Three Good Options for The Right

[BigBadBrian]

Three Good Options for The Right

By George F. Will
Thursday, March 8, 2007; Page A23

The axiom is as old as human striving: The perfect is the enemy of the good. In politics this means that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one.

Which is why the mood of many of the 6,300 people, lots of them college age, who registered at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference here, was unreasonably morose. Sponsored annually by the American Conservative Union, CPAC is the conservative movement's moveable feast. Many at CPAC seemed depressed by the fact, as they see it, that the top three Republican candidates -- John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani-- are flawed. Such conservatives should conduct a thought experiment.


Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state's history and the nation's most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages -- the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.

Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today's fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan.

Now, consider today's three leading candidates, starting with McCain, the mere mention of whose name elicited disapproving noises at CPAC. This column holds the Olympic record for sustained dismay about McCain's incorrigible itch to regulate political speech ("campaign finance reform"). But it is not incongruous that he holds Barry Goldwater's Senate seat.

McCain, whose career rating from the ACU is 82 (100 being perfect), voted against the prescription drug entitlement in 2003 because of its cost. He is a strong critic of corporate welfare. And since 2003 he has been insisting that the mission in Iraq requires more troops-- even more than will be there during the current "surge."

Conservatives' anger about McCain coexists with others' discordant criticism of him for "pandering" to conservatives. Astonishingly, a recent Vanity Fair profile accused McCain of "toeing the conservative line" on immigration, which shows that Vanity Fair does not know what that line is.

The journalistic rule is that conservatives pander, liberals "grow." When Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich changed from being pro-life to pro-abortion, their conversions, a price of admission into Democratic presidential politics, were often described as conscientious "growth." But when McCain, who opposed President Bush's tax cuts, concludes on the basis of the humming economy that they should be made permanent, it's called pandering.

At CPAC, Romney gave the most polished speech, touching all the conservative movement's erogenous zones, pointedly denouncing the "McCain-Kennedy" immigration bill and promising to seek repeal of the McCain-Feingold law regulating campaign speech. Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?

Giuliani is comprehensively out of step with social conservatives and likely to remain so. He probably assumes two things.

First, that some of the social issues have gone off the boil because argument about them seems sterile: Democrats have scant interest in federal gun control legislation; scientific advances may obviate the need for using embryonic stem cells; cultural changes will do more than any feasible legislation could do to reduce abortion numbers; the way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make.

Second, that his deviations from the social conservatives' agenda are more than balanced by his record as mayor of New York. That city was liberalism's laboratory as it went from the glittering metropolis celebrated in the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (1961) to the dystopia of the novel "Bonfire of the Vanities" (1987). Giuliani successfully challenged the culture of complaint that produced the politics of victimhood that resulted in government by grievance groups.

He favors school choice, he opposes bilingual education that confines students to linguistic ghettos and he ended the "open admissions" policy that degraded City University, once an effective instrument of upward mobility. The suggestion that Sept. 11 required city tax increases triggered from Giuliani four adjectives: "dumb, stupid, idiotic and moronic."

Conservatism comes in many flavors. None seems perfect for every conservative's palate; most should be satisfactory to most conservatives.

georgewill@washpost.com

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702043.html)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian

Conservatism comes in many flavors. None seems perfect for every conservative's palate; most should be satisfactory to most conservatives.



Bingo. Just what I've been saying all along.

So much for the "(Insert your conservative group here) will never nominate (Insert your GOP candidate here)."

[Hardrock69]

Talking to yourself again, LittleBoyBrian?

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Bingo. Just what I've been saying all along.

So much for the "(Insert your conservative group here) will never nominate (Insert your GOP candidate here)."

Whether George Will made a logical statement, or whether you agree with it doesn't make any difference. The fact remains that the religious reich controls the Republican party, and they aren't going to nominate a Mormon or a pro-choice Catholic. And the fact that they didn't nominate McCain in 2000, when he clearly WAS the best candidate they had running, doesn't bode well for him either.

Not that McCain is as good of a candidate as he was then. Far too much Bush ass kissing in recent years.

Maybe George Will should run for office himself, and steer the Republican party back from the lunatic fringe?

[Hardrock69]

I would think Republicans would be desperate to rebuild their integrity in the eyes of their constituency, but political infighting, along with the usual periodic scandals involving corruption, drug abuse, and gay prostitution will kill that notion permanently.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by FORD
The fact remains that the religious reich controls the Republican party, and they aren't going to nominate a Mormon or a pro-choice Catholic. And the fact that they didn't nominate McCain in 2000, when he clearly WAS the best candidate they had running, doesn't bode well for him either.

Not that McCain is as good of a candidate as he was then. Far too much Bush ass kissing in recent years.

Maybe George Will should run for office himself, and steer the Republican party back from the lunatic fringe?

The reich needs to worry about choosing competent leadership-notsomuch choosing a candidate based on lame, useless 'moral issues'. It's time they catch up with the rest of the world and practice the morals of their choosing within it's own walls. This could be the Republican line-up that breaks off the moral majority. That'll be fine with me.....Keep Rove the hell out of campaigns. Keep churches out of politics all together. Any church or religious group that donates to a party or candidate in any way should pay TAXES-period.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Bingo. Just what I've been saying all along.

So much for the "(Insert your conservative group here) will never nominate (Insert your GOP candidate here)."

What have you been saying? Satan himself could come out anti- abortion and anti-gay marriage and the right would carry him on their shoulders....

Wait!.....That's already happened......Twice!:p

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
What have you been saying? Satan himself could come out anti- abortion and anti-gay marriage and the right would carry him on their shoulders....

Wait!.....That's already happened......Twice!:p

Please.

Maybe you should realize that a majority of conservative voters, regardless of religion, are against unfettered abortion and unfettered gay marriage.

Part of the reason Bush has been elected twice:

Two duds your party has nominated. If Hillary doesn't win, the Democratic party will be out of luck for years.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
The reich needs to worry about choosing competent leadership-notsomuch choosing a candidate based on lame, useless 'moral issues'. It's time they catch up with the rest of the world and practice the morals of their choosing within it's own walls. This could be the Republican line-up that breaks off the moral majority. That'll be fine with me.....Keep Rove the hell out of campaigns. Keep churches out of politics all together. Any church or religious group that donates to a party or candidate in any way should pay TAXES-period.

Only a liberal like yourself would consider moral values and issues worthless.

Keep thinking that way, and keep losing national elections.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
Please.

Maybe you should realize that a majority of conservative voters, regardless of religion, are against unfettered abortion and unfettered gay marriage.

Part of the reason Bush has been elected twice:

Two duds your party has nominated. If Hillary doesn't win, the Democratic party will be out of luck for years.

What is your goddam fascination with abortion and gay rights? How is that going to STOP AN UNJUSTIFIED WAR?!?!
You're too fucking stupid to vote.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
What is your goddam fascination with abortion and gay rights? How is that going to STOP AN UNJUSTIFIED WAR?!?!
You're too fucking stupid to vote.

This forum isn't just about the War in Iraq. People voted for Bush in 2004 for reasons other than the War, as well as the War.

You haven't been here long enough to know my beliefs on gay rights and abortion rights, unless you're an alias. If you are, come clean.

[FORD]

Seriously, after gay prostitute Jimmy Jeff Guckert Gannon, gay porn star Matt Rod Majors Sanchez, transsexual lunatic Ann Coulter, numerous queer leaders of the "religious reich", and the suddenly pregnant-by-turkey-baster Mary Cheney, isn't it about time the Republicans gave up on using gays as scapegoats??

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
Only a liberal like yourself would consider moral values and issues worthless.

Keep thinking that way, and keep losing national elections.

Only a chickenshit conservative who never seen combat would vote for an incompetent tool twice. That's right, they ARE worthless issues! What good is it to be against abortion(something I'm personally against, but I'll be damned if I have the right to make that call for someone else) and vote for an administration whose mismanagement of the military have cost us lives?! You're not affected, so it doesn't concern your selfish ass, right?! The same goes for abortion-noone is forcing you to do it, so how in your pathetic life can it be a priority?! Is it still leagal? Yes. Aren't servicemen's life valuable to you as well?!
YOU FUCKING JOKE.
I guess when you talk about the "right to life" you're referring to your party's right to decide who should live and die.

[Warham]

Such hatred for gays is unbecoming of a liberal, isn't it?

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
This forum isn't just about the War in Iraq. People voted for Bush in 2004 for reasons other than the War, as well as the War.

You haven't been here long enough to know my beliefs on gay rights and abortion rights, unless you're an alias. If you are, come clean.

You just posted your beliefs.
FUCK OFF!

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
This forum isn't just about the War in Iraq. People voted for Bush in 2004 for reasons other than the War, as well as the War.

You haven't been here long enough to know my beliefs on gay rights and abortion rights, unless you're an alias. If you are, come clean.
To hell with this forum. I'm pointing out the obvious-conservatives are chickenshit hypocrites who have not the mental wherewithall to form educated opinions, and you vote single issues.

Thanks for fucking America up.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Only a chickenshit conservative who never seen combat would vote for an incompetent tool twice. That's right, they ARE worthless issues! What good is it to be against abortion(something I'm personally against, but I'll be damned if I have the right to make that call for someone else) and vote for an administration whose mismanagement of the military have cost us lives?! You're not affected, so it doesn't concern your selfish ass, right?! The same goes for abortion-noone is forcing you to do it, so how in your pathetic life can it be a priority?! Is it still leagal? Yes. Aren't servicemen's life valuable to you as well?!
YOU FUCKING JOKE.
I guess when you talk about the "right to life" you're referring to your party's right to decide who should live and die.

You really don't get it, do you?

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
Such hatred for gays is unbecoming of a liberal, isn't it?

Such cowardess is unbecoming of an admitted conservative Bush supporter, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
To hell with this forum. I'm pointing out the obvious-conservatives are chickenshit hypocrites who have not the mental wherewithall to form educated opinions, and vote single issues.

Thanks for fucking America up.

No, we base on our opinions on clear cut moral values, something you don't.

You're opinions are based on hatred and nothing else. I'd hate to live like that. Does your life suck or what?

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
You really don't get it, do you?

Oh, I got it, allright.

Take a nap WarHamster, your act is tired.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
No, we base on our opinions on clear cut moral values, something you don't.

You're opinions are based on hatred and nothing else. I'd hate to live like that. Does your life suck or what?

Not as much as yours is gonna suck when they draft your ass.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Such cowardess is unbecoming of an admitted conservative Bush supporter, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

How am I being a coward? Because I think our troops can succeed over there? Because I don't want the US to go down in flames over in Iraq? Because I don't have a defeatist attitude.

Please explain.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Oh, I got it, allright.

Take a nap WarHamster, your act is tired.

No, I'll be here long after you've gotten tired of your hatred and loathing and can't take it any longer.

What are you going to do when Bush leaves office? You might as well go down to the nearest bridge and jump.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
How am I being a coward? Because I think our troops can succeed over there? Because I don't want the US to go down in flames over in Iraq? Because I don't have a defeatist attitude.

Please explain.

Stop wating for someone else to put work in for your President and do the right thing.

Become one of them.

You don't want to "see the US go down in flames"?

You don't think.

Nor do you take action.

What's with this defeatist attitude to which you refer? Do you believe Iraq is a situation in which we can improve?
Explain yourself.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I'll be here long after you've gotten tired of your hatred and loathing and can't take it any longer.

What are you going to do when Bush leaves office? You might as well go down to the nearest bridge and jump.

...for joy.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Please.

Maybe you should realize that a majority of conservative voters, regardless of religion, are against unfettered abortion and unfettered gay marriage.


Part of the reason Bush has been elected twice:

Then why was Clinton elected "twice?"


Two duds your party has nominated. If Hillary doesn't win, the Democratic party will be out of luck for years.

Look how Warpig can't even discuss his own party's candidates without throwing it back to the "Democrats blah blah blah blah..."


Showing in essence the reason the GOP is probably going to lose the White house in 08' to Billery. There's no real Republican candidate worth discussing for more than five minutes.....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
This forum isn't just about the War in Iraq. People voted for Bush in 2004 for reasons other than the War, as well as the War.

You haven't been here long enough to know my beliefs on gay rights and abortion rights, unless you're an alias. If you are, come clean.

Wow. What a theory! Only most people favor abortion rights...

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by Warham
Only a liberal like yourself would consider moral values and issues worthless.

Keep thinking that way, and keep losing national elections.

Moral values????

Are illegal wars prosecuted on lies and the resulting mass murder of innocent people moral issues?

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by Warham
How am I being a coward? Because I think our troops can succeed over there? Because I don't want the US to go down in flames over in Iraq? Because I don't have a defeatist attitude.

Please explain.

Dude, the troops have already gone down in flames. And more and more are dying for nothing. As well as innocent people.

I think you, George Fuckhead Bush and Darth Cheney are the last three remaining deniers.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham

Keep thinking that way, and keep losing national elections.

LMMFAO

Did you sleep through November, 2006? :rolleyes:

You remember, the mid-terms where YOU claimed the RePukes would hold both houses, and George Allen would win?

Shut the fuck up already with your predictions.

You suck at it.

:gulp:

Idiot.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Idiot.

Any chance of permanently attaching this to his sig?

[Hardrock69]

Every day our soldiers are there, more of them are murdered.

WarFag loves having a murderer in the White House.

WarFag, how many times do you jack off on your life-size photo of themonkey before you goose-step out of the house in the morning?
:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
How am I being a coward? Because I think our troops can succeed over there?


:rolleyes:


Really?

Please explain.

Because no GENERAL IN COUNTRY thinks as you do.

Fucking kool-ade drinking moron.

:gulp:

[hideyoursheep]

Three good options for the right?.........


Make 3 left turns.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Every day our soldiers are there, more of them are murdered.

WarFag loves having a murderer in the White House.

I think you've got President Bush confused with the terrorists over in Iraq.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

Did you sleep through November, 2006? :rolleyes:



2006 wasn't a national election, knucklehead.

:rolleyes:

[Keef]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Oh, I got it, allright.

Take a nap WarHamster, your act is tired.

Don't let people like this upset you. They are trying like hell to claw thier way out of a DEEP cavern.

The rest of the world knows full well what the fuck is up, and most of America.

Let these tools go. Our main problem is not the low life racist pigs that need war to watch for entertainment. Our problem is the Gov't. And that's on both sides.

I truely think if we can somehow(fucking rigged elections) get good people in that care for this country and it's people, all will be solved.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
I would think Republicans would be desperate to rebuild their integrity in the eyes of their constituency, but political infighting, along with the usual periodic scandals involving corruption, drug abuse, and gay prostitution will kill that notion permanently.

10 years ago you could have said that about the Democrats. It's a vicious cycle.

[Warham]

Who are you calling a racist, and who is watching this war for 'entertainment'?

[Keef]

Originally posted by Warham
Who are you calling a racist, and who is watching this war for 'entertainment'?

I can't honestly think of one reason why you support, other than the reasons stated?

What the fuck are you hiding, man?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
10 years ago you could have said that about the Democrats. It's a vicious cycle.

Um. who signed the "Contract with America" though?