My dog for the day
Day by Day says it all, for those of us who are actual Conservatives.
Mitt Romney, the "moderate" governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union, was sadly the last, best hope for a candidate that I didn't absolutely hate. He quit yesterday.
It's frickin' sad and sorry when the so-called conservative party in the United States is presenting me with a choice between:
A) A literal madman.
B) A theocrat.
C) A tax-and-spend, gun-grabbing, anti-free-speech, pro-illegal-immigrant socialist.
Every choice I have is poisoned.
OK, enough venting.
What will I do?
I will not vote for Mike Huckabee in the Texas primary. He's a theocrat who wishes to amend the Constitution to support a particularly fundamentalist Protestant set of ideas, and I have no desire to live in the country he would create. Besides which, he's not terribly electable.
Ron Paul, I will vote against. Isolationism didn't work in 1936, and it won't work now.
John McCain is the alternative to the Wilderness. He may, or at least I hope, appoint judges who will be more interested in interpreting the law (vice judicially legislating, Democrat-style) than Hillary or Obama. And on the issues, I find little glimmers of hope that make me think that he is at least better than Hillary Clinton. The dog bites--but it bites less than do either of the Democratic dogs. And if I must have a dog. . .
Ultimately, I have two choices.
a) vote for John McCain
b) vote for Hillary Clinton/Barak Obama (to me they are nearly interchangable)
I can't "just stay home" in good conscience. That's abdicating my responsibilities as a United States citizen and free man. And while it might be worth it to vote for the greater evil as a means of letting America get precisely what we deserve for being so addicted to the government teat, there is a minor problem.
We are a nation at war. Or at least, I'm at war. The majority of the people in this country are at the mall. But I am at war and will be for the foreseeable future. John McCain will fight this war. Clinama (my neologism to indicate that I don't actually CARE who gets the Democrat nomination) will not. Clinama will surrender Iraq and by extension the entire Middle East to al-Qaeda and others of that ilk. After that, it is anyone's guess what the consequences will be, but they will be bad, because even our allies are halfway to surrender. That's the real deal breaker, and any so-called American who isn't thinking in those terms needs to do a serious self-assessment.
See also:
Foreign and Domestic, who jokingly endorses Clinton on the grounds that the last three candidates he endorsed dropped out.
Dr. Jerry Pournelle, who is so conservative he makes me look positively fluffy, endorses McCain--tentatively.
Lawdog reminds us that whoever gets elected as Prez, we need to remember that he can only sign laws created by Congress--and there are some conservatives running for Congress still.
posted by Just A Decurion at 2/08/2008 04:11:00 PM
6 Comments:
McCain is not a conservative. He has some conservative credentials, but not enough to please the idealogues such as you and I. He is a 'moderate' in the same way that the current Prez is a moderate.
This is not to say that moderates make for bad national leaders. Our current moderate Prez caused the liberation of some 65 million people, and that is not a bad record. Despite all the hatred of GWB from both left and right, he HAS the credit for pushing the GWOT forward, and in doing so showed great moral and political leadership.
I too will vote for McCain although Thompson was so much my favorite that I donated to his campaign. As Democracy is the 'last best hope for mankind' I suspect that McCain will turn out to be the 'last best leader'for the most important democracy in world history.
I hope that McCain chooses Thompson or Gingrich as his running mate. That will bring back some enthusiasm from the conservative base. This will especially true if the next Veep carries the same role as the current Veep.
Indeed every choice you have is poisoned.
Vizzini gives you the reason succinctly:
Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…
cMAD
What about the two proposed Huckabee amendments qualifies them as a "fundamentalist Protestant" set of ideas, as opposed to conservvative Christian set? I don't see anything there the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox churches would have any heart burn with.
"What about the two proposed Huckabee amendments qualifies them as a "fundamentalist Protestant" set of ideas, as opposed to conservative Christian set? I don't see anything there the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox churches would have any heart burn with."
Defining marriage simply as any arrangement between a man and a woman is a much an oversimplification of sacramental understanding of marriage as is any other definition floating around in popular culture.
Marriage is what it is, and no constitutional amendment is going to change it. A constitutional amendment which specifically denies gay marriage, while protecting and declaring "sacred" 90-day Hollywood marriages is not an improvement, it is going after a speck while ignoring a log. Heterosexual serial monogamy and adultery are far bigger "threats" to the "institution of marriage" than is two guys screwing and sharing a rent payment.
I don't particularly endorse religious governance unless you have a largely homogeneous society with an Orthodox ruler or ruling class. Then, and only then, can there be a Justinianic 'symphony' between Church and State. Otherwise, I'd rather keep the reins of the State out of the hands of folks who think I'm an idolater or whatever.
My only addendum is that 'heterosexual serial monogamy' and polygamy differ only in the detail of the time frame.
Okay, I can buy that. Personally I'm indifferent on the whole "gay marriage" thing, for pretty much the same reasons you give. I'm not going to go out of my way to support the "right" of gays to get married, and I find it offensive to democarcy and state rights were a federal judge to try to force it against the will of a state based upon a rather elastic understanding of the federal constitution. I think the civil definitions of marriage should stay within the hands of the state legislature.
Post a Comment
<< Home