Courage of Conviction

I didn’t see McCain’s speech, but I heard enough snipits and read enough about it to feel comfortable enough to comment.  What I take away from it was that Sen. McCain is in self-absorbed dream world.  McCain’s speech covered just about every issue there is, and that’s the problem.  It highlights one of the things I don’t like about John McCain - no vision.  A vision is not a checked off task list, which is what McCain gave.  In that sense, his speech was similar to so many State of the Union addresses - not a state of the union, rather a list of goodies the President wants.

A vision is what Reagan gave when we he talked about America being a shining city on a hill and his talk about the winning the Cold War.  A vision is what Kennedy spoke about when he talked about putting a man on moon.  A vision is what FDR spoke about in defeating the Axis and the freedom from fear.  These are visions about freedom and human expansion.

My biggest pet peeve about McCain is that the man is all about himself.  He’s always been about himself as an elected politician.  This speech exemplifies this.  Again no vision for the country.  Not even a vision for the GOP, which is hopelessly rudderless at the moment.  McCain has no interest in providing a vision for the GOP - he stated so when he said that he would be running against Congress and Bush.  He cares nothing about providing coattails to those who should naturally be willing to work with him.

His notion that partisanship is a bad thing is probably the most troubling aspect of his speech.  An efficient government that would allow him to do whatever it is that he wanted to do is a bad government.  The most efficient government there is, is a dictatorship.  I’ve always said that I support a gridlocked government - it means that the people cannot get screwed over any more than they are right now.

As far as I’m concerned, this speech continues to show me that a McCain presidency would be scary prospect.

Grassrootspa.com posted Tony Phyrillas’ article about meeting with John Perzel to talk over his legislation for adding 10,000 police officers to the state. At the end of the article Tony asked Perzel about the pay raise. Of course he’s unrepentant. At the very end, Perzel also stated that “He also believes he will return to his former post as Speaker of the House next January.”

Well, that about set me off. In fact, it’s not just me. There’s some very lively debate over on the grassrootspa discussion board about this. It’s actually generating other blog posting, like Alabama in Between, where my comments were quoted.

And since they were my comments, I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up (although I encourage you to read all the comments - it’s a lively and healthy debate).

Yesterday when I saw that we were in a near full moon, I knew that it didn’t bode well for conservatives.  Tonight’s results confirm that.  As I’ve stated before, election night is usually pretty depressing for me - my favorites usually don’t win.  At any rate, tonight the establishment triumphed within the GOP.  I imagined many conservatives who would have voted for conservative candidates went over to the Dems to vote in their presidential primary - thus our conservative candidates lost votes to the establishment Republicans.  My own opinion of this whole thing is that it does more damage to the GOP in the long run.  Now we are stuck with all these establishment Republicans.  Who would do more damage a Dem president or a whole bunch of establishment Republicans?  A better question - Is there really any difference?

And again, I’m left wondering, how do we end up with all these crappy candidates?

And tonight’s results again confirm to me why I’m not a Republican anymore.  I’ve never been happier to be a registered Independent.  I already know who I’m voting for in most of these races, and in most cases, it’s not anyone listed on the ballot.  This will be the first election in which I’ll be writing in names for over half of the positions on the ballot.

I can already hear the criticism - “Gee Matt, by voting that way, it’s actually a vote for ____.” That’s where I disagree.  That’s how people like Arlen Specter get elected - we supposedly have to settle for these people.  I quit settling for candidates many years ago.  A vote for who I believe in is a vote for who I believe in.  It’s a vote that says I’m tired of crappy candidates and I’m not going to legitimize their selection by choosing between two bad choices.  I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils - it’s still a choice for moving in the wrong direction, it’s just a matter of how fast you’re getting there.

Here’s my test for voting - Who can I vote for and be able to look at myself in the mirror and not be ashamed of myself because I voted for a certain candidate.  I’ll tell you this much, there are plenty of candidates who I could vote for because they are the lesser of two evils - but then I’d be ashamed to look in the mirror at myself.  And frankly, that’s far more important than any argument for party unity, or any fear tactics, or “lesser of two evil” arguments.

I’ve been invited to be a panelist for the the Identity and The Body Politic Forum at the Good Life Cafe, on N. Hanover St. in Carlisle this evening, April 16th.  The program starts at 8pm.  Come join the discussion - it should be a good time.

You can see the poster for the event here.

A friend of mine, Ryan Shafik, sent me this video that the Harrisburg CBS Affiliate did on the Smoke Freedom Day.  Enjoy!  You may recognize some of the people in the video. 

I think Ryan’s analysis can be used for more than just smoking bans.  I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count how many issues the legislature deals with that it shouldn’t.  Another good argument of why the legislature should be in session for a few days as possible each year. 

I read about the family fight over Clinton and Obama that ended in a stabbing.  You can read the story here.

This is not a good development for our society.  We are in bad shape when we come to a time in our history when we are trying to kill each other over politics.  Of course, this isn’t new in our country - we had a civil war of course.  But in modern history, our political history has been very tame to say the least and we’ve had a high level of success in our stable society - this stems from the fact that regardless of who wins office, people recognize that there will not be much change.  What I have been seeing over the last several presidential elections is the hyping of elections - in other words, “this is the most important election in our lifetime” language.  What do you think the effect of this sort of thing is? 

Take a look at the situation in Africa - violence is the norm after an election - not just any violence, but large killing sprees because elections there do become a matter of life and death.  You vote to ensure that your candidate wins so that your land isn’t taken away or you aren’t killed for supporting an opposition candidate.  These are also countries that have high voter turnout - again for good reason, you’d vote if your life literally depended on it.

Is this the direction we want to take in this country?  I certainly don’t.  I don’t want the presidential election to matter that much frankly and it really shouldn’t have that much importance that it drives people to stab one another.  We are losing our common sense if we start viewing politics as the most important thing in life.  We lose our sanity if we view elections as determinants to our success and happiness.  We lose our country if election become a matter of life or death for people. 

Let’s get back to reality - regardless of who wins, not much will change and that’s a good thing - it’s how our system was designed.  We don’t want an efficient government.  The most efficient governments are dictatorships.  Gridlock is a good thing - it means the people aren’t getting screwed as often.  If election won’t bring about all that much change, then having a low voter turnout is a good thing too - it means that everyday people are putting politics in its rightful place, in the background.  They are viewing politics as it should be.

What a nice speech that John McCain gave at CPAC.  I’m still not buying.  One speech saying things that appeal to conservatives and we’re all just supposed to jump aboard the the straight talk express because if we don’t it will supposedly be the end of the world as we know it.  What I find is that if someone goes around saying they are conservative and tries to convince you through words that they are - then they usually aren’t.  If he were conservative, he wouldn’t have to tells us he is, he would have ran as a conservative during this primary and eight years ago.  Besides, do you honestly think the NY Times would endorse a conservative?   Glenn Beck is right, we must be in a wormhole - it’s the only way to make sense of this year’s election. 

I’m not buying.  I’m tired of the rhetoric - where are the deeds to back it up?  As for the idea that this is the most important election in our lifetime, well sure, since the last presidential election, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc. 

I’m tired of the rhetoric.  Jack Wheeler wrote a great piece on Jan. 4th which sums up my view.  You can read the whole thing here.

It is about the history lesson taught so arrestingly by Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K in Men In Black.

2008 is going to be a stressful year for a lot of folks.  The fate of America, the fate of Western Civilization, the fate of mankind, will be decided this year - as far as folks who enjoy being Drama Queens are concerned.

As we plunge forward into the fateful unknown of 2008, let us, then, take a deep, calming breath and listen to the soothing words of Agent K.

His partner, Agent J played by Will Smith, is freaking out as a newbie man-in-black, unglued over the alien threat that will destroy the Earth in the next half-hour.

Agent J:  Man, we ain’t got time for this…  I don’t know whether or not you’ve forgotten, but there’s an Arquillian Battle Cruiser that’s about to…

Agent K: Kid, there’s always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they… do… not… know about it!

Welcome to the history of the world.

See, the argument is being made that today’s Arquillian Battle Cruiser is the war in Iraq.  When Arlen Specter was up for election it was the judges, when Dole ran it was something else, etc.  There will never be a perfect time.  There will always be some imminent threat in which the establishment tells us that we must be “pragmatic” and accept something or someone below our standards.  I’m tired of lowering my standards.  What ultimately changes when we do this, over and over and over again?  Nothing and who do we have to blame for this - ourselves for buying the rhetoric and the promises - empty promises made that have no intention of being kept. 

Success comes to those who refuse to lower their standards, who stay focused, who don’t allow distractions in, who perserver, who understand their “why” for doing something and go after it with an attitude of “failure is not an option.” 

So the question becomes, what’s the goal for the conservative movement?  Is it to just survive for the next 4 years by slowing down our accent to who knows where?  Well, then John McCains the guy if that is the goal.  If the goal is a vision of America that looks a certain way, a government that functions a certain way, a people who act a certain way, then he most certainly isn’t the guy - he’s a distraction.  

If we lose sight of what the conservative vision is, we have political ADD.  We’ll always be in reaction mode and always be complaining.  Carrying out the conservative vision is about being proactive, staying focused, understanding our “why” and realizing that “failure is not an option.” 

Chuck Muth, a conservative activist who writes a regular e-mail newsletter on conservativism wrote the following:

Slit a Vein or Vote for McCain?
By Chuck Muth
February 3, 2008

On the eve of Super-Duper Tuesday, some Drive-By Muthings.

* While the conservative knock against Mitt Romney is that he started out as a moderate and has since moved to the right, John McCain started out on the right but has since moved to the left.  Which is worse?

* That McCain is now successfully campaigning as a conservative apparently proves you can fool an awful lot of Republicans an awful lot of the time.

* GOP party pooh-bahs are now pushing McCain under the assumption that he’s the one Republican who can keep “that woman” out of the Oval Office.  But he’s also the one Republican with a Ross Perot-like temper problem who could similarly suffer a meltdown next fall and hand the election to her on a silver platter.  Talk about a “risky scheme.”

* Conservative columnist Ann Coulter said this week she’d vote for Hillary rather than vote for John McCain.  Sounds pretty extreme, right?  But guess what?  She’s not alone.  I overheard a Republican woman at a GOP event yesterday who said, “I’d rather slit a vein than vote for John McCain.”  Nice bumper sticker.  Many conservatives aren’t just saying “No” to John McCain.  They’re saying, “Hell, no!”

* So tell me again why McCain is the best Republican to defeat Hillary in November?

* As long as Mike Huckabee stays in the race, he’s helping John McCain by taking conservative votes away from Mitt Romney, the only remaining GOP candidate with a shot at stopping the Double-Talk Express.  So the question for Huckabee supporters on Tuesday will be this simple: Do I vote for McCain by voting for Huckabee.or Romney?

* Jason Wright over at Political Derby notes this week that “it seems (Huckabee will) be as satisfied with a McCain win as he would his own.”  One of the early criticisms of Huckabee was that he could care less about the conservative movement or the Republican Party; that’s it’s always all about Mike.  Looks like those reports were pretty accurate. 

* Some conservatives have come to the conclusion that the ONLY hope for the conservative movement this election cycle is a brokered GOP convention in which a dark-horse consensus candidate can ride in to save the day.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.  And these are desperate times for the Right.

* In the unlikely event conservatives can somehow force a brokered convention, who might the dark-horse savior be?  Many, of course, are talking about Newt Gingrich.  But others are quietly suggesting a candidate who they believe could unite all the factions of the Reagan center-right coalition without inflaming the Left the way the former House Speaker would: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.  And Sanford is someone even the Ron Paul folks could support.

*  Do it!  Do it!  Do it!

* It’s been pointed out that no nominee coming out of a brokered convention has ever gone on to win the White House in November.  True.  But as my friend Phil Sheldon notes, that was before Al Gore invented the Internet.  Point taken.

* And finally, even if Newt or Sanford lost in November the way Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in ‘76 after the conservative GOP primary challenge by Reagan, at least conservatives would be united in their opposition to Hillary (or Barack) for the next four years.  That would probably result in regaining at least one, and maybe even both houses of Congress in 2010, followed by a Reagan-like win against a failed Democrat incumbent president in 2012 by a true conservative.

I can think of worse scenarios.  So can a growing number of other conservatives.

Check out this news story below.  I’m willing to bet to that this happens in more places than Texas - like PA for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask.  Enjoy!

It’s been awhile since I did any political commentary - so here goes:

Here are my thoughts about the state of the Presidential primaries.  First off, I can now confirm that I am out of touch with the rest of the Republican Party, which is why I’m glad I became an Independent after the 2006 election.  Why do I say this?  Over 60% of the South Carolina votes went to McCain and Huckabee.  So here we have a situation in which Republicans, allegedly the party of small government, are supporting one candidate who will use government to take away your First Amendment rights and another candidate which will tax you for “bad behavior,” as defined by his religion.  Since when did the Republican party start standing for any of that. 

Second thought - there is a real possiblity that we could have two candidates who will have trouble getting support of their own party members.  On the D side - Hillary Clinton.  I personally know several Democrats who not only won’t vote for her, but would change their party registration if she is the nominee.  It ranges in reason from not wanting Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, to just not liking her because she’s arrogant.  On the Republican side - John McCain.  I know plenty of Republicans who just won’t vote for the guy for plenty of reasons. 

So what happens?  Voters can either decide to vote for the lesser of two evils, or they can vote for someone they like - third party, write-in a name, etc., but know that who they vote for will not win.  The last presidential race that I can remember that seems like a similar situation was in 1996 - Dole vs. Clinton.  I didn’t vote for either - I did a write-in.  I’m not crazy about the “it was Dole’s turn” argument.  Want to blame me for the second four years of Clinton - fine by me, but it’s the candidate’s job to win over voters, not my job to just fall in line like a lemming and vote for a Republican, because the candidate has an R after their name.   I know the argument of not making the perfect the enemy of the good.  But gee - given a choice between one candidate who will mandate your health and who knows what and another candidate who will mandate your speech and education, I’m having a hard time seeing any good.