First, a quick aside on Raegan. The "right" as defined today in Limbaugh type conservatives (I envoke his name whether you like it or not because Stephenopolous, Hume, Williams, they all use his name when referring to whom McCain has a "problem" with within his party, so if you don't like it, take it up with them. Not to mention, if out of the 300,000,000 US citizens plus, 200,000,000 are adults, 100 million actually vote, 50 million are locked into the GOP, and half of those - 25 million - are conservatives, well Limbaughs weekly audience is 22 million, and I think those anchors realize this number break down and that's why they use it) at any rate ... generally speaking the "right" isn't opposed to NAFTA. I don't know where you got this from. I know the Buchanaites are opposed to it, unions are, Perot was, but I distictly remember Rush applauding Gore for decimating Perot on Larry King Live over the issue. The Buchana wing may oppose this but that's a small percentage to say the least, otherwise he'd of won something, somewhere.
On Reagan principles and the size of government: I can't make you understand what you refuse to believe just because you like finding chinks in Ron's armor, or those who would envoke his name. If Tip O'neal & the gang wanted a 35% growth rate in government - OUTSIDE of military expenditures - and Reagan holds it at 20, WITH military expenditures, then he can rightly claim to have curbed the growth & size of government. And to say he spent like a New Deal president is innacurate in the extreme.Reagan's expenditures in government growth were primarily military, not federal "welfare" (literal definition) or public project roles (outside of WWII military expenditures)like FDR (that didn't work then anyway, outside of the psychological effect that at least he, FDR, was seen as doing "something" as opposed to Hoover sitting on his hands).
Once more I will describe what conservatives mean when invoking his name - smaller more efficient government - which we on the right have never lumped the military into - and REDUCING THE RATE OF GROWTH, and redirecting the money that is spent into more efficient modes IS IN FACT "smaller more efficient government."
Now, you can play this game of using his numbers versus FDR's and say "Reagan's no conservative and he spent like a New Deal president" all you want, and in any sane circle you'll have people telling you substance abuse is a real disease, and perhaps you should seek help. Politically speaking "conservatism" is the apt name for a man, whom as president, curbed the government's non military rate of growth while growing the military budget. I could do the same thing regarding the term "liberal" and the ACLU or the Democrat party - they're about as "tolerant" to Christianity as David Duke at a Harlem Reinessaince fair. But I realize what "politically speaking" the term liberal now represents as opposed to using the text book definition and asking athiest ACLU lawyers to stop self-envoking the term 'liberal." But why do that? It's beating your head against a rock hoping to put the genie back in the bottle - the term means something other then what a text book in poli-sci will tell you, and I accept that, and you need to do that concerning "conservatism."
Politically speaking Reagan is the preeminent CONSERVATIVE of our time, still. He lead a conservative movement, governed as a conservative, and was guided by conservative principles, PERIOD. Even you, in a fleeting moment of embracing reality, recognized this when you penned my description as a "Reagn-ite from out West." Do you think I consider myself a New Deal spender? Hardly. If you want to use the poli-sci text book definition, and say "resistant to change", is the only definition for which to judge "conservatism" or throw the military spending into government growth/reduction rates when comparing to New Deal spending in order to describe Reagan as something other then a conservative, rather then come to terms that in the American political landscape Reagan's actions DEFINE the very word "conservative" now, then go ahead and live in that suspended reality, I won't be joining you there.
****
Now, to the subject header ....
I spoke at length on the phone last night with Jambo about the inevitable McCain candidacy, and the likelyhood he would be facing Hillary come the Novemeber decision. Where does that leave rock-rib conservatives like myslef? Jambo pointed out that McCain has always been known as a conservative, he inherited Goldwater's seat for goodness sake, and that it's only 4 or 5 issues where he's been at odds with the right within his own party, and surely that's less then Hillary. And my answer is that since 2001, yes it's only been about 5 issues, but everyone of them has been the VERY hot button issues that has defined all debate outside of the war since 2001 - illegals, judges, free speech (McCain/Fiengold), GITMO. And it drives me nuts that I am rapidly realizing that if the "right" does not support him when he becomes the nominee we are virtually asking for, if not garunteeing, a Madam Clinton presidency.
What to do?
Well, I considered this, McCain may be 10 times more liberal on these issues, or in general, then I am, but he's 100 times more conservative then Hillary. And even with that I found the following appealing - we do not support McCain, allow a Hillary or Barak presidency, they do a horrible job, and presto, come 2012 we (the GOP) will get a solid conservative as a nominee because the country will be thirsty for another Reagan in 2012 assuming Hillary comes off as a Carter like failure (and that's a given in my estimation). It has been floated that this scenario is preferrable to allowing McCain, and his gaggle of moderates, take over, lead, and perhaps redefine the GOP. It's playing politics, and as Jambo pointed out, it's a big risk politically & in terms of national security, i.e. Hill might sign an executiove order closing GITMO (as a holding facility) the first day while McCain will be smarter then that - maybe they end up in Siberia (they'd be begging for a Cuban climate then I can assure you).
But, it's more then that, more serious, and a lot more simple, as I have come to decide. The only question in my mind, during a time of war on many fronts has become this: What do I owe the men dying for me? My little brother is at Fort Hood, and goes back in theater soon. What do I owe him since I am picking his Commander-in-Chief? Does he deserve for me to play party politics because I'm ticked at McCain on campaign-finance reform? Or does he deserve the person that's most likely to supply him with the ammo & orders that will give him the best chance of success?
If it's Hillary/Barak versus McCain, I will pull the lever for John, period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment