very flattering, and I am very honored by their support," he said.

It's time to bring in new blood. Republicans need a fresh makeover even as we speak of returning back to conservative traditionalism. As much as we decry that "race doesn't matter", the face of the Republican Party as seen by the American public is that of the stereotypical "white man's club". We need the Palins, the Jindals, to bring style with the substance. What the Democratic Party had in 2008 was a charismatic rock star; what we need is not only a "return" to conservative ideology, but also one wrapped in an attractive delivery system. Someone like Alfonso Rachel in the public eye could also do much to reshape the image of the Republican Party. He is someone who the MTV crowd can relate to on style and delivery.

I prefer Michael Steele as RNC Chair on the most superficial of reasons, as well as on the most substantial: He's black.

The color of his skin shouldn't matter. But because the country as a whole is still fixated on race, it matters. Let someone like Michael Steele deliver the post-racial conservative message that it's the Republican Party that's been living the message of MLK: That the color of one's skin doesn't matter; it's the content of the character.

Michael Steele has character; and to those to whom it matters, he also has the "right" skin color to deliver the message.

One of life's charms is in paradox.

Michael Medved points out similarities between where we find ourselves politically today, and where we were 16 years ago:
Read more »

Family Guy Pulls the Nazi Card

This is nothing new:

But it never ceases to disgust me. Humor is fine; but this is slanderous garbage.

It contributes to the stigmatization that the Republican Party is the party of racists and fascists.

What's "funny", too, is that the Bush Administration has probably been the most pro-Israel American presidency we've ever had; and in Senator Obama's camp of foreign policy advisors (and supporters like Louis Farrakhan and Jimmy Carter), you'll find those who have been anti-Israel, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power (had to be let go after insulting Clinton in the primaries) and Susan Rice.

It amazes me how many Jewish liberals still support the Democratic Party, voting against their pro-Israel interests. Not everyone in the Democratic Party is anti-Israel; but there's no question that when it comes to those who are pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel, they overwhelmingly are throwing stones from the left side of the political spectrum.

Hat tip: Freedom Eden

President Bush the Conservative Liberal

I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.
- Colin Powell, Former Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, on Meet the Press, Sunday October 19, 2008

Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque (Hat tip: Skyepuppy)


What did Colin Powell have in mind, exactly, in stating his belief that the Republican Party has moved further starboard? Expansion of government and uncontrolled spending? Dramatic Increases in entitlement programs, such as social security, food stamps, and medicare drug benefit? Dramatic increase in education spendings ("I believe that education is the new civil right."- President Bush) under the current president? Faith-based intitiatives aimed at benefiting the poor? A soft "compassionate conservative" approach by the Administration in dealing with illegal immigration and immigration reform? More financial relief to fight AIDS in Africa as well as helping local farmers in Africa, doing more to help people living in Africa than any other previous U.S. president?

President Bush has behaved rather liberally on not just spending, but on supporting programs that have been beneficial to minority groups.

Rove recommended books to Bush to read, including Murray Myron's The Dream and the Nightmare and Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion. Both mirrored Bush's thoughts, arguing that the feel-good, permissive values of the 1960s undermined the strength of families and helped create dependency on government, ultimately harming the disadvantaged classes. As an antidote, Bush, in discussions with Myron, Olasky, and others, fashioned the concept of "compassionate conservativism."

It was not a catchy phrase, and conservatives didn't like it because it implied that there was something wrong with being a conservative- like calling someone a realistic liberal. But the phrase accurately described Bush's philosophy. His goal was to help people. He believed the best way to do that was to develop government programs and policies that allowed them to help themselves. He did not see government as an enemy, as traditional conservatives did. But he did not believe the solution to problems was necessarily to throw money around.

- Pg 58, A Matter of Character, by Ronald Kessler.

Read more »

The Return to Reagan Country

3 days ago, I bumped into Norma at Bob's Market. I hadn't seen her since last March. As soon as I pulled in, and saw her car (I didn't even have to see the Reagan bumpersticker to recognize it) parked in the same spot, I knew I'd see her inside. I grabbed an origami gift from my car, went in, and tracked her down. She said she was just thinking about me, as the origami horse I gave her last time is a constant reminder.

She fears Senator Obama will probably win, but isn't giving up hope. She always looks around her when talking politics, for fear of some obnoxious Obama supporter butting in. Funny, but last weekend, I was there while two young boys were going up behind strangers, would chant "Obama" to see the person's reaction...they had on Obama t-shirts, so I'm not sure if they were pumped up from attending a rally or what.

I told Norma how I've seen a few McCain yard signs go up. She mentioned that there was one that was up last week Tuesday, but then was gone over last weekend. She expressed fear of putting up a McCain bumpersticker on her car, although she rides around with an '84 Reagan bumpersticker.

Anyway, we were happy to see a fellow conservative Republican in blue, blue, Santa Monica.

Closet Conservatives

Living in Southern California, despite pockets of conservative communities here and there, we bleed primarily blue. Or so it at least seems, on the surface.

It's said by some that America leans conservative. You'd never really know that by following pop culture, including much of the mainstream news, TV programming, and Hollywood.

Liberal activists have always appeared to make the loudest noise, wearing their liberalism on their sleeves, in open hostility to all things conservative (last week, one hippie mobile on the road had a bumpersticker that said "I'm pro-choice and I vote", "Sticking it to the religious right" and a host of other "in your face" type of thumb-in-the-eye stickers plastered to the vehicle like a moving billboard sign). I know I generalize, and it could only be because I live in blue state California; but I think liberals have always been much more vocal and liberated in their views, not shy to make spectacles of themselves in demonstrations. Counter-protestors, such as the Chester County Victory Movement, are the much welcomed exception to the rule.

I have yet to see anyone in Los Angeles sport anti-liberal bumperstickers and t-shirts, though on rare occasions there might be a Bush/Cheney sticker (I've only seen one McCain bumpersticker, though I'm sure that will change as the "normal people" who aren't political 24-7 might show their support for a month or two prior to election); and a little bit more common are pro-troop and military stickers, since those are not statements of political affiliation (although I've yet to see a "semper fi" and "Army Strong" sticker alongside "Code Pink" and "I Support the Troops- Bring Them Home" bumperstickers plastered onto the same moonbatmobile).

I bring this up, because Bookworm has made the following post (excerpt):

As regular readers know, I’ve chosen to keep my political life separate from the day-to-day aspects of my life. I simply can’t (and don’t want to) run the risk of tainting my carpools, my neighborhood barbecues, my kids’ comfort level at school, the camaraderie of the sports teams with which we’re involved, etc., by exposing myself to the obloquy that is routinely heaped on conservatives here — and this is a hostility that increases as elections draw near, of course.

During the 2004 elections, people who were unaware of my political inclinations announced in front of me that “Bush is the worst President ever,” “Republicans are stupid,” “Republicans are evil,” “Bush is stupid,” “Republicans are corrupt,” “Republicans are fascists” and “Bush should be impeached.” Children ran up to me on the sidewalk chanting “Bush is evil, Bush is evil” — so you know what their parents were saying at the dinner table. In this election cycle, one of my children announced after school that she was voting for Barack Obama “since every one is because he’s black.” I quickly scotched that line of reasoning.

This has been my experience as well. People are shocked with an initial reaction of "disappointment" when they find out I'm a pro-Bush, pro-war on terror conservative Republican...and I vote. Eventually, they seem to get over it (but know better than to discuss politics with me).

The day after the 2004 Election results was a good day to be a Republican voter. I smile to this day whenever I see Kerry/Edwards bumperstickers.

I know I should be speaking out when I hear statements such as these, but the sad fact is that I like these people. Barring their monomaniacal animosity towards Bush and the Republicans, they’re otherwise very nice: they’re hard workers, loving parents, good neighbors and helpful and reliable friends. Being the social creature that I am, I don’t want with one word (”Republican”) to turn these friendships upside down and inside out. (I’m not the only one with this problem.) I don’t want to be on the receiving end of some hideous Jekyll to Hyde transformation, so I just keep my mouth shut.

Those people I know who have spoken aloud their new conservative political views have been horrified by the animosity turned against them by formerly friendly neighbors and colleagues. My in-laws who are, like me, 9/11 neocons (down in Los Angeles) have stared open-mouthed at colleagues who use staff meetings to revile Bush and the Republicans — all to the cheers and huzzahs of the other staff members. (Indeed, what they describe sounds remarkably like Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate.) On the occasions when they’ve suggested that maybe, just maybe, Bush isn’t the Antichrist, they’ve found themselves shunned by these same colleagues.

Bookworm goes on to discuss how she attended her first meeting with local Marin County Republicans:

One after another, people stated their names and their City. Everything stopped, though, when a young woman, maybe 25, spoke her name very softly and added that “I’m a secret Republican.” With that single statement, the stories started.

One of the attendees, who had been asked to make phone calls on behalf of McCain, said that he spoke to one lady who said, “Don’t call me again. I’m going to vote Republican, but I can’t let anybody know. It’s got to stay a secret.” Another person recalled a party he attended a few months ago. When he mentioned, discretely, that he was a Republican, a young lady sidled up to him and whispered, “I’m conservative too, but don’t let anyone know. I also have two friends here. I’ll point them out to you. They’re also secret conservatives.” Incidentally, I was unable to interview either of the people who told these anecdotes because both were afraid that any more details might give away their identities and harm them professionally. (Clearly, in their lines of work, they need two resumes, one for public consumption and one that is their secret one.)

~~~

I have a proposal for all of you reading this who live in hostile Blue territory and feel isolated in your conservative political views. The next time you’re at a party, or chit chatting in a park, or standing in line at a store, if the person to whom you’re talking seems like an intelligent, common-sensical type, throw in a reference to Adam Smith. If your conversational partner jumps on that reference, opining that Smith was a great economic philosopher, you’ve just discovered that you’re not alone.

Even if you chose, however, to keep your political affiliations secret — whether because you’re afraid for your job, worried about your friendships, or are just deeply private — please hie yourself to the polls on November 4, 2008, and cast your vote for John McCain. I have a strong suspicion that there’ll be an awful lot of unexpected votes for McCain,

I suspect that as November looms ever closer, more and more voters will find themselves rejecting the socialist liberalism of Obama's policies, and shill for McCain. This includes cross-over voters.

As for remaining in the closet, I suggest to every conservative out there living in a blue state to not be afraid to come out into the light. You don't have to be "rah rah Republican" and clown yourself up like the rightwing answer to Code Pink; but don't be afraid to express your dissent from accepted, popular assumptions: "Bush lied", "Bush is a moron", "FOX News is yellow journalism", etc. I've challenged people, friends and acquaintances, and you'd be surprised at how productive such conversations and confrontations can be. You just have to know how to set the tone and know the temperament of the person you are breaking lances with.

If you care about the future of this country, if you don't want to see it make a sharp left turn in November, then it is in the best interest of every closet conservative out there to become an active participant in recruiting anti-Obama voters by doing what might not come easily: Talking politics. If you find the right stride, friendships to liberals will survive intact. Most of my friends lean left, and some are having doubts about Obama. And I know for certain, that some of their doubts have been influenced by my talking about politics.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

It may be political theater, but it's theater I can believe in

This is how the GOP gains back seats in Congress:

House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one is witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O'Connor.

"This is the people's House," Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complaing one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.

Read more....


Charles Krauthammer in WaPo: Pelosi: Save the Planet, Let Someone Else Drill

Also blogging:
Bookworm
The Anchoress
Bloviating Zeppelin
Flopping Aces (MataHarley's post)
Flopping Aces (Curt's post)

Time for Some Straight Talk

"John McCain....a great American, lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican"
-Hugh Hewitt

The new Rambo movie opens this weekend, and Sylvester Stallone endorsed John McCain. Perhaps Rambo and Delta Force Norris can square off in a no-holds-barred fight?


One of the things that has been bugging me of late, is the toxicity on the right. I've been guilty of participating and perpetuating it myself. But it's getting to be absolutely ridiculous. What am I talking about?

I am talking about this need amongst conservatives (especially in the blogosphere) to demonize Republicans like John McCain.

Sure, I've been angry at him at various times over the same issues that many conservatives have found fault with him on. But the level of anger is approaching a hyperbolic level of rhetoric that brims over into the realm of dishonesty and spin.

Purists love distancing themselves from Bush, Huckabee, and McCain; for not being conservative enough for them, these Party purists feel the need to disown Republican leaders who fail to remain immaculately conservative on issues, in a country where half the country is not conservative.

Sometimes, I think the anger being expressed by some, is not genuine anger, but vague resentment by those merely regurgitating the mood of the conservative 'sphere. Which leaves conservatives baffled and scratching their heads when someone they anoint as a "true conservative", like Duncan Hunter, turns around and endorses Mike Huckabee (much ridiculed as inept on foreign policy, and derided as a Democrat in sheepdog's clothing). Or how about Fred Thompson's friendship with John McCain, along with the rumors of a McCain endorsement, in the event that Fred endorse anyone at all? Would Ronald Reagan be "conservative enough" for the harsh crowd today, who populate the "angry-as-hell" fellowship of right-wingers (many claiming to be "Reaganites")? How does one rationalize away, the number of prominent military generals who have given their endorsement to McCain's candidacy (most recently, General Norman Schwarzkopf)? Are these all RINOs? Have they "sold us out"? We scratch our heads, not understanding, but I believe this is because we conservatives somewhat live in our own echo chamber, within the blogosphere. 67% support of Fred Thompson amongst bloggers gives us the impression that Fred's got "Joementum"; when in reality, it's McCain who's got the "Joementum" on his side.

As Michael Medved points out, many prominent members of the "Reagan Revolution" in the Senate leadership have come out in support of McCain:

– Jack Kemp, Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Dan Coats, General Alexander Haig, George Shultz and many more – proudly back Senator McCain. The conservative Senators who know McCain best – John Kyl, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott – support his presidential campaign after working with him in the Senate for years and seeing his commitment to Reaganism. During the six years he served in Congress under President Reagan, McCain supported the administration as one of its most effective “foot soldiers.” Unlike many of his critics, McCain echoes the Reagan approach – not the Buchanan approach – to free trade and immigration reform.

John McCain is worthy of criticism. He's worked hard for it, and has deservedly earned it. But he is still a Republican, with a lifetime conservative rating of 83 by the American Conservative Union, for his Senate voting record (I believe Lieberman, interestingly enough, scores a 17). To paint him as being something other than a true red-blooded conservative Republican is to ignore this fact, and focus on hyperbolically ventilating the hot-button issues for which we have not forgiven him for: campaign finance reform, immigration, "the Gang of 14"...and yes, much more. The criticisms have merit; of course they do! But, angry conservatives have also muddied the issues, by over-exaggerating some of the indignation and outrage, misrepresenting the other side of the facts. These issues are not always so black-and-white as the demonizers want to make them out to be. I suppose it's easier to be angry at someone if you can demonize him, further than the actual facts will allow.

As Victor Davis Hanson reflects in regards to the "conservative ownership" of Ronald Reagan,

When a candidate today says, “Reagan would have done this or that,” he apparently has a poor memory of what Reagan — the often lonely, flesh-and-blood conservative in the 1980s — was forced to do to get elected, govern and be re-elected. While in office, he proved more often the pragmatic leader than the purist knight slaying ideological dragons on the campaign trail.

I believe that similarly, right or wrong, McCain's maverick positioning, often going against the conservative grain, and rubbing us all the wrong way on a number of levels, should be understood, with respectful disagreement on substance; not just knee-jerk soapboxing demagoguery, twisting his actual position, to make it all seem worse so as to be more palatable to lay into him.

One example of the rhetoric that I have found personally distasteful, is in relation to his personal history as a war hero. I've heard him maligned by conservatives for him having been captured, and breaking under torture. That he was a failed pilot for having been shot down; and a failed POW, for not having been killed. Read the details of his POW years, and you tell me again that John McCain is not a hero. I may disagree with him over the waterboarding issue; but I absolutely respect his perspective, based upon his war experience. My disagreement is in distinguishing that there is a difference between, say, sleep deprivation, and gouging someone's eyes out with a spoon. If it's true that we have only used waterboarding twice, and used it on the worst of the worst with successful results, then I'd say "never say never" on whether or not we should ever use the tactic. Michael Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down", wrote a couple of articles that I think are two of the best cases put forth on why waterboarding should be illegal, but used under certain extraneous circumstances for the greater good. Read:

• In defense of waterboarding

• A Clarification

Excellent pieces, with an example of an actual instance of a German police officer who saved the life of a buried child by threatening the kidnapper with torture. Time was of the essence, because the child was suffocating.

Because of all the hoopla surrounding the waterboarding issue, we've essentially ruined that tactic in dealing with terrorist scum like Abu Zubaydah.

Sorry to sidetrack on the torture issue; I had meant to do a post on the two articles weeks ago, but got sidetracked; otherwise I could have just linked to the previous post, instead of elaborating a bit, here.

Anyway...

American Power is a strong McCain supporter, so anyone who wants to see "the other side" of the McCain argument, should go look at his McCain posts.

Well-worth a read, whether you agree or not: Michael Medved 6 Big Lies on John McCain

And in case you think I am shilling for John McCain, here is Hugh Hewitt Do Conservatives Still Care About the Courts?

John McCain is not my candidate of choice. But if he ends up being the nominee, we had all better rally behind him and band together against the kind of America that Democrats wish to have us living under. My biggest issue is in regards to who can keep us safe. It's the reason why a liberal such as Joe Lieberman, has crossed-over party lines, and thrown in his support of John McCain. It's not because he supports conservative causes; it's a matter of prioritizing the issues. And the current war with Islamic militants, with staying on the offense, trumps all.

I don't know how much John McCain "gets it", in regards to the overall war against Islamic terror; but he has been unwaveringly steadfast on Iraq. He stuck his political neck out on the surge, delivering a stellar speech last year. Don't ever forget that. John McCain is John McCain, and sometimes we can roll our eyes over that; and other times, he does deserve respect and admiration; and our gratitude.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Noteworthy post complimenting my own:
Pondering Penguin

"That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; NOT a 20 percent traitor."
Ronald Reagan, quoted on KCBS radio in 1972 by Reagan's gubernatorial chief of staff

CNN Tube

"An Actor running for President? Yeah, right..."

So Fred Thompson is setting up a Presidential Exploratory Committee, to "test the waters" hmm? I know that this allows potential candidates to raise money, hire staff and gauge support without officially committing to a presidential campaign, but I wish candidates would just quit beating around the Bush, and simply get on with it, already, with their announcements.

I mean, gee....Obama invokes Lincoln on the day of his announcement (color me amazed...like we didn't see that one coming, either)....Fred Thompson, July 4th: what's it going to be? The anticipation is really killing me [/sarcasm]

Was there a Cinderella candidate last night who can fill some mighty big boots?

Political Bias

Commenting in my last post, last night, I linked to Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars. It was a bit fascinating to see them quote transcript passages that I would have quoted as well. The difference being, that they came away with a complete 180 degree interpretation from it, than I did. I see much the same ideological differences in how we interpret "the facts"- from the 9/11 Commission, to the Duelfer Report, to media bias, to what the President said, to Quailgate, to the good, the bad, and the beautiful (haha..catch my "bias"?) going on over in Iraq; and on and on...

Jaymeister made a good find and a nice post on the following article:

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen said.

Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the same manner.

The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail.

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.

I lean center-right. I admit to my partisanship. I am well-aware of times when I have cherry-picked information to support my side of the equation. Sometimes I like to engage in juvenile ad hominems (such as making comments about Helen Thomas being a ripe old fossilized prune, which have nothing to do with her politics and journalistic integrity). It's just fun as well as petty.

But for serious political opining, I think it is important to listen to the other side, and exercise our dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; not just resort to knee-jerk "ok, how do I counter the argument put forth against my side?"-sort of reaction. To have credibility, it is vitally important to listen and concede (where necessary); reason and respect. One of the worst disservices you can do for your political side, is to be disingenous, citing facts or statistics that you know to be flawed. When both sides are well-researched on their facts, sometimes it just comes down to a difference in ideology. Then, usually it's a matter of how we interpret the raw data.

We really should exercise extreme vigilance on our own prejudices, partisanship, and bias. I don't think there is anything completely wrong in engaging in partisan politics, so long as you have the conscious wherewithal to know what it is that you are doing. At least be honest with yourself. Honesty and clarity are always more important than being right.

What's Wrong with this Picture?

The Truth:



Actually....

The REAL Truth:



Read more from Flopping Aces. Loved the link to Democratic Underground. They never fail to provide moonbat entertainment. Good work Conservative Underground!

[Update]Another example of how photographs don't tell the whole story and can be manipulated to set an agenda. Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt, through Powerline. The photograph in question is one we've all probably seen if you were like me, channel-surfing the blogosphere and news sources for photographs last weekend of the anti-victory rallies. The San Francisco Chronicle is also defending itself, so do read and decide for yourself.


Previous posts on last weekend's anti-Victory marches:

Someone Pass Me the Thesaurus
Moonbats ANSWER the Call to Arms
Turn on the Tube Now
Capping off the Weekend
What's in a Number?