The Battle of Saddleback Church

The two major presidential candidates recently participated in a debate hosted by the enormous and influential Saddleback Church in California and moderated by its ultra-famous pastor, the author of the heavily-merchandised The Purpose-Driven Life, Rick Warren.  Byron York has two good columns on the subject, here and here.  I'd like to comment on another, poorer, column, which can be found here.

Joan Walsh's monstrosity bears the title, "Are We Now an Officially Christian Nation?"  Like, are we now officially using the word "officially" a bit too loosely?

I marvel at Barack Obama's courage going into the lion's den of evangelical Saddleback Church, where the membership skews Republican.  I truly believe his kind of leadership will be crucial in moving the country forward after the polarizing Bush administration.

Pay attention, by the way, to what Joan Walsh apparently considers courageous, and what she does not.  Anyway, the concept of the "polarizing Bush administration" has always been somewhat laughable to me, especially considering his early, concerted, rebuffed efforts at reaching out--think No Child Left Behind, which was widely panned at the time by conservatives as pandering to the Senate Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, whose partnership was critical to the bill's passage.  But no matter; after all, according to the Left's definition of "bipartisan"--"We all agree that liberals are actually right"--Bush's would be a fairly polarizing presidency.  And that's just about the only way Barack Obama's presidency wouldn't be.

McCain occasionally does semi-courageous political jaunts--he went on an American poverty tour this spring, but when nobody was looking, at the height of the Obama-Clinton race, and (more to his credit) he visited the NAACP last month.

Oh, and McCain was kinda-sorta courageous when he visited the NAACP.  And he, erm, didn't do it as a political stunt.  But those guys'll only make TV ads that suggest Republican politicians are personally responsible for lynchings; the evangelicals are just vicious!

Walsh plays up his being "comfortable talking about his Christian faith."  All right, but then:

On the other hand, that bothered me a little bit too.  I'm not sure why Obama voluntarily sat down for a nationally televised conversation about his private religious faith with a relatively conservative Christian leader, as though that's a reasonable station of the cross, so to speak, for a major American presidential candidate.  There's no doubt Rick Warren's congregation has done good things on social justice issues, especially AIDS, but Warren has made no secret of his extreme views on abortion and gay rights (as well as his support for the Iraq War).  Obama visiting the church, speaking there?  Smart politics.  Attending a nationally televised forum, almost as big a deal as a debate, at such a church?  I think that was wrong.

Where do I start here?  Of course it bothered her; she clearly finds Christians, on the whole, distasteful.  (Unless, of course, they can be Christians who, like Obama, use their religion mostly as a vehicle for liberal politics.)  Beyond that, Walsh not only doesn't understand why a presidential candidate should take part in a debate held by evangelical Christians; she thinks it was "wrong." (!)  Wrong to address a major group of voting citizens, wrong to allow evangelical Christianity, as an institution, to influence our government.  Clearly, the only institutions that should be allowed to influence politics are liberal special-interest lobbying groups like the NAACP, NARAL, moveon.org, and so on.  You know, people who don't hold "extreme views" (read: views that are different from mine).  And if Walsh thinks that opposing the defining-down of marriage and believing that life begins at conception are "extreme" views, she's either been spending too much time on the Left Coast or watching too much TV.  As far as Obama's "private" religious views, we might remember Russell Kirk and the fact that all political disagreements are, at their root, theological disagreements.  We might also remember C.S. Lewis:  "No Christian and, indeed, no historian could accept the epigram which defines religion as 'what a man does with his solitude.'"

Oh, by the way, Walsh thinks Warren treated McCain much better than Obama.  He kept saying "mhmm" and "um-hm" during Obama's answers!  For a member of the mainstream media, you'd think she'd have seen bias before; of course, I suppose seeing isn't perceiving.  She probably never noticed it until this savage example of partisanship.

The next paragraph is simply so trite, so filled with unabashed vapidity, that I find myself unable to post it all at once.  It must be enjoyed bite by bite.  "I thought he used this opportunity...to hammer home his worldview and the specific policies he knows he and Saddleback members have in common--from the Supreme Court justices he wouldn't reappoint to arguing his crazy hawkish view on the Russia-Georgia conflict."  In the first place, are we twelve, Ms. Walsh?  "Crazy hawkish"?  Beyond the teeny-bopper lingo, I guess it just doesn't take much to be a "hawkish" these days, considering that McCain's response to Russia's invasion of Georgia is to...I don't know, say it was wrong?  Oh, and he wants to "persuade the Russian government to end violence permanently and withdraw its troops from Georgia," place "international monitors" in "war-torn areas," and "ensure that emergency aid lifted by air and sea is delivered."  Quit harshing my conquest!

"My reaction to that creepy pandering was, simply, oy.  But the crowd loved it."  Does it really amount to "creepy pandering" when a presidential candidate says something the crowd agrees with?  Ms. Walsh does know that, despite the likely political composition of her own personal group of friends, there are people out there who sincerely believe differently from her, doesn't she?  Those people voting Republican aren't just hoaxes perpetrated by the military-industrial complex, represented primarily by Halliburton.  (But how could such people live in a civilized state, like California?  Indeed.)

I shudder even to place the next one on my blog, but I must press on:  "He played his prisoner of war role to great advantage as well."  Let's remember the "courage" of Barack Obama, at which Ms. Walsh "marveled."  What exactly is her definition of courage, anyway?  Simply being someone with whom she agrees?  John McCain wasn't an actor in a movie in which he was a prisoner of war.  Nor was his camp like Bridge Over the River Kwai or Stalag 13.  He was actually tortured.  Ms. Walsh, unlike you or Barack Obama, the most difficult period of his life wasn't the WGA writer's strike, or that time there was a really long line at Starbucks.  I'm not saying that makes him a better presidential candidate; I'm not really saying anything about him.  But this statement reveals not only Ms. Walsh's fatal unseriousness, but also an unseriousness that plagues society in general.  Despite recent complaints, we have more material prosperity than has ever existed in the world; very few can remember a time when things were much worse.  It's no wonder, then, that people forget what it took to generate and sustain this prosperity.

"I'm sure he did himself a little bit of a favor just by going.  We'll see.  The Jesus I believe in wishes he hadn't felt he had to, but maybe that's just me."  Ms. Walsh, I suspect that it's more than just "maybe":  The Jesus you believe in, evidently, is just you.

Grudgingly, McCain

If you look back at the entire run of this blog--maybe four and a half months--you will find that I was not always the prospective McCain-votin' blogger that I am now. In fact, I wrote scathingly about the man in several posts. I seriously contemplated rebelling and voting third party or not at all. But back then, I wasn't a college graduate, and now I am, and with that--apparently--has come maturity. McCain's got my vote this November.

That's not to say that McCain has gotten better, or my principles have changed. He has my grudging support in the same way that Eisenhower and Nixon had the reluctant endorsement of National Review in their times. Today, there is no single publication that has the influence among consevatives that National Review did then--which is, of course, a good thing. But some conservative publications have been less than responsible in their treatment of this presidential race. Ron Paul got a lot of traction and gained a small, loyal following of the same extremist, right-wing isolationists that William F. Buckley kicked out of the movement half a century ago. Certain blogs--admittedly, 0nce including my own--have kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism against McCain, even as he has become the clear Republican candidate and even as he will clearly face Barack Obama, the most radical leftist ever to gain the Democratic nomination.

John McCain has some views that are extremely distasteful to conservative ears. He wants government to take immediate, costly action to solve a global warming that no one knows is coming or what its effects might be. He still thinks his unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill was a good idea. His attempts at passing a disguised amnesty bill for illegal aliens are well-documented. He even has the funny idea that the salaries of corporate executives are somehow the people's business. (Mac: The stockholders can pay their executives whatever they want. It's their money. For now, anyway.)

On the other hand, he's light-years ahead of Barack Obama and his platform full of the same old liberal "solutions" and, somehow, also full of "change." Even more than that, McCain has some policy plans that provide a good first step toward a decline in the size and scope of government. He will certainly be better on judges than Obama, who would certainly nominate the sort of activist judges that have been the Left's major mechanism for advancing their agenda during the last decade. McCain has also not shown the sort of naivete and downright ignorance Obama has in discussing foreign affairs.

Although the principles he espoused were timeless, I believe that we are reaching the end of the Reagan Era, politically. His landmark election in 1980 reorganized American politics, just as Roosevelt's election did in 1932. John McCain is not quite the visionary one wants representing one's party at such a time, but he can be a good delaying tactic while we find someone who is. Moreover, we need to refocus from stopping the long march of increasing government and start developing strategies for shrinking it and presenting to the American people a vision of a freer nation.

But this sort of progress will only come about through the Republican Party, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. Philosophies are not electoral forces, but party organizations are. Just as the Reaganites did in the Seventies, we need to work to promote real conservatism, a real agenda of freedom, in the party that will have us. And sometimes that means holding your nose and punching the ticket for Gerald Ford.

And Speaking Of Vice Presidents...

...the prolific Captain Ed writes today about the men many consider McCain's top two potential picks, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and South Carolina governor Mark Sanford:

Both men have received quite a bit of attention from those making early VP predictions. Both have recently won re-election as governors, and both have been at least center-right in their governance, with Sanford probably more reliably conservative and Pawlenty dealing with a more opposition-dominated legislature. Both governors are relatively young and potentially good candidates for a later presidential run for the GOP.

Conservatives have expressed a great deal of hesitation in climbing aboard McCain bandwagon, mostly on the basis of the two issues York mentions. They may find themselves energized by the addition of a running mate willing to dissent on McCain's positions on immigration and on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold.

I'm cheered to see that Mark Sanford is gaining serious consideration for the VP spot, but Pawlenty's inclusion is a downer. As Jason Lewis has highlighted repeatedly on his excellent radio show on KTLK in Minneapolis--whose podcast is featured on the left sidebar of this blog--Tim Pawlenty has been a big disappointment to conservatives on the serious issue of global warming. And that can't be chalked up to an opposition legislature; he is regularly absent from the business of governing the state of Minnesota in order to attend global warming conferences calling for more restrictive legislation to curb our freedoms for the sake of bogus and highly politicized science.

If McCain believes that Pawlenty will deliver Minnesota, which has been relatively close in recent elections, for him, he's mistaken. The Republican Party there has had serious problems with their governor, and his choice as VP will not only likely turn the governor's office over to the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, the name for Minnesota's Democratic Party), but will also reinforce conservatives' disaffection for the Arizona senator.

But conventional wisdom says that if you want to win an area of the country that your party struggles with, you choose a running mate from that area. I expect Pawlenty to be chosen over the Southerner Mark Sanford, whose conservative credentials are unquestionable.

Captain Ed's words about a future Pawlenty presidential run are also worrying, since a definitive McCain Caucus has been taking shape, including many members of the Conservative Eye-Poker Caucus like Lindsay Grahamnesty (R, Mexico City) and, of course, Tim Pawlenty (R., Scandinavia). If a McCain presidency were to be followed by a Pawlenty nomination, fears that the Republican Party is moving in a new, more statist, direction will be confirmed.

Ronald Reagan was the right man at the right time; so, I believe, was Dubya. Where is our right man this time?

The Theme Of The 2008 Prez Race: Ugh

I haven't made it much of a secret that I don't like the idea of voting for John McCain this November. But this is a fantastic post written by Captain Ed Morrissey on the subject; here's an excerpt:

The election will present American voters with real choices on policy, especially on taxation, foreign policy, expansion of government, and national security issues, despite the complaints of the disappointed. It also provides a stark choice on the direction of the judiciary.

At least two Supreme Court justices will likely leave in the next four years, both of them from the Left, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The election will determine whether the court continues to turn in a more constructionist direction, forcing policy back to Congress where it belongs, or whether activists can outlast the constructionists. Jurists nominated by Obama or Hillary will have a much different idea of the Supreme Court's role than those nominated by McCain.

Captain Ed generalizes all anti-McCainiacs into the Coulter camp who believes that Hillary is to the right of McCain or that McCain and the Dems have no real policy differences, and that's unfortunate, since it leaves no room for those who oppose McCain for tactical reasons, like me. However, the post highlights one reason to vote for McCain that's hard to ignore: the positive direction in recent years of the Supreme Court.

The fact that Stevens and Ginsburg could leave soon makes a vote for John McCain very tempting. The Supreme Court was originally designed to be the guardian of the Constitution, and has instead tried to rewrite that document, much for the worse. Two new young originalist judges would solidify the constructionist majority for years; even a second FDR would have trouble packing the court, since there's no way for him to hold office for thirteen years. A wholesale shift in the way the Supreme Court treats legislation--using the Constitution less as a "living document" and more as a foundation for freedom and limited government--could potentially dampen or counteract whatever negative effects McCain could have on American conservatism.

However, that assumes that McCain's appointments to the bench would be constructionists. As I've written before, I think there has to be some skepticism about McCain's willingness to fight Senate Demcrats intent on interpreting the "advise and consent" clause as carte blanche to pick Supreme Court justices instead of the president. Still, the "Gang of Fourteen" issue may have been a bit overblown, and it certainly is a plus that we still have the power to filibuster now that Republicans are in the minority. The "nuclear option" would be a terrible irony right now for Senate Republicans.

I think I shall still wait and see whom John McCain picks as his running mate. Whatever happens this election season, we need to make sure that there's a good conservative leader to run in 2012 or 2016.

The McCain Attack and Switft Boat Vets

Back from a busy morning schedule!

Michelle Malkin has had a few posts about the relationship between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the John McCain hit piece by The New York Times.

I once saw a cartoon posted on someone's door here at Michigan State that had Karl Rove trying to convince Plato that something was true if it was repeated over and over again. I think that more accurately applies to the MSM.

Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? They were a 527 committee comprised of former swift boaters who revealed the truth about John Kerry's military record. Despite the fact that their claims could not seriously be disputed, they were castigated as vicious political hit men with an agenda. In reality, the MSM was trying to cover for a politician who lied to Congress about what he actually did in Vietnam.

The drive-by of John McCain is of a totally different quality. Why? Well, first of all, it was shoddy reporting. There's really no evidence that John McCain ever had an affair with the woman in question. Second, it was released by an allegedly major news institution at exactly the time when it would deal the most damage, even though they had the "story" for three months. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told just that: the truth. And in this a 527 committee outdid The New York Times, which instead resorted to hearsay and rumors, more fitting for a tabloid than an objective news source. The Grey Lady is losing circulation, and this isn't a step in the right direction.

The New York Tabloid

This is all over the Blogosphere, but I got it from Powerline Blog.

Remember those rumors that the news media knew that one of the presidential candidates was having an affair, but they didn't want to release it because it was kind of a cheap shot? Well, it appears as though they found out when they should use it; right when the alleged adulterer won his party's nomination. I wonder which party? The evidence isn't even all that great; this is just plain old bad reporting by a once-great national news institution.

The media's backstabbing of media-friendly John McCain is one of the most predictable stories of the election. They will always, always, always back whichever candidate is more liberal, and hopefully that's always the Democrat. It certainly will be this election.

Expect The Expected

Chris over at Apologies Demanded notes that Fred Thompson has endorsed John McCain for President of the United States.

You had to figure that was going to happen. FDT was our hero for a short time, the only true conservative in the Republican primary. John McCain, on the other hand, had joined ranks with the likes of Republican Senate colleagues Arlen Specter and Trent Lott in the Conservative Eye-Pokers Caucus. However, no conservative (I think) really believes that John McCain won't be the better of the two major candidates running. And either John McCain or his eventual Democratic nominee, whether that is the Obamessiah or Hillatrix LeStrange, must win the presidency. For many Republicans, that is a convincing enough argument to vote for McCain, even if they disagree with him on many issues. And that's okay; we should respect that. We don't differ in substance, but in strategy. I think that four years of a socialist Democrat in the White House might be worth it if conservatives can send a strong message to the Republican party that they need to be respected.

It isn't interesting that Fred endorsed McCain, based on their friendship and Fred's predictable and honorable unwillingness to help the worse candidate win. The people to watch will be Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin. If they (and especially Michelle Malkin) relent and embrace McCain, it will be a sure signal that any conservative ploy to skip the election will fail miserably.

Helprin Barges Clumsily In

J. C. Watts's reasonable, somewhat pro-McCain column is followed by this piece of garbage from Mark Helprin.

This is perhaps the worst part:

Along comes John McCain, who has an 80% positive rating from the American Conservative Union but who as a truly independent soul does not fit, at the margins, some of the transient notions of what makes a conservative. Because of his independence and flexibility, he is the only Republican candidate who has a chance of winning, and thus preserving the core principles of conservatism, in relation to which he is unimpeachable. They are national security (in particular the strength of the military after Iraq and vis-à-vis China and a resurgent Russia), Constitutionalism (as in individual vs. collective rights), and the economy (free markets vs. government industrial policy).

...although his words for talk radio are absurd, as well. (Still..."transient notions." Ugh.) Mr. Helprin's column is by a wide margin more vitriolic and angry, and simultaneously contains less depth and erudition, than the average monologue from Rush or my personal favorite Rush stand-in, Jason Lewis (whose show podcast you can listen to on the sidebar over on the left). It's the same Old Media trope: those crazy people who don't write for newspapers or appear on network news! Thinking they have a right to comment on issues! This cannot stand! This is just more evidence that McCain represents the old, country club wing of the party: all the old-timers and conventional-media pundits are telling everyone else to shut up and get in line.

By the way, Mr. Helprin, conservatism's core principle (singular) is this: freedom at home, strength abroad. How exactly do restrictive global warming measures and an open-borders policy advance those goals?

Most absurdly, he talks of Huckabee as talk radio's savior against John McCain. Incredible.

The Change of Audacity. Err...The Hope of Change!...Erm....

Are all these words more than just cliches to sell a book? (Ahem.) Not according to former U.S. Representative J. C. Watts, one of the all-time greats. (We'll forgive him for having been a star football player at the Oklahoma "University".)

Until we have the political courage to take on mandatory spending reforms -- which not many presidents are going to be willing to do -- there will never be change.

President Bush took a stab at reforming Social Security and got stabbed right back by Republicans and Democrats alike. So we continue to waste good money in bad models of delivery.

The number one threat to our economy in the coming century is going to be the huge government entitlement programs that will spin out of control with far greater fury than military spending. Social Security transfers money from twenty- and thirty-year olds and delivers it to the single wealthiest group of Americans: the elderly. Medicare crowds out private insurance and drives up the cost of health care by artificially reducing demand. Don't even ask about the bureaucratic mess both of these programs entail, which also costs significant cash and will only get worse as more people retire. These programs, which Rep. Watts notes are on "auto-pilot" (because entitlements are mandatory, not discretionary, spending), are the real budget busters. We need someone who will stand up against that. And Rep. Watts says we aren't getting it.

Incidentally, Watts decries conservatives who reject McCain, and on the points he brings up, he's right. McCain has certainly been good on spending and life issues. However, the global warming hoax he embraces should be an automatic no-go for serious fiscal conservatives--and the same goes for Huck--since it threatens much more serious and lasting economic damage to the United States.

American Politics Is Weird Lately

The worst part about Romney dropping out is that it not only means that only John McCain is left, it also results in Ron Paul getting over 20% in a caucus. Not that he won. But it's the principle of the thing.

Anyway, things could get better. I think John McCain will actually end up picking a real conservative as his VP, which is a necessary and sufficient condition to secure my vote. I just hope it's someone who can run for president in four or eight years; so, in other words, let it not be Phil Gramm.

Then again, things could get worse. After all, Barack Obama might be, as far as policy is concerned, the worst American presidential candidate since Jimmah Carter or George McGovern. Heaven help us all.

Well, at least Obama is an ethical, nice guy. Just look at this deceptive attack ad against John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):



Captain Ed Morrissey tackles the dishonesty in this ad here, in typical brilliant fashion.

"Conservative Principles Are Timeless..."

The Wall Street Journal's Alfred S. Regnery today writes about how John McCain can reach out to conservatives.

First, he suggests nominating a conservative--specifically, Gov. Mark Sanford--as his VP rather than Lieberman, backstabbing Florida governor Crist, or Rudy Giuliani. Good idea!

Anyway, the column is good, but the best lines are these:

John McCain needs conservatives more than conservatives need John McCain. Those conservatives who are old enough recall the words of the last Senator from Arizona who ran for our highest office. I'd rather be right than president, said Barry Goldwater in 1964, to the wild cheers of his supporters. Conservative principles are timeless, and will outlast any politician.

Inspiration for real conservatives, and loathsome words to McCainiacs who now will go from insulting conservatives to attempting to coerce them into supporting their guy. (Don't be fooled when someone pushes the Iraq War or Supreme Court issue at you; does anyone really think a Democratic president will shoot himself in the foot by withdrawing troops just when order has been almost restored? Does anyone think a President McCain will really be able to appoint quality judges while working cozily with the Democratic-majority legislature? Get real.)Election 2008, Rudy Giuliani

A Little Levin-ing...

(Via Michelle Malkin)

Mark Levin discusses McCain's putative nomination.

To say, from one's computer keyboard, that the Reagan coalition should unify behind McCain to prevent the specter of a Clinton or Obama presidency is, I believe, wishful thinking. Even here, where the smartest minds are trying to make the case, some use the perverse argument that Reagan wasn't all that conservative anyway, and that's a reason to back McCain. Not only does this defy history, but it offends those who lived through that history and were shaped by it. Moreover, Republican voters won't buy it. McCain is sitting on a one-legged stool, having broken the two other legs.

I think one important focus of Reagan conservatives should be to do all they can to protect as many Republican seats in the House as possible. There needs to be at least one elected part of our government that might be in a position to stem what could be a very unpleasant four years.

Bingo! More on this later.

The McVeep

Who will McCain choose as his running mate once this terrifying primary season has concluded?

Mark Tapscott says he should announce his intention to select Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK), my favorite senator and an imposing porkbuster who is widely despised by free-spending senators from both sides of the aisle. Captain Ed Morrissey responds that he likely needs to keep the Huckabee option open for political purposes, at least until he's wrapped up the Republican nomination. I agree with Mark Tapscott here; Huckabee may be keeping up his candidacy because he hopes to be McCain's vice president, but it is not at all clear that Huckabee's supporters would flock to Romney more than to McCain, and there is much evidence to the contrary.

Actually, McCain's inclusion of either Tom Coburn or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, another staunch anti-pork pol, might convince me to come out of the cave and cast my vote for McAmnesty, since it would at least give a real conservative a good chance to win the next contested election. Tom Coburn could use the executive position, since he's only been a legislator, and Sanford could use the national exposure.

Here's another interesting scenario: McCain could offer the vice presidency slot to a conservative (say, Sanford), and that conservative could refuse. Perhaps that could gain our conservative hero a national following among conservatives, deal a body blow to McCain's outreach to conservatives, and encourage conservatives to stay home and start working on the 2010 mid-terms. My only worry is that it could further break apart the Republican Party, our only vehicle for advancing the causes of liberty and national sovereignty. (Vocally opposing McCain when he's the Republican nominee also threatens this, but I believe it's a good calculated risk.)

Ugh...

...Well, I never thought I'd say this but...GO HILLARY! We need someone to beat in 2012!

Since it seems that the McCain Party will be the new masters of the Republican Party, I shall be taking my vote elsewhere. I encourage all conservatives to do the same.

Another great decision by the party that gave you such inspirational moderates as Dole and Ford, and that impeccable fusion candidate, Richard Nixon.

Sit this one out, folks!!

GOP Adrift, Conservatism Confused

Michelle Malkin notes that a session at the Conservative Political Action Convention will be titled, "Is the GOP Lost?"

First, as far as the GOP is concerned, we do need to be worried. It's troubling that we couldn't coalesce around a single, broadly conservative candidate (unless, that is, Romney does in fact prevail today). I myself have said that I would not vote for McCain in a general election, and I stand by that. There is some talk, however, of starting a new conservative party or simply quitting on the Republican Party, and I can't go along with that. We do not have a parliamentary system, in which we would have influence based on the number of votes we get. It's a first-to-the-finish-line system, and thus you have to build a coalition and there can only be two major parties. Like it or not, the Republican Party must be our vehicle (barring some major switch between the parties, which is not unprecedented).

The only real alternative is to find ways to reclaim our party. The first way is not to vote for McCain in the upcoming presidential race, if indeed he is the nominee; we need to send a strong message to establishment Republicans that they're going to have to listen to us or lose. Second we always need to be working at the local level, engaging in debate and convincing our fellow Republicans of the virtues of a free market, a strong military, and a dedication to family values. I fear that conservatism's ascendancy lulled us into a false sense of security, and now we're discovering that voters' conceptions of what it means to be conservative have become confused. A lot of work went into launching the Reagan Revolution; we'll need a lot more to anchor again a party adrift from the ideals of freedom and human dignity that are too easy to cast by the wayside in favor of, as Rush says, "gutless" liberalism and collectivism.

My Qualified Endorsement of Romney

The Wall Street Journal Online posts about the danger to conservatism of a Romney presidency. Here's a particularly important bit:

The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy.

Yes, well, we know. Unlike the sort of conservative many of us on the Right would prefer, Romney is more dedicated to "fixing problems"--a buzzword for making compromises that feel good, sound nice, win popularity, and punt the problem to the next generation--than to liberty. This only highlights what a tragedy Thompson's failure as a candidate was.

But the choice is down to McCain and Romney. There are two issues on which I base my preferences: 1) What are the candidates' policy positions or their underlying philosophies, and 2) What would the effect of this candidate's election be on the conservative movement? The second criterion immediately cancels out McCain: he reserves his greatest hatreds (and this guy can hate!) for conservatives, not liberals, and as the leader of the Republican Party he would leave conservatives without a home. He doesn't score too well by the first criterion, either. I'd maybe rate him a 6 out of 10 in the first, a 3 out of 10 on the second, for an average of 4.5/10.

So, on to Romney. I'd give him maybe a 7.5 on the issues; not good, not great, basic balance between strong conservative and mushy conservative. At the very least, he seems like the right personality to reform massive federal agencies and find decent solutions to entitlement programs, and has shown a federalist streak from what I've heard of him. As for a Romney administration's effect on conservatism, I would perhaps give him a 6. He's shown an ability to resonate with and listen to conservatives that is attractive in any presidential candidate. Score him at an average of 6.75, and we have ourselves a clear front-runner.

(Incidentally, Hillary would score maybe a 4 on the issues and a 8 for effect on the conservative base, for an average of 6. Ahead of McCain! Barack gets maybe a 2 on the issues and a 6 for effect on conservatism, for an average of 4. Worst case scenaro: Obama presidency. Have a care.) (Thompson: 8 and 8; average = 8. *large sigh*)

A Conservative Leader Speaks

Ann Coulter, the epitome of wit and grace on the Right, has formally announced that she will vote for Hillary over McCain. I cannot tell you the level of excitement of the Wandering Wolverine that we are on the same side of this issue.

Drudge is also putting the old news about McCain approaching Tom Daschle to switch parties in 2001 on the top of his page. Yawn. It's all about being electable! Nothing like having a male and a female version of the same candidate running against each other to increase voter turnout, by the way.

Who is the most liberal senator?

(From the indispensable Captain's Quarters Blog:)

That would be Barack Obama, according to the national rankings done by National Journal. With a liberal rating of 95.5 out of 100. Who would've known? Hmmm....

Captain Ed makes sure to analyze John McCain's ratings, too. Just as I suspected, a decent lifetime conservative rating (71.8), and in the last three years for which he was scored (2004-2006), all scores in the fifties. Crazy.

McCain vs Reagan

Not again! Yes, again. Sorry, guys, I promise to get off of McCain's back for at least one post and offer up my take on the b-ball game tonight against Minnesota. (You can watch it at 7 PM Eastern on the Big Ten Network or you can listen live at www.mgoblue.com.) And be sure to check out www.umhoops.com for their excellent pre- and post-game analysis.

But for now: Michelle Malkin compares the words of John McCain in last night's presidential debate with the words of Ronald Reagan, whose mantle McCain has claimed.

McCain: Tested, Proven, Never

I know I've been harping on McCain lately. It's something I can't seem to help. But I have some more thoughts on the presumptive Republican nominee.

When voting for any office, I always worry about whether or not my candidate is going to "grow in office." ("Grow in office" is a phrase that means "become more liberal." Becoming more conservative not only never happens to anyone in a position of power, but it is also never considered growth.) It seems as though it can happen to anyone.

But with John McCain, we already have the answer. He ran against George W. Bush for the nomination in 2000, discovered that he could earn the press's love and attention, and suddenly became a "maverick." Far from being the only person who can unite the Reagan conservatives, John McCain declared war on them. He built up his independent image by hinting at (but never actually) switching parties. I don't want my presidential candidate to think about what the New York Times says about him, except to relish their hatred of him. John McCain ain't that guy.

There's a reason that nearly every column supporting McCain cites his 82 lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union. His lifetime rating is meaningless; what is his rating since 2000? I'm betting it isn't quite so good. From immigration to judges, from taxes to the environment, John McCain has had only kind words for liberal colleagues and only disdain and often outright malice toward conservatives.