conservatism

First Republican Primary Debate

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, Duncan Hunter, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, McCain, Ron Paul, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson
Full video here. Best performances: Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, & Duncan Hunter. John McCain did well, though the almost-angry tone that soared talking about the war seemed a little odd in other places (vowing to follow Osama bin Laden “to the gates of Hell” was a great touch, but his smile afterward was just creepy). The rest of the candidates were fair…except for Tommy Thompson & Ron “Kos-wing-of-the-party” Paul. Just go home, you two. Please.
–
Some points of interest:
–
One of the things the three who impressed me most managed to do was work in issues that were otherwise on the back burner: for instance, Mitt worked a McCain-Feingold jab into a pro-life answer, Hunter’s now-famous “Yes, and let me use the rest of my time on Iran” answer to “Are you a compassionate conservative?,” and Tancredo getting in immigration repeatedly.
–
When asked about churches who ex-communicate pro-choicers, Romney turned the tables on the Left by noting that, thanks to the separation of church & state, churches have the freedom to do what they want. Overall he was passionate, optimistic, & confident; and several have noticed (even Savage?!).
–
Tancredo had some nice moments, such as calling Roe v. Wade’s hypothetical overturn “the greatest day in American history,” calling for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and noting that their host, the Reagan Library, was in honor of a man who was not a centrist.
–
Giuliani may have know the difference between Sunni and Shia, but offered little to match the hype (especially not Michael Medved’s ridiculous description of him as “Reaganesque”). Certainly not his “eh, whatever” reaction to Roe’s future fall. Weak.

What I’m Reading Right Now

Calvin Freiburger books, Christianity, conservatism, Da Vinci Code, Horowitz, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, me, Reagan, religion, Stossel
Currently I’m juggling the following:
–
I’ve finally started The Da Vinci Code, and I’ve got to give Dan Brown this much: he knows how to write suspense. The mystery and the distinct characters surrounding it do have quite an allure. Which is why all the falsehoods (Wikipedia’s article on ‘em is surprisingly long, but be careful—it is Wikipedia, after all) within are so inexcusable, especially considering Brown’s “Fact” preface in the front. And occasionally Brown wanders into displays of sheer idiocy like this line: “Langdon was always surprised how few Christians who gazed upon ‘the crucifix’ realized their symbol’s violent history was reflected in its very name: ‘cross’ and ‘crucifix’ came from the Latin word cruciare—to torture.” Uh, note to Dan: the torture Christ endured for our sins isn’t exactly an obscure part of Christianity…Bottom line: if Brown had instead prefaced the book with something along the lines of, “The following story takes creative license with several elements of history, religion and art,” I could probably give The Da Vinci Code a thumbs-up (at least so far; we’ll see how things go when I’m finished).
–
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel—Why Everything You Know Is Wrong by John Stossel and The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Radicals in America by David Horowitz. These gems—the former on various falsehoods in all walks of life, the latter on demented college professors—are nice because they’re broken down into bite-sized passages that can be read & set aside without forgetting some important context that came before. Highly recommended.
–
At a thrift shop tonight I found Reagan: The Political Chameleon. It’s a book written before the Gipper’s presidency by ex-California Governor Pat Brown. Once I finish the above, I look forward to reading how spectacularly wrong Brown, in retrospect, is with his assertion that “there is no need to qualify this view in the slightest: Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency would be a national disaster.” Also, this passage from the jacket got me thinking:
–
“What sort of man is Ronald Reagan? His philosophy has ranged the political spectrum—from left-wing Democrat during the McCarthy era, to capitalist spokesman for General Electric, to Goldwater conservative—changing colors as the chameleon does, constantly camouflaging himself to match his environment. Do Reagan’s beliefs truly reflect the man, or are they merely a method of matching the views of his current circle, with no more depth or profundity that the varying hues of the chameleon?”
–
Hmm…who does the Left level that charge against these days? (Now, I don’t want to jinx anything, or prematurely make him into another Reagan…but we can hope…)

America’s Mayor Aborting Own Candidacy?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, pro-life
Too early to be sure, but one can only hope…
–
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.
–
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
–
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
–
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.
–
Over at the Corner there’s some doubt as to what precisely Giuliani meant, but to me, it’s immaterial. We know he’s an extremist on abortion, and that he hasn’t a clue what judicial originalism means. I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’d love it if the social Right would just vanish, and chances are this was a case of the real Rudy bubbling to the surface.

Division on the Right

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, Fred Thompson, Gingrich, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
I’ve got a bone to pick with two of our potential candidates: Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich.
–
Not on policy grounds—both men are (though not perfect) conservative enough to win my support, should they conquer the primaries. I think Thompson has a chance of winning, Newt not so much, but there are a lot of people excited about the mere possibility of their candidacies. Which is why the “maybe” status of their candidacies bothers me.
–
If you want to be president, go for it. Make your cases and do your best to rally the Right. I wouldn’t jump ship (I’m convinced Mitt Romney is the best the field has to offer), but if you can convince the most voters that you’re the standard-bearer, I’ll be more than happy to fight for you after the primary.
–
On the flip side, you need to make a decision. If you’re not going to run, you need to say so. A lot of people’s hopes are resting on you two—especially on Thompson—and it’s not right to get their hopes up over nothing.
–
It’s this state of limbo that bothers me. Until you make a commitment, your presence in the mix only serves to divide the Right’s support, and help Giuliani—and if we’re going to save the Republican Party from becoming the RINO Party, we need to unite behind a real candidate.

Remembering the Emancipator in Fond du Lac

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, fondy, GOP, Lincoln
Last night the Fond du Lac County Republican Party held its annual Celebration of Lincoln Dinner at the local Holiday Inn, where we enjoyed some great speeches by Judge Annette Ziegler, Attorney General JB Van Hollen, and Owen Robinson, who made at least a couple elected Republicans in the audience squirm with his unapologetic call for authentic conservatism from our party (always a plus!).
–
We also remembered that yes, Virginia, Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a conservative in a series of three speeches delivered by local Republicans, which I’d like to share with you:
–
Lincoln on the Constitution (delivered by me)
–
Today’s Left claims it should be obvious that our Founding Fathers intended our Constitution to be a living, malleable document. It wasn’t obvious to Abraham Lincoln. In fact, Lincoln explicitly rejected that view. “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate,” the President said. “The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” He warned his countrymen: “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
–
Lincoln had direct experience with matters of constitutional interpretation; he was known on the national stage when the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision reinforced the notion that black men were property. Taking exception to the Roe v. Wade of his day, Lincoln responded to Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion on June 26, 1857. “We think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this.” He rejected Taney’s assertion “that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution…in five of the thirteen States—to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina—free negroes were voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had.” The future president next took his day’s judicial activists to task: “[In the beginning] our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it.” In Lincoln’s eyes, the Court made a “mere wreck and mangled ruin” of “our once glorious Constitution.”
–
Needless to say, he read the document differently. “The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use…it was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.”
–
Like today’s conservatives, Abraham Lincoln boldly stood against those who sought to corrupt the Founding Father’s original intentions. He warned America that “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal.” In doing this, he set a standard for his Republican Party to follow. It has with men like Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist; and hopefully will continue into the future.
–
Lincoln’s Faith (delivered by Viola Sheppard)
–
Scarcely a day goes by without another critique of the “Religious Right.” Today President George W. Bush is accused of making decisions solely because Jesus tells him to, and we are constantly warned that social conservatives threaten the “separation of church & state.” Fortunately, our current president can be reassured that he stands in good company—Abraham Lincoln was every bit as religious, and even more explicit.
–
On August 15, 1846, Lincoln clarified his faith for the Illinois Gazette: “That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures…I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at religion.” It is easy to understand Lincoln’s strength of character when we know how heavily he relied on a higher power. He told biographer Noah Brooks that “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for the day.”
–
Lincoln brought God with him to the presidency. As he left Springfield, Illinois for Washington, DC, he told an audience that “Without the assistance of that Divine Being…I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail.” If they lived in the mid-1800s, surely President Bush’s secular foes would cringe at the way Lincoln saw himself and his position “as an instrument of Providence,” who had an “earnest desire to know the will of providence…And if I can learn what it is, I will do it.” Lincoln understood what Jefferson enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, what the Framers before him knew to be true: “Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors.” It was this long-established understanding of freedom, as God’s gift to humanity, which led the President to view slavery as “degeneracy” for which he called upon Americans to “pray for [God’s] mercy…that the inestimable boon of civil & religious liberty, earned under His guidance and blessing by the labors and sufferings of our fathers, may be restored.” It was this faith that drove his Herculean efforts to unite America, to continue on in the midst of war.
–
The depth of Lincoln’s faith was expressed in his last words to his wife that fateful night at Ford’s Theatre. Mary Todd Lincoln recalled that her husband “said he wanted to visit the Holy Land and see the places hallowed by the footprints of the Savior. He was saying there was no city he so much desired to see as Jerusalem.” John Wilkes Booth’s bullet struck a moment later, and the First Lady mournfully noted “the soul of the great and good President was carried by the angels to the New Jerusalem above.” In his April 24, 1865 memorial address, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax fittingly noted: “The last act of Congress ever signed by [the President] was one requiring that the motto, in which he sincerely believed, “In God We Trust,” should hereafter be inscribed upon all our national coin.”
–
During a time that tried America like no other, our nation was blessed to have such a morally-certain leader. We must thank God for Lincoln’s crucial placement in history, and, in today’s war, take heart in his example. Abraham Lincoln never forgot that our God-given liberty was worthy of our blood, sweat & tears. Neither can we.
–
Lincoln’s Conservative Values (delivered by Laura Eckhart)
–
It’s no secret that today’s youth aren’t learning history properly, and President Lincoln is one of the many casualties of historical revision. For instance, in a piece titled “What Lincoln Foresaw,” University of California professor Rick Crawford cites a letter the president supposedly sent to Colonel William Elkins, which reads: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…” What great evil did Lincoln “predict?” Capitalism. “Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow…These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people.”
–
In fact, this letter is a forgery. It surfaced in 1888, and John Nicolay, one of Lincoln’s White House secretaries, actively worked to refute it. The real Abraham Lincoln rejected socialism and class warfare. He told the New York Workingman’s Democratic Republican Association, on March 21, 1864, that “Property…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise…Let not him who is homeless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
–
If President Lincoln’s words tell us anything, they tell us that he would certainly have far more in common with the Right than the Left. On March 9, 1832, discussing the importance of education, he said “That every man may receive at least, a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance.” Lincoln’s view stands in stark contrast to today’s universities, which teach resentment, not appreciation, of America’s institutions. Lincoln understood that “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,” so he would be disheartened to see how classroom indoctrination takes advantage of that reality today.
–
Lincoln didn’t appreciate moral relativism, either. “Important principles may, and must, be inflexible,” he said. And subjective truth? “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?” he asked. “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” When combating media bias, conservatives should remember Lincoln’s belief that “If given the truth, [the people] can be depended upon…the great point is to bring them the real facts.” Would the president have approved of today’s litigation culture characterized by Senator John Edwards? Doubtful; in the July 1, 1850 “Notes for a Law Lecture,” he urged: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket?…resolve to be honest in all events, and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer.”
–
On matters of war and peace, there’s little doubt that Lincoln would urge perseverance in today’s War on Terror. President George W. Bush has said that we didn’t ask for this war, but we’ll wage it rather than surrender. Echoing that understanding, President Lincoln said the following in his Inaugural Address: “Both parties depreciated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and one would accept war rather than let it perish.” Lincoln knew he had to keep fighting the Civil War: “I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me…” he told Secretary of State William Seward.
–
The conservative values of the Republican Party have a long, proud heritage, and they work. It was principled, common-sense American conservatism that led Abraham Lincoln through national threat and strife, and into the ranks of history’s finest.
–
—
–
(If anybody’s interested in the research behind these speeches, I used The Words of Abraham Lincoln, America’s God & Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, and Abraham Lincoln Online.)

The Truth about Rudy

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
To all the conservatives out there: you NEED to read this. I just got the following in a newsletter from the folks at NewsMax:
————
Giuliani-Appointed Judges Lean to the Left
White House hopeful Rudolph Giuliani has been assuring conservatives that as president he would appoint “strict constructionalists” to the federal bench.

“I would want judges who are strict constructionalists because I am,” he told South Carolina Republicans in January. “Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint – Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.”
But some observers are pointing out that in his eight years as New York City mayor, Giuliani’s judicial appointees were for the most part anything but conservative.
A review by The Politico found that of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York State’s lower courts, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8-to-1.
“Rudy’s judges were mostly liberal,” Connie Mackey, vice president of FRC Action, an arm of the conservative Family Research Council, told the Times.
“Any pro-lifer who believes they are going to get the kind of judge out of Rudy Giuliani that we see in either Roberts or Alito is probably going to be disappointed.”

Indeed, Giuliani’s record of appointments won plaudits from Kelli Conlin, head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group.
However, Giuliani’s judicial appointments won good reviews in New York legal circles for “being what conservatives sometimes say they want: competent lawyers selected with no regard to ‘litmus tests’ on hot-button social issues,” The Politico reports.
New York City’s mayor appoints judges to the criminal court, which hears misdemeanor cases; the family court; and civil court, where they hear claims of less than $25,000.
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers told the Times that it would be “nonsense” to cite municipal judges, who deal with misdemeanors and small claims, as indications of how Giuliani might approach appointments to the Supreme Court.
Rudy, They Hardly Know Ya
Republicans believe they are quite familiar with presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, but a surprising number are actually clueless as to his stances on key issues.
When a Newsweek poll asked Republicans to indicate how much they know about the former New York City mayor and his positions, 26 percent said “a lot” and 39 percent said “some.” Only 8 percent said “nothing.”
But the respondents were also asked: “On the issue of abortion, do you know if Giuliani is pro-choice?” The result: 54 percent said they didn’t know, and another 12 percent said he was pro-life; only 34 percent correctly stated that he is pro-choice.
When asked if Giuliani supports an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, 76 percent didn’t know and 8 percent said he supports it; just 16 percent correctly said he opposes it.
And when asked “Is Giuliani in favor of new restrictions on gun ownership,” 73 percent of those polled didn’t know; 10 percent said he opposes it; and 17 percent correctly said he favors new restrictions.

Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani, & the Republican Crossroads

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, Coulter, GOP, homosexuality, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, PC
The 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference has concluded, and by now you’ve heard all about Ann Coulter’s joke that she couldn’t talk about presidential wannabe John Edwards because you have to go into rehab if you say “faggot.”

In Ann’s defense, there wasn’t any homophobic intent behind the joke. It was something comics do all the time: insult someone by referencing a recent headline (actor Isaiah Washington’s gay slur). It was as much a commentary on the politically-correct silliness of rehab for simply letting a crude word slip as it was a dig against Edwards. Ann explained this on Hannity & Colmes Monday night, as well as that she didn’t intend at all to suggest that Edwards is secretly gay—rather, that he’s precisely the kind of sissy sleaze that make prime targets for such sophomoric insults.

(And for what it’s worth, the whole affair produced one of the most priceless examples of liberal hypocrisy we’ll ever see—the same guy who tried to hold onto two actual bigots in his employ suddenly pretended to care about bigotry…as long as he could make a quick buck.)

Ann is no homophobe; in fact, half the time she references gays, the context is something like this:

—

“Curiously, these proponents of tolerance always choose ‘gay’ as their most searing epithet. Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Matt Drudge,[Ken] Starr’s prosecutors, Linda Tripp’s lawyer, Christopher Hitchens, Mel Gibson—all these have been denounced as homosexuals at some point by liberals. The New York Times’s Frank Rich (now there’s someone who would never be called a homo) outed David Brock when he was still on the right. Rich favorably cited Christopher Hitchens—who himself was called a fag by liberals when he crossed them—for calling Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ an exercise in ‘sadomasochistic male narcissism.’ Arguing with liberals instantly becomes a game of gay-baiting musical chairs. We just don’t think they should get married. Liberals actually hate homosexuals.” (How To Talk to a Liberal, p. 15)

—

In Treason, Ann delves into the Left’s fascination with McCarthy staffer Roy Cohn’s sexual orientation, as well as their homophobic smear campaign against ex-Soviet Whittaker Chambers. Furthermore, as Sean Hannity pointed out in the above interview, she wasn’t exactly Fred Phelps when gays came up during the Q&A.

“So Ann’s joke was fine?” Not so fast. Though insensitivity rehab is certainly a worthy target for skewering (I mean, come on: just repeat that phrase a few times: INSENSITIVITY REHAB), Ann didn’t deliver it in a way that conveyed the nuance (probably impossible as long as the word was in there at all). As long as it was about that and Edwards, it was completely eclipsed by “Edwards is a fag.”

Conservatives will always be likened to racists, fascists, and homophobes, regardless of what we say. The Left proved that when they misrepresented Ann’s commentary on the Jersey Girls in Godless. But the insults against them were justified because Ann put together a strong case against their character along with them (to recap, 1: “[The Jersey Girls] first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims’ families by the government was not large enough”—p. 103, emphasis added; 2: the Jersey Girls had selective moral outrage—they weren’t nearly as interested in finding the truth behind, for example, Jamie Gorelick’s actions during the Clinton years).

At CPAC, Ann didn’t have that. It pains me to say it, but in making the joke, Ann was reckless. She should have dropped it entirely (besides, the line wasn’t important enough to warrant a new battle, and Ann is capable of so much better; I’m sure she could’ve had a field day with Bloggergate). Instead, the fallout has overshadowed a lot of good that came out of CPAC—not the least of which was the strong showing of Mitt Romney, perhaps conservatism’s best hope for 2008 (some video here). (Although, to be realistic, the mainstream media never would have given us credit for the good anyway.)

So Ann deserves some criticism. Michelle Malkin got it basically right on the Factor. The GOP Big 3 distanced themselves and moved on. Fine.

Apparently that’s not enough for a segment of the conservative blogosphere. Enter the “Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter:”

—

“Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her ‘raghead’ remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?
“One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.
“CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.”
—
We’re not going to let one of conservatism’s most vibrant voices speak at all? (I guess they think a stage full of old guys is good enough to repel the usual stereotypes of American politics.) This is not just rejecting an insensitive joke. This is political grandstanding. “Hey! Look at us! We’re better than Ann Coulter!” These people want Ann gone from the conservative movement. The apparent leader of the grandstanders, Sean Hackbarth seems to have a long-standing grudge against Ann, including peddling lefty plagiarism smears that have been debunked by others. Nice.
Wisconsin’s own Owen Robinson said “Coulter has already lost most mature conservatives. Hopefully [her fans] will grow out of their hero worship of Coulter and begin to take their espoused philosophy seriously…She has no place in the serious conservative community.” It’s curious, then, that this “mature, serious conservative,” this professional, responsible blogger, felt justified in dropping the other f-bomb TWICE just days earlier. Why? He was “ticked off.”
Robinson isn’t the only hypocrite signatory. Kevin McCullough apparently suspended his belief in “mainstream appeal” when he authored such non-inflammatory columns as: “Why Liberals Channel Lucifer”, “Why Liberal Feminists Support School Shootings”, “Why Liberals Love Pedophiles”, and “Why Unions Are Like Terrorists”. Can’t you just see McCullough fume with jealous rage each time a new Coulter book hits the NYT bestseller list?
But there’s a bigger problem here. Listening to these conservatives, you’d think Ann Coulter was the greatest threat to conservatism we’ve ever seen. Hardly. There was a serious threat to the credibility of the conservative movement at CPAC. And you know what, folks? Many of you clapped for him.
Meet Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani’s liberal stances outweigh his conservative ones. His best appeals to the Right—solid judges and wartime leadership—are trumped-up. He lacks the basic moral comprehension to stand against abortion, the slavery of our day. His choice of personnel shows either incompetence or ethical bankruptcy. If he is our nominee, the Democrats will accuse his Clinton-bashing supporters of hypocrisy on personal morals—and the Democrats will be right.
All this, yet he’s our party’s frontrunner, and he won second place in the straw poll of an event professing to be a conservative gathering. Why? Because he’s “electable,” character and values be damned. And even that assumption is highly dubious. As John Hawkins writes (first link two paragraphs up):
—
“[Giuliani] offers almost nothing to social conservatives, without whom a victory for George Bush in 2004 wouldn’t have been possible. If the choice in 2008 comes down to a Democrat and a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, left-of-center candidate on social issues—like Rudy—you can be sure that millions of ‘moral values voters’ will simply stay home and cost the GOP the election.
“The other issue is in the South. George Bush swept every Southern state in 2000 and 2004, which is quite an impressive feat when you consider that the Democrats had Southerner Al Gore at the top of the ticket in 2000 and John Edwards as the veep in 2004. Unfortunately, a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control RINO from New York City just isn’t going to be able to repeat that performance. Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it’s entirely likely that you’ll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.”Also, the reason why George Bush’s approval numbers have been mired in the high thirties/low forties of late is because he has lost a significant amount of Republican support, primarily because his domestic policies aren’t considered conservative enough. Since that’s the case, running a candidate who is several steps to Bush’s left on domestic policy certainly doesn’t seem like a great way to unite the base again.”
—
I would add this: Many agree that President Bush’s mismanagement of the Iraq War contributed heavily to our ’06 loss. So why on God’s green Earth does the Republican establishment think the answer is a candidate whose public statements on Iraq consist of nothing but Bush cheerleading? Consider that we’re being told Rudy-the-Terror-Warrior trumps all his other stances, and it’s even more maddening. Logic like this makes me expect to see Rod Serling pop up any minute now and explain what parallel universe he’s got in store for us this week.
This Coulter letter shows that the blogosphere knows how to get active when it wants to, so why choose this brouhaha to take a stand? Where was the “Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors & Organizers Regarding Rudy Giuliani” demanding that the mayor be disinvited? You guys say you care about the conservative movement, so why is a tasteless joke more important than a presidential frontrunner whose positions are, for the most part, a direct repudiation of conservatism and whose record raises serious character and competence questions? I know some of the signatories have raised questions about Giuliani, but his presence in the party & at CPAC seems tolerated far more than Ann Coulter’s—an obscene misplacement of priorities.
I have a question for all of the conservatives who are open to the idea of Giuliani ’08: Do any of you have the slightest clue what the term “standard-bearer” means? Anyone? It means our presidential candidate sets the standard for our party to follow. He’s our number-one representative. He’s supposed to be among the best our party has to offer—not merely average, and definitely not among the worst. Does anybody want to seriously argue that a liberal Republican leader would not move the party Leftward?
George W. Bush would not be president today if not for the support of religious Americans who saw the chaos wreaked upon society by the secular Left and were crying out for a leader to stand up to it. Many of us devoted countless hours to his reelection primarily in the hopes of stopping the slaughter of defenseless babies, the radical redefinition of marriage, and the ideological rot in our courts—not simply because we wanted another point for the GOP’s scoreboard.
Our efforts have been rewarded in disappointment: Bush has been silent on the Culture War, inept on the Iraq War, and part of the problem for Americans who value our national sovereignty. So to say the conservative base is wary of trusting the Republican establishment again would be an understatement.
What are the odds that a candidate worse than Bush in nearly every way can repair that damaged trust and reignite that squandered passion?
It’s not the Ann Coulters of the world who are guilty of sacrificing the conservative movement in the name of success. The Fred Barnes’s, the George Wills, and the Sean Hannitiys are. Ann’s full CPAC speech doesn’t show some attention whore willing to destroy conservatism for book sales. It shows the same fearless, straight-talking, rambunctious-yet-intellectual, genuine conservative she’s always been. She makes mistakes. She made another one at CPAC (yet some “conservatives” are rewriting history—the “faggot” joke got more than its share of laughter & applause, and Hackbarth’s Hacks probably won’t mention her sincere appeal to gays regarding criminal protection). But her commitment to America’s future and to the viability of conservatism are the real deal—which is more than can be said of many on the “respectable” Right.
This election cycle is a crossroads for conservatism. In this nomination process, we are choosing what kind of entity we want the Republican Party to be: a serious crusader for our Constitution and values, or a cheap cabal whose highest value is power (ironically, power they’ll end up losing, like a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy come to life).
My fellow Americans, make your choice. Just don’t be surprised if the “electable” guy proves instead to be the GOP’s death knell.