Friday, February 08, 2008

Critics of McCain's Critics Want Leftward Tilt

By David Limbaugh, for Newsmax

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:10 AM

Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential front-runner John McCain?

What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?

"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.

John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?

If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain — ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.

It's easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That's what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a "Goldwater for President" T-shirt.

They've said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.
I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he's far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.

Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain's untrustworthiness. For the record, I can't see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We're not there yet.

We're in the primary season, and there's nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can't hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?

The idea that our party can't recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan versus Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.

McCain's relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It's just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.

One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.

Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven't been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.

Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government — excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.

And then there's the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that's unnecessary. All three stools — and more — of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.

Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn't mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.

But would the critics of McCain's critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You're the ones who need to chill out.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at


© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

A Timely Parable

While walking down the street one day, a U.S. senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in Heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," said the senator.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy. He has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit Heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now, choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers. "Well, I would never have said it before. I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."

So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell.

The doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags, as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.

"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday, I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, danced and had a great time. Now, it's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened"?

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday, we were campaigning. Today, you voted."


Three Things to Ponder:

1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments

C O W S - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S - The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this:

You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians...It creates a hostile work environment.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Jackie Mason asks: "Camelot - or a Cesspool?"

To view the entire article, visit

Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Camelot - or a cesspool?
By Jackie Mason

Posted: February 5, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The Kennedys recently endorsed Barack Obama, and Teddy Kennedy drew a parallel with President Kennedy - a vision of a new Camelot rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the Bush administration. Either he was addressing the largest group of amnesiacs ever gathered in one place in history, or the media and much of America has been eating funny mushrooms and is in the throes of a mass delusion.

Back to reality: The late President Kennedy bears responsibility for the initiation of one of the bleakest episodes in modern American history - the Vietnam War. Only because Khrushchev had more common sense than he did, we avoided an enormous catastrophe. After the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Russian's secret files were opened, we learned, among other bits of knowledge - such as the fact the Rosenbergs were indeed Russian atomic spies - that there were functioning deployed short- and mid-range atomic missiles in Cuba. If we ever, as threatened, tried to land troops directly after the Bay of Pigs debacle on Cuban shores, our troops would have been slaughtered - one missile, thousands of Americans annihilated. This is all not to mention that the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs was authorized by Kennedy himself, and then he left the Cuban patriots out to dry by withholding promised air support.

Many of Kennedy's private and Cabinet sessions were secretly recorded, and many years later, one of these recordings from the time of the Bay of Pigs episode reveals Kennedy musing that for a president to go down in history he has to have a war. "Where would Lincoln be without the Civil War?"

A cynic might therefore suggest that Kennedy's trip to the brink of a nuclear holocaust was not a result of his inexperience but, rather, it had a more selfish origin. On the domestic front, he accomplished little, and his promises had to be delivered by President Johnson. He did, however, inaugurate the White House revolving door policy as far as women were concerned, and even in this area it needed a subsequent president - Clinton - to bring it to a point of perfection.

The other members of the Kennedy bunch are also hardly poster boys for responsible government - or even human beings. The liberals hug Robert Kennedy's memory, but choose not to remember that he personally authorized the wiretaps on Dr. Martin Luther King. He also carried on the president's policies and, as in many families, certain traditions, such as passing down clothing from an older to younger child - only they did this with women. The most well-known of these involved the late Marilyn Monroe. After the president was through with her, he passed her down to Bobby. Ultimately, as we all know, the poor woman eventually killed herself.

There are, of course, the gaggle of Kennedy relatives who have been arrested and charged with everything from drunk driving to rape, and even murder.

This, of course, brings us to the present bloviator-in-chief, Teddy Kennedy. It would be easy to write him off as another senatorial windbag, but he bears a distinction born by no other senator. He has killed someone - and not while serving as a member of the armed forces. After a drunken party, he drove off a bridge and left his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, alone to drown to death, trapped in his car.

All of this makes us wonder at the judgment of Mr. Obama and the American public. Camelot, once the fairy tale aspect is put aside, is as attractive as a cesspool - and may even smell a lot worse.

* * * * * * *

An added piece, as exclusively reported on this morning:


I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Tough guy, eh?

by Kyle Hampton

I just got done listening to a little bit of Michael Medved. I know, I know…I should know better.

Anyway, Medved was talking about how this election is different from others where there was an ideological battle taking place in the primaries. Of course it benefits Medved to say this because it diminishes the key differences between McCain and Romney, making it a contest more of personality than of policy. Of course I could list several key policy decisions that distinguish McCain and Romney, but none is more important than McCain-Kennedy.

Immigration is the core divide in the Republican party right now and Romney and McCain stand on opposite sides of that gulf.

McCain now downplays the significance of his role as leading advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants. He and some other Republicans, like Trent Lott, famously called conservatives in favor of border enforcement xenophobes. McCain now tries to rewrite history by suggesting that Republicans rejected his bill only because of lost confidence in government, as if it were a purely psychological issue.

That misses the point that Republicans rejected the full idea of his bill for various reasons, but mostly because its whole purpose was to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. McCain-Kennedy’s failure was not lack of confidence in government, but a lack of confidence in McCain himself and his vision of immigration reform.

However, even granting Medved’s proposition that there is little policy difference between McCain and Romney (which I find lacks any substance), Romney has the better personality and temperament for the office of president.

Medved stated that he liked that McCain was a tough guy, but it seems to me that McCain is a tough guy only on some issues. When was the last time McCain got fiery over judges? When was he a tough guy on tax cuts? When was the last time you remember him worked up over education? Indeed it seems that McCain gets fiery over things he understands, but that is a limited number of issues.

I do admit that McCain is a tough guy on immigration, interrogation, and the First Amendment, but he’s on the wrong side of those issues. To project that McCain is a tough guy on all issues misunderstands who McCain really is.

Romney, on the other hand, has shown a consistency of character. He is affable and engaging publicly and coolly competent behind closed doors. He is never out of his league on any issue and generally is the most capable person in the room. He refrains from making personal attacks and always projects a sense of optimism.

This is the kind of personality that I want in the president’s office. Indeed, it seems much better than someone whose temper is never out of reach. Competence is what I want in a president, not a bully.


Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 2/04/2008 04:29:00 PM