CONSERVATIVE OPTIMISM: MCCAIN CAN WIN

Put a cork in it, Sean. Nobody cares anymore about your half-baked "opinions."

Conservatives learn to live with McCain
By: David Paul Kuhn
February 10, 2008

Conservatives have already found something to like about John McCain: They think he can win in November. According to interviews with a dozen leading conservatives at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, movement leaders believe McCain brings significant advantages to the top of the ticket.

“The public who wants change is comfortable with John McCain, whom they view as someone who is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bush administration,” said former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating. The very issues that have estranged McCain from much of the conservative base “have actually strengthened him with moderates,” Keating added.

Part of McCain’s newfound appeal rests on his perceived distance from President Bush. “The unhappiness is with Bush and not the Republican agenda,” said Grover Norquist, a leading fiscal conservative activist. Norquist saw parallels with the 2007 election of conservative French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who followed the administration of fellow conservative Jacques Chirac. “This is Sarkozy saying, ‘I’m not Chirac,’” Norquist said of McCain in the coming race. “I’m the change, and she’s [opponent Segolene Royal] the socialist.”

Of course, McCain still has a ways to go in mending rifts with opponents and rallying an unenthused base. At one conference session, a speaker asked the audience whether Republicans were going in the right direction. Perhaps a dozen raised their hand “yes.” There were thousands sitting in the hall.

When Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading conservative in the House, spoke at the conference on Friday, he rhetorically asked, “What are conservatives supposed to do now?” One man yelled skeptically: “Tell us!” Later, as Pence spoke well of McCain, a woman extended her arm and gave a thumbs-down.“Republicans believe in markets. We also should believe in political markets,” Pence said after his speech to the convention. “And the market has spoken here. Not the party fathers, not pundits, the American people. Republican voters have given us a soldier, and it just may be what the Republican Party needs to take that hill in 2008.”

Pence said that if a reunion between McCain and the base occurs, “what appeals to independents and moderates is already in the package.”

With McCain as the presumptive nominee, many conservatives no longer believe Republicans are fated to lose in November — a shift from last year’s dour outlook. The turmoil within the base, many said, will prove ephemeral.Much of the change in thinking can be traced to the events of the last week.

First, Super Tuesday left Democrats preparing for a protracted and heated battle. Second, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s resignation from the race on Thursday effectively sealed McCain’s bid for the nomination. In the view of many conservatives, Romney’s quick withdrawal left time for McCain to unite the party before reaching out to those voters lost in the devastating 2006 midterm elections.“

"There is general acceptance of McCain as the nominee and they are thinking, ‘How can we work best together?’” Norquist said.

Few Republicans disagree that the hill ahead is steep. The war in Iraq remains unpopular, though less so of late. Only a quarter of the public thinks the country is heading in the “right direction.” Bush’s approval rating, hovering around 30 percent, is a millstone weighing the party down.

“History tells you that the Republicans shouldn’t be able to win in 2008,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. “But history is made up of exceptional acts. We still have a divided electorate. In the main, on most values issues, the public leans conservative.”

Another conservative House leader, Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-Mich.), said that though he was not an early supporter of McCain, he would nevertheless stand by him in the general election. He added that he also now believes that “this should be a close election.”

Many Republicans believe that the base will come together once the race turns to a “contrast” — to use South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint’s words — between the Republican and Democratic nominee. The alternative to McCain, according to this line of thinking, may be as much of a factor for the GOP as McCain himself.

“Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or Haley Barbour may all be more conservative than John McCain. But he’s not going to be running against any of us. He’s going to be running against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama,” said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.“In 2004, there’s an enormous premium on uniting and motivating and turning out your base. My opinion is 2008 is going to be much more of an election about persuasion,” Barbour continued. “McCain as our candidate actually benefits from that more than a Haley Barbour would.”

Even longtime conservative activists such as Paul Weyrich, who remains disheartened by the idea of a McCain nomination, believes that the coming general election offers Republicans newfound opportunities.Though Weyrich believes New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “is clearly an easier target because her negatives are so high,” he also argued that Democrats have not considered Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s “weaknesses.”

Most Republicans cite both Democrats’ relative inexperience compared with McCain. But many conservatives interviewed, like Weyrich, said the recent nonpartisan National Journal ranking of Obama as the most liberal senator illustrates a significant vulnerability.“I think [Democrats] really don’t know what’s coming,” Weyrich said. “In other words, they don’t really understand that his philosophy, his viewpoint, is going to be made an issue. Right now he has been winning on oratory and personality. Both of which are outstanding. But once people begin to understand where he is, and that he is really the same as Hillary on most everything, I think it’s going to be a different story.”

Conservatives also said that they believe an extended contest between Obama and Clinton will further divide Democrats. And many said the Democratic race has exposed weaknesses they did not foresee at the outset of the presidential race.

“Conservatives realize that Hillary Clinton is not a 10-foot giant and the newcomer has got his problems,” Keene said. “They see the Democrats involved in a fight that is going to go on and on and a fight that is going to get more and more bitter. So they are looking at a very different landscape than they did a year or so ago.”

NOTE: MONDAY I'LL HAVE A COLUMN ON THE PHONINESS OF HILLARY CLINTON. ON TUESDAY, IT WILL BE BARACK OBAMA'S TURN. AS PAUL WEYRICH SUGGESTS, BARACK TALKS A GOOD GAME BUT HE PLAYS THE SAME OLD LEFT-WING BROKEN RECORD. NOTE THAT THE NATIONAL JOURNAL RATED HIM THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE.

McCain-Haters Were Reagan-Haters

The following is reprinted from The Pink Flamingo, a site I urge you to visit.

From: http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/10/3458404.html

McCain Hatred, Conservative Amnesia & the Cult of Reagan
by SJ Reidhead at 01:18PM (MST) on January 10, 2008 Permanent Link Cosmos
''It is unlikely that the Reagan era
will prove to be the historic change
in the direction of America that we have sought.''
Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation,1985.


THE TRUTH HURTS!
This harping back and forth, declaring John McCain and Mike Huckabee impure, is nothing new for conservatives. I know it appears as though they are looking for something special, a 2nd coming of Reagan, but the problem was, when they had Reagan, they wanted to get rid of him. The problem is the fact that the same people absolutely detested Reagan when he was POTUS, but are now lying about it. I was going to wax poetic about the way the usual sources of Limbaugh, Malkin, Ingraham, Hewett, Hannity, etc. were slamming McCain, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Giuliani, but then I realized they are doing nothing new. When Reagan was President, the same hard line mindset hated him. He wasn’t conservative enough for them, pure enough for them, and pandering enough for them. A few of the names have changed, but the vitriol remains the same. Only now, these people have turned a great man into a false god, creating a cult around him, one where they can sacrifice any one who doesn’t live up to their tainted and fantastical idea of what Ronald Reagan was.

And so, our dear media darling multi-millionaire conservative talk show far out conservatives with their endearing little PMS (President McCain Syndrome) are getting their silk undies in a wad over the prospect of a McCain Presidency. As it looks more and more like McCain’s time has finally come, they are doing everything possible to destroy him. Like I wrote last night, Rush Limbaugh has an irrational hatred of John McCain that will end up destroying Rush Limbaugh and his vaunted credibility.

I've done a cut and paste of past Pink Flamingo articles on the subject. I think they prove my point. Today's bunch of petty, sore-headed conservatives are acting no different than they did when Ronald Reagan was President. The ones who made trouble for Reagan now lie about their support. The ones who are now making problems for John McCain and worship Reagan are lying to themselves about the false legacy they have created. They are demeaning Ronald Reagan as a man. They are also turning this election over to the Democrats. Sometimes I think that's exactly what they want to do. They would rather see us lose in November than they would lose some of their power.

REAGAN AND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
About six months ago I did an article about Reagan and conservatives.
“On Oct 14, 1983, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that …
‘…President Reagan isn't doing particularly well among evangelical and born- again Christian voters, according to a new poll that one "new right" leader said yesterday should set off "an alarm bell" at the White House. The poll said Reagan was running only roughly even with Sen. John Glenn of Ohio in a potential 1984 presidential matchup. While Reagan held a substantial lead over former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in the poll…”


And, like George W. Bush, conservatives like Richard Viguerie threatened Reagan in the Miami Herald, on Jan 21, 1984.
“…Conservatives may not back President Reagan for reelection in 1984 unless he reverses what they consider "almost a stampede to the left" in the White House, New Right leaders said Tuesday. "Quick and comprehensive changes" in Reagan's staff and policies are needed to win back longtime supporters in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, they indicated. Howard Phillips, who heads the Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie…’


And like their criticism of Bush, the Heritage Foundation found that Reagan was not conservative enough for them. One wonders what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would have said of Reagan had they been in power during his presidency. See if you recognize any of these names, all of whom now vocally criticize GWB. NY Times, Nov 25, 1983.
“….To some, he has sounded an uncertain trumpet, missed golden opportunities, compromised too often and drifted from his conservative moorings. To others, he has changed the direction of Government in a way that Democrats will be hard-pressed to reverse. To still others, he has had a mixed bag of successes and failures.

Such are the findings of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group that has been both an occasional critic of and an intellectual resource for the Reagan Administration. In an effort to explore the depth of conservative discontent as well as satisfaction with the President, it recently asked a number of prominent conservative activists, intellectuals, politicians and writers to rate how he was doing.

The foundation, which periodically runs such surveys, plans to publish its findings shortly. But foundation sources have provided a preview of what is to come.

What they were unable to provide was what effect, if any, the division in conservative ranks might have on Mr. Reagan's re-election chances. For a number of the doubters, provided the dissatisfaction is not too deep, Mr. Reagan could still be the only acceptable candidate. Not Enough 'Reaganauts'…John T. Dolan, chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, contended that the tax cut would be the only real historic achievement of Mr. Reagan's Presidency. ''I expected more to happen,'' said this disappointed conservative activist. ''There has been no major defense buildup beyond what Carter would have done. There has been no spending cut. There has been no turnover of control to the states. There has been no effort to dismantle the Washing bureaucratic elitist establishment.''

M. Stanton Evans, a newspaper columnist, is no less disappointed. ''This has been essentially another Ford Administration,'' he said in his critique. ''It has been business as usual, not much different from any other Republican administration of our lifetime. It has been an Administration populated by corporate executive types.'' Everyone knows, he added, that ''people used to the decorum of the boardroom back off from controversy.''

Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, saw Mr. Reagan as ''the only coherent revolutionary in an Administration of accommodationist advisers.'' His chief criticism: ''The Administration has had no capacity to launch strategic offenses on behalf of Reagan's vision.'' After Mr. Reagan won his tax and budget cuts in the spring of 1981, Mr. Gingrich added, someone in the White House should have been asking, ''What do we do to keep up momentum?'' Instead, he said, Mr. Reagan returned from California in August to a ''vacuum of activity'' and a new political agenda that had been set by Democrats. ''Political debate was once again totally enmeshed in the rhetoric and values of the liberal welfare state,'' Mr. Gingrich said. Waste in Spending Cited Howard Phillips, national director of the Conservative Caucus and one of Mr. Reagan's earliest and sharpest critics, asserted: ''Reagan is just the sort of nice fellow I'd like to have as a neighbor, but he defers too quickly to anyone in a three-piece suit.''…Cal Thomas, vice president of communications for Moral Majority, credited the President for transforming public thinking on Government spending, but faulted him for his leadership on the abortion issue. ''If we balance the budget and we still keep murdering a million and a half babies every year, there's no way we can say we're better off than we were four years ago,'' said Mr. Thomas. Paul M. Weyrich, executive director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, said Mr. Reagan's eagerness to avoid political confrontations with Congress robbed him of victories that he might have had. Sadly, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ''The radical surgery that was required in Washington was not performed. Ronald Reagan made a pledge not to touch entitlement programs, and that's one of the few pledges he has kept absolutely.''…”