Conservatives’ “Special World” Is Not Representative
In an otherwise annoying Simpsons episode about illegal immigration, there is a scene that teaches us a valuable lesson about politics. It’s a lesson we should all remember — especially nowadays.
In the episode, Springfield is preparing to pass “Proposition 24” — a mean-spirited measure designed to throw all immigrants out of Springfield. (Subtleties about illegal immigration are overlooked/minimized in classic liberal fashion.) Homer learns that the measure will result in the deportation of his friend Apu, and his mind is changed. He stands up before an attentive crowd and delivers the following stirring speech:
Most of us here were born in America. We take this country for granted. But not immigrants like Apu. While the rest of us are drinking ourselves stupid, they’re driving the cabs that get us home safely. They’re writing the operas that entertain us every day. They’re training our tigers and kicking our extra points. These people are the glue that holds together the gears of our society. If we pass Proposition 24, we’ll be losing some of the truest Americans of all.
The crowd cheers, and Homer continues:
When you go to the polls tomorrow, please vote No on Proposition on 24.
The crowd begins to chant:
No on 24! No on 24! No on 24! No on 24!
As we watch a montage of citizens marching to the voting booths, we can easily see that Homer’s speech signifies the end of this divisive and ugly law.
Cut to TV newsman Kent Brockman, who announces:
It’s a landslide — Yes on 24! The proposition passed with a record 95 percent . . .
The lesson: just because everyone you know plans to vote a certain way, doesn’t mean the population at large will vote that way.
The phenomenon is nothing new. Recall Pauline Kael’s famous quote about Nixon: “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon.” (Nixon had won the presidential election in a landslide.) Kael’s “special world” did not represent the country — and, most likely, neither does your special world.
The lesson is timeless, but has never been more timely. Over the past few days and weeks we have watched right-wing bloggers and talk radio hosts come out strongly in favor of a genuine conservative (Fred Thompson). When that didn’t work, we shifted our allegiance to a candidate who may not be a strong conservative — but who plays one on TV (Mitt Romney). It has all been for nought. Voters — Republicans, mind you — have voted in droves for John McCain and his unique brand of liberalism masquerading as Reaganesque conservatism.
Meanwhile, here in L.A., talk radio show hosts were (as far as I could tell) unanimous in their withering contempt for a phone tax that politicians stuck on the ballot with the deceptive message that it constituted a tax reduction. In fact, the talk show hosts screamed (accurately), it was a large tax increase — because the slightly higher tax it replaced has been declared illegal by the courts. If you listened closely, you could hear the chant: No on the phone tax! No on the phone tax! No on the phone tax!
It won, with the approval of 79% of the electorate.
Man up, Republicans. You can console yourself with this thought: we are going to lose no matter who we put up. But if we put up McCain, the lesson of the election will be: you can’t win by picking a liberal for your Republican candidate. And maybe the next time around, we’ll get someone who is actually conservative.
Or we won’t. Because, you know, our opinions don’t seem to mean much of anything nowadays.
P.S. As I say in the post immediately below, I will vote for McCain if he is our candidate. Just so there is no misunderstanding.
Huh?
No, the lesson would be don’t listen to the people around us. Rush, Prager, Hannity, etc. These people aren’t representative of Republicans generally.
And then DO support McCain, because we have national polling data saying he’s winning against Hillary, but no data like that for Romney.
With McCain we’re listening nationally, with Romney, we’re listening to a small segment of the population.
The lesson is the opposite of what I think you intend it to be.
Great Simpsons episode, though.
wt (ca1cea) — 2/6/2008 @ 7:44 pmPolitics is like marriage. Things don’t always go the way you want but they usually work out if you hang in there.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 7:52 pmWhy assume that is the reason we’re going to have a Democrat as President? There are lots of reasons McCain could lose: his age, his easily lost temper and prickly personality, his being one of the Keating Five. Even his stance on fighting the war on terror, a position that conservatives agree with, could turn out a clunker with the public. It’s also possible that the public would think McCain would do a bang up job as President but they, heavens forbid, actually prefer the likes of Obama or Clinton.
Having said that, why assume the GOP (McCain) is going to lose? Just because everybody you talk to thinks that will happen doesn’t mean it will come to pass, right? For all we, and Homer, know, a liberal Republican may be just the thing that turns on the voters.
stevesturm (8caabf) — 2/6/2008 @ 7:53 pmPatterico, this sentiment relies on a shocking level of historical ignorance. At this point (actually, even much later), Reagan, Clinton, and many other eventual winners were drastically down in the head-to-head polls. Things, obviously, turned around. So, based on history alone, it is quite incredible that anyone could predict any outcome, let alone make a prediction with your somewhat ridiculous sense of certainty.
To be so fatalistic so far from the election is to adopt the MSM’s endless spin on the state of affairs in the country. But the fact is that a successful Republican candidate can push and define the narrative away from things that hurt Republicans towards things that would help. A conservative, for instance, might have been able to gather a lot of popular support by contrasting the candidates’ stances on immigration, an issue the MSM likes to ignore. But even McCain can change the dynamic by talking about the consequences of a Democrat led withdrawal from Iraq (also something the MSM ignores).
So, in short, neither history nor political insight should lead any observer to be so fatalistic.
Nessuno (01444c) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:01 pmI feel ya, Patterico, I feel ya.
McCain should be running on the Fusion Party ticket because he wanted to change parties but (regrettably relented).
What is it about McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, and a .50 cent global warming tax on the price of a gallon have gasoline do we not understand.
There is only one party: The Fusion Party.
On the Fusion Party there is Obambi (special premium), Billary (premium) and McCain (regular).
Who needs the Republican party any more?
Captain America (18ab22) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:06 pmNessuno,
I’d like to think you’re right. But I’m also realistic. And I believe, in my heart of hearts, that we are going to get HAMMERED.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:08 pmhere in L.A., … a phone tax … won, with the approval of 79% of the electorate.
I think I’m missing your point with this. That means I should now support McCain because what I believe doesn’t matter anymore? Or that they’re going to enact liberal agendas no matter what I do, say or vote for?
Maybe … just maybe .. the reason we don’t matter anymore is because we’ve put our faith, money and votes behind people who have said one thing and done another. Just entertain that possibility, you don’t have to accept it as gospel.
If so, isn’t McCain the biggest icon of that betrayal? Campaigns like a conservative, frolics with the Democrats?
I’m supposed to now reward that with my loyalty?
McCain has won in many cases with less than 40% of the GOP vote. Even in those states he won, he rarely got over 40%.
That means 60% of the GOP voted for someone else.
Maybe I’m a victim of the Old Math … but when a candidate gets the nomination with 40% of the popular vote … something is grossly wrong with the set up.
Good luck to the GOP in November. Since my conservative voice doesn’t matter anymore, I’ll be down by the fishing hole. Y’all drop by and let us know how it is in the big city and all.
AKT (368f89) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:09 pmBut of course I can’t possibly know this to be the case.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:09 pmI think Rush and Hannity are more representatvie fo Republicans than McCain is. I also think they are more in tune w/ the common man than John is. They take calls daily and hear from the man in street constantly, John is busy planning backroom deals w/ which ever liberal has some legislation he wants to roll republicans on.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:18 pmOr we won’t. Because, you know, our opinions don’t seem to mean much of anything nowadays.
This is a little ironic. Last year when moderates were cautioning going overboard in the way the anti-immigration bill was being fearmongered and mischaracterized we felt the same way. Remember the famous poll in which 73% said that enforcement was the priority? Conservatives conveniently ignored the same poll statistic that showed 58% supported some path to citizenship after enforcement. Shamnesty, RINO, CINO, blah blah were the words so dismissively from those who cautioned against the tactics used. Rather than use it as an opportunity to solidify support from LEGAL immigrants by stressing the benefits of enforcement to all, you allowed the wack jobs to frame it in terms and accusations that stoked bias against Hispanics and drove some from the GOP.
But talk radio and far right pundits such as Malkin convinced the conservatives that “deport them now” applied to ALL illegals and there would never be a practical solution to the millions of illegals in the country who weren’t criminals as Patterico described them.
Conservatives and moderates need one another – unfortunately the 12 years of excess and power enjoyed by the conservatives dulled that sentiment.
What is my point? It is this – just as the message about immigration went far off track with the excessive rhetoric, the opportunity for conservatives to exercise positive influence rather than talk of mutiny is quickly evaporating.
All the talk of war and supporting the troops is being forgotten so that 4 – 8 years will “show them” that conservatives are the only viable candidates. You will willingly abandon McCain because you can’t support the party? You willingly will give up the influence you have on forcing the issue of troop support and responsible exercise of our forces because “your pick” didn’t get the nod.
And in the end if you are so unwilling to exert that influence it is my view the troops and their well being were never really a heartfelt commitment – just a convenient talking point similar to the lefties who celebrated with the casualty benchmarks at each thousand point mark.
Whether McCain is elected or not, the issue of the day still needs to be emphasized. If not you, who?
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:26 pmthe only influence we have is our vote and our money. by giving either when the party runs a candidate I cant stomach i give up my influence. voting for McCain would only encourage the party to ignore me cause hey, i’ll vote for anyone w/ an R beside their name. nope, i’ll write someone in and hope the Dem wins so in 2012 the repubs can try to pick someone that can be trusted.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:32 pm#11,
So Chas is on record saying that the troops don’t matter anymore. Check.
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:34 pmVOR2 – I should have asked this in previous post but forgot. What influence will conservatives have when McCain is elected? He has shown that he is very vindictive and holds grudges. I wouldnt put it past him to nominate a Souter if he got the chance just to get back at conservatives. I really doubt we will get a Roberts or an Alito. Would he really nominate someone who would dump all over his signature legislation?
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:34 pmyeah, me and Rush and Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. We just hate the troops. And its us anti-McCainiacs that are called deranged? But the McCain supporters keep using the lib tactics of smear and smear again.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:36 pmChas,
Your influence matters in that the more voices who demand the troop support and utilization as I described force the candidates of both parties to address it and go on record. Being absent leaves the impression that it doesn’t matter anymore.
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:37 pmDo you really think that Hillary Clinton’s record on Iraq is closer to Obama than McCain?
Do me a favor, go Google “Hillary Clinton hawk” then come back and tell me that.
Really, the thing that is damning conservatives right now is that we think we know what we’re talking about when really we assume way too much.
Jimmie (ceffaa) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:37 pmChas,
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:38 pmThe right wing talk radio personalities do this for money and ratings. If you say you support the troops I accept that at face value.
I dont think any Dem will pull troops out no matter how much MoveOn.org and the others kick and scream. They wont want to saddle the party w/ surrendering in Iraq. That would doom them politically. I dont know how they will placate the far left but doubt they will quit and give up the center.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:40 pmVOR2 dont take my word for it, look at the charity work those 3 have done over the years. they constantly support Armed Forces themed charities w/ events and donations and plugs. their actions speak louder than your words.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:41 pmChas,
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:43 pmIt is not JUST Iraq. Do you want another Mogadishu where the use of military forces results in needless deaths? there will be other conflicts. Who are you confident has the ability and competence to utilize and lead them properly?
Donations and plugs mean nothing if you advocate abandoning their utilization in foreign conflicts to leaders who may misuse this responsibility.
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:45 pmdo you think a McCain presidency wouldve prevented that? Hell, McCain possibly would nominate a Les Aspin type for SecDef! the issue of trust is nowhere in sight w/ this guy. he has strayed off the reservation too many times in too many ways for anyone to know what he will do. for all his national security bona fides can you really be sure he wont cut the defense budget to get platitudes in the NYT? cause im not.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:46 pmChas,
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:48 pmYou have confidence in Hillary or Obama to do a better job? Just say so and I will respect your right to your opinion. But quit spinning around in circles.
#21 – no assurances on that no matter who the nominee is. the use/non-use of the military in the past is a very subjective topic.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:50 pmOr we won’t. Because, you know, our opinions don’t seem to mean much of anything nowadays.
Oh, come on. This is just whiny. Democrats were being told loudly to shut up because they lost fair and square not to long ago (not that I recall you doing it). And it isn’t terribly accurate, either – the lockstep voting that the R.s in Congress are pulling is an extremely effective backseat driving maneuver with the current crop of spineless D.s. Stonewalling isn’t just for Wide Stance.
fishbane (fbe4d4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:50 pmYou are spinning again. In one post you speculate about McCain’s conduct but in the next post you caution against speculation.
Yes or no. It is a simple question. Why won’t you answer?
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:51 pmi’m not spinning in circles at all. i have been clear for the past week or more that i will not support mccain or vote for him. i dont care about the dem nominee, im a conservative and i will vote for a conservative.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:51 pmPatterico
Prop 93 went down to defeat regardless of the support of Gov. Arnold and Gray Davis ….
one of my few consolations … no more Fabian Nunez!
Darleen (187edc) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:52 pmThere is anecdotal information that suggests Hillary Clinton does not hold military personnel in high regard. In addition, it’s unlikely she would advocate for military funding and assistance to the extent McCain would.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:53 pmOkay Chas, then by my definition troop support has lost its priority to you. Just admit it and move on.
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:53 pmAnd you still refuse to answer my question re Hillary and Obama.
I thought conservatives had spine and were not afraid to commit to a position….
i have also posted on this website my attitude that 4 or 8 years of either dem wont “destroy” the country. i feel the same about mccain. our country is much much stronger than any political movement. i worry the conservative movement will be setback. which could happen unless there is a bandwagon to elect conservative congress critters this cycle. there is a post on National Review about doing just that to provide a foil to McCain’s flights of fancy w/ the left.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:55 pmThe general will be a slaughter, in part because the left won’t need to campaign against McCain at all. No, as it seems to be turning out the right will do all the dirty work for them.
But look at the bright side, with Hillary or Obama we are likely to get not one thing that we want and no one who will listen when we complain. Which we will, lots.
Education Guy (6218a6) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:57 pmTry these Chas
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/691uddvk.asp
and
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/691uddvk.asp
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:58 pmI’ll admit in your opinion it has. But your opinion means little to me in this regards. And I truly mean no offense when I say that. As the son of parents who both served I dont feel I have to justify my support of the troops to you or anyone. And if you think that not supporting McCain means not supporting the troops you have gone over to the dark side. Its the DU/Kos arguement “we support the troops cause we want to bring them home” in reverse and its just as despicable.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 8:59 pmWell Chas. As someone who served during both of Reagan and Clinton’s terms I think I have a little more understanding of what support for troops and responsible use of them really means.
voiceofreason2 (ee6a34) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:04 pmWe are in a special world. Bloggers and their readers are among the informed segments of the electorate. We can speak knowledgeably about a candidate’s record and his public policy views. And we care about both. Many voters do not. They vote on qualities such as “likability.” See also this video in which hapless Obama supporters could not name even one accomplishment to the man’s credit, but who found him “inspirational,” etc.
Paul S. (289d5e) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:11 pmI have typed and re-typed and re-typed. I keep reading my responses and they are just way too over the top. You are trying to stifle debate by playing the military service card now, my opinion cant possibly matter because I never served. You have based your arguements on “why do you hate America”. I sincerely hope McCain does right by the military but you have no assurances and you should be aware of that by looking at his record. If I told you in 1998 McCain would soon be sponsoring a bill w/ Feingold aimed at suppressing political speech would you have believed me? For all we know he might nominate Kucinich as Sec Def, cause I believe very deeply he will throw a huge bone to Dems if he is elected.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:14 pmPaul – Its very interesting that I find no supporters of Huckabee on the blogs I read. Not among the bloggers or the commenters. Yet this guy is doing as well as Romney who has plenty of support in the blogosphere. Lots of voters out there who still vote by what they see on the 6 o’clock news or the local daily.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:16 pmYou are trying to stifle debate by playing the military service card now, my opinion cant possibly matter because I never served. You have based your arguements on “why do you hate America”
No Chas. You raised your parents service as a reason you understood the needs of the military. I pointed out my service – has nothing to do with you serving or not but rather everything to do with first hand knowledge of the military when used properly and when used improperly.
voiceofreason2 (122910) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:18 pmMy arguments are not based on “Why do you hate America?” They are based on how strong is your commitment to the well being and proper use of the troops.
You continue to dodge answering whether you think Obama or Hillary will do a better job of that than McCain.
i mentioned my parents service cause you keep questioning my support for the troops since i am not lock step for mccain. you mentioned your servce and followed w/ the statement that that gives you a better understanding, therefore attempting to place yourself in a superior position than me on this subject.
i dont know if either dem will do as good as mccain, cause i dont trust mccain to be as good as you think he will. why do you think he is better? because of the way he valiantly fought against clinton dismantling the military in the 90’s? oh wait….
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:21 pmSo, everyone else should just be quiet. VOR has spoken. Give it time, and you will be a racist too.
JD (db086b) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:23 pmChas,
voiceofreason2 (39adf9) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:32 pmIt is not a “superior” position – it is the position of someone who served under Clinton, Reagan and both Bushes. You don’t have that kind of insight.
As for McCain’s role in the nineties, he was one senator among 100. Wasn’t Thompson in that group as well?
Oh look, it’s “voice of reason” on yet another thread, contributing nothing to the discussion while deliberately twisting what respectable posters have said on the topic so he can proclaim hem racist / fascist / anti-American / etc.
What a tiresome schtick.
Shad (8a933a) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:32 pmSo, everyone else should just be quiet. VOR has spoken. Give it time, and you will be a racist too.
Sometimes I think you dream of encountering someone in person who calls you racist. I don’t know what the rest of your dream entails but you keep saying the same thing to me. Find a new line.
voiceofreason2 (39adf9) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:34 pmVOR – Your self proclomation is no less of a debate stopper than screaming chickenhawk at someone. Your service is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the next President will support the military.
JD (db086b) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:35 pmFind a new line.
The irony of that is rich. Thanks.
JD (db086b) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:36 pmhence, I can never debate the subject w/ you, which is the reason for my “stifle the debate” comment. if you wanted an open debate you wouldnt try to put yourself in a superior position on the topic. you just want your views afforded more weight than others. why bring up thompson? you keep mentioning McCain as the savior of the military from the liberal dismantlers and when someone points out his prior lack of support for the military you point the finger at someone else? c’mon, we are talking about McCain. you keep bringing up obama and hillary and now fred!
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:41 pmbtw who is VOR2? didnt you used to comment under a different name? you are someone other than voiceofreason right?
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:42 pmchas – It is the same one.
JD (db086b) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:43 pmon a lighter note, isnt making a video enough? actually going to the polls is asking for just a bit much!
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:44 pmSnce when does between 30-35% of the GOP Electorate qualify as “droves”? That’s about what Mccain has been pulling nationally on average, with just at 30% going for Romney, another 12% for Huckabee, under 10% for Ron Paul, and the rest of the precentage for the GOP candidates that have pulled out. Those percentages are hardly what should be called “droves”. McCain isn’t even pulling a true pluralty of the votes, let alone a majority. Further, with the rest of the states that haven’t had caucuses/primaries yet, Romney and Huckabee are tracking well, and most of those states have caucuses, and not primaries (where McCain has gained most of his delegates).
As far as losing in November, I believe that Romney could pull it out. McCain won’t, Huckabee can’t, and I believe that those are the reasons the latter two are attacking Romney and not each other.
Jason L. (c1b5a0) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:54 pmChas,
voiceofreason2 (39adf9) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:55 pmYou can’t answer a simple question.
Chas hates him some troops, VOR. Yup. Sure does.
JD (db086b) — 2/6/2008 @ 9:59 pmwhat question? the thompson one? well duh! it was so painfully obvious i thought it was rhetorical! but he has dropped out. lets talk about mccain, you cant manage to navigate a straight line. our topic is mccain. try to focus.
oh, and yes fred dalton thompson was in the senate from 1994 – 2003. and that was during the period when clinton gutted our military. the same time period when mccain couldnt use his great bipartisan skills to work across the aisle to pass a mccain-monyihan defense strenghtening bill. funny how his name only ends up on liberal bills.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:02 pmRIGHT Patterico. McCain is dead meat against Obambi or Shrillary.
If their positions on Iraq (pull out now and get defeat while we can) were popular, how come a Democratic Majority in Congress has not done it?
Because a defeat for America is bad politics. When McCain’s campaign was dead, this past Summer, it was because a defeat in Iraq looked certain. Now that it’s all but won, McCain is winning. Why?
Because Americans LOVE A WINNER AND WILL NOT TOLERATE A LOSER.
Simple as that. Ask the re-election campaign of President Jimmy Carter.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:04 pmNo Chas go back to #23 where I said
voiceofreason2 (39adf9) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:05 pm“You have confidence in Hillary or Obama to do a better job? Just say so and I will respect your right to your opinion. But quit spinning around in circles.”
go read my #27, for me its not about obama or hillary or whoever the dems run. i only care about a conservative candidate. i dont think a dem president will destroy the military or the country. i cant say if they will be better than mccain. i can say i would have a better idea of what they will do in a given situation than you would have of what mccain will do.
when will you answer any of the questions i have asked? you do a good job of dodging on the topic of mccain. thats what we were discussing i thought, not the dem nominee. dont debate by distraction.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:11 pmwhen you give a yes or no answer to my original question which was specifically related to McCain – the topic at hand.
voiceofreason2 (39adf9) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:12 pmi dont have a yes or no, i explained my feelings last post. not every question can be answered in a simple direct way, things sometimes are more complex than that. come back after the convention when we know the nominees and we can get very specific then. but for now you continue to doge the issue of mccain and being able to trust him at all. i know what to expect from obama/hillary. no one knows what to expect from mccain. you cant provide any concrete reason a repub should vote for mccain in the primary. you may believe he is the best one for the troops but his record says otherwise.
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:26 pmVoters — Republicans, mind you — have voted in droves for John McCain and his unique brand of liberalism masquerading as Reaganesque conservatism.
In 2006, McCain got a 65 percent conservative rating from the American Conservative Union. In 2005, McCain got 80 percent. His lifetime rating is 82.3.
This appears more the profile of a moderate who used to be a moderate conservative, than a liberal.
Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:31 pmI found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Kacin Alexander
Kacin Alexander (a61ea3) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:37 pmPat is correct – the GOP faces the wrong end of historical trends, and currently is trailing horribly in the generic ballot polling. I can’t quote the pollster who specializes in historic polling (it wasn’t Barone) but he said that never had a party won the presidency with such a generic poll result in January of an election year. These polls predicted that the Dems would have a minimum 49 Senators and would win the House with at least 21 additional members, and most likely 25.
For me, this is 1976 all over again. The country was hell bent on punishing the eeeeevil Republicans for Nixon’s perfidy. Ford was very much a McCain Republican – a moderate’s moderate who had a very high (imo good) sense of what honor is and should mean.
It was better for the GOP that Ford took a drubbing. It paved the way for the Reagan revolution. If Romney is the man he is currently portraying himself to be, he’ll take the oath of office in 1/2013 (assuming God blesses our Republic in the meantime).
Ed (684be6) — 2/6/2008 @ 10:38 pmThis appears more the profile of a moderate who used to be a moderate conservative, than a liberal.
Come on, man. Spot me a little hyperbole.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:02 pmThe GOP did not take a drubbing in 1976.
The difference was less than 10,000 votes in Hawaii and Ohio.
Karl (7f1d34) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:53 pmThe Libertarian Party now offers the most sensible alternative for limited government conservatives. They’ll have at least 45 state ballot status, more likely 48. And Wayne Root, “Mr. Millionaire Republican” is likely to be their nominee. Or it could be Bob Barr or Gary Johnson?
I’m a libertarian Republican Mitt Romney supporter. If Mitt bows out, I’m voting Libertarian at the top of the ticket, and Republican for Congressional races.
Eric Dondero (7c8e7c) — 2/7/2008 @ 4:09 amThere is no such thing as a perfect voting system. One of the flaws of the plurality system is vote splitting. In this case, conservatives votes were divided among several good candidates, so none of them beat McCain. There’s also the fact that in several states non-Republicans were allowed to vote in our primaries.
And McCain’s ACU rating has been dropping in recent years, his average for 1998-2006 was only 74. The only Republicans more consistently liberal than McCain are Spectre, Collins, and Snowe. Chafee would be in that group, except he was defeated last election by a Democrat running to his right.
LarryD (feb78b) — 2/7/2008 @ 7:04 amThe ACU rating is determined only by looking at votes. Votes certainly are important, yes, but they certainly don’t caputre the whole picture. Example: a bill is introduced by conservatives. It is written with conservative principles in mind. Senator M works against the bill with vigor and manages to make sure it will fail. Only after making assurances that bill will fail does Senator M vote for the bill. Why in this case the Senator just got a positive ACU rating, all while working against a bill that advances conservative principles. The ACU rating shows a trend from stalwart to moderate, and McCain certainly has worked against conservative principles behind the scenes and in front of the Media.
bonhomme (063f7a) — 2/7/2008 @ 9:24 amWhat’s left here are the people who can be fooled all of the time.
Andrew Lazarus (ef9ec1) — 2/7/2008 @ 1:40 pmThere was one other good scene in that annoying episode, at the end where Homer rightly claimed to be a native American, while Apu declared himself an American Indian.
Xrlq (b65a72) — 2/7/2008 @ 3:25 pmWhat’s left here are the people who can be fooled all of the time.
Comment by Andrew Lazarus — 2/7/2008 @ 1:40 pm
That’s why we keep laughing at you Andrew. You’re kinda special that way. Don’t ever change.
daleyrocks (906622) — 2/7/2008 @ 5:34 pm“There was one other good scene in that annoying episode, at the end where Homer rightly claimed to be a native American, while Apu declared himself an American Indian.”
– Xrlq
C’mon, there was more than “one other good scene”.
Like when Apu passes his citizenship test: “YES! I’m a citizen! Now, which way to the Welfare Office? I’m kidding! I work, I work…”
Leviticus (68eff1) — 2/8/2008 @ 8:36 am