americanideal.org Blog

McCain has always bragged about his willingness to “reach across the aisle” for “the good of the country.”  He is proud of his collaborations with Russ Feingold, John Edwards, Ted Kenney, Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy. . .

The result of these collaborations: restrictions on the freedom of speech in so-called campaign finance reform; amnesty for illegal aliens in so-called “comprehensive immigration reform”; ridiculous restrictions on economic liberty under the guise of preventing global warming; and sundry big government solutions to this or that problem, real or imaginary.

With McCain and the Democrats, it’s not really about working together as compromise. It’s about giving the veneer of bi-partisanship to the most partisan, liberal, Democrat agenda. 

In what substantive ways did any of McCain’s efforts to “reach across the aisle” result in the Democrats’ moving even in the slightest toward the center? Where did they “compromise” what they wanted in order to garner McCain’s support?  Nowwhere.

Instead, McCain simply signs on to the Democrat agenda and claims the high ground as the great uniter and peace-maker. 

Principles?  Those are for ideologues.  We were sent here by the people to get things done.  No matter if the people are better off with most of those “things” Congress does not being done at all. 

This just shows that liberalism is the dominant mindset after all.  Most people believe without even thinking about it much that government’s job is to do something, anything.  In reality, we would be much better off if the government did less “things” and did only what it is supposed to do very well.

Yet McCain has so far secured more delegates than all his rivals combined in the Republican nominating process because he has proven that he can work with (i.e. cave to) liberal Democrats and “get things done” in Washington, things like eviscerating the first amendment, expanding big government, blocking the appointment of principled judges, you get the idea.

If McCain does win the GOP nomination, the New York Times and other old media outlets that love McCain now are not going to endorse him over Hillarak.

All the negatives on McCain that everyone knows already will come as “shocking revelations” to the media, as they feign suprpise at how hot-tempered McCain can be, how salty his language, how quick to lash out with vituperative tirades against anyone that disagrees with him.  Of course, they will be “reminded” and therefore obligated to remind the electorate about the S&L scandal, the “Keating Five,” which almost resulted in McCain’s being indicted.

And who knows what else his “good friend” Hillary and Clinton Inc. have on McCain?  Come October, we’ll find out.

Leave it to “principled” conservatives and pro-lifers to punish someone for doing what we hope everyone will do:  become pro-life.

With the old media’s seemingly successful resuscitation of the McCain campaign about to be confirmed on Super Tuesday, conservative Republicans are wondering how they let this happen.  It has happened because conservatives did not coalesce earlier around the best–even if not perfect–choice early on:  Mit Romney.   Why didn’t they?

Open Primaries are fundamentally wrong.  Whose idea was it to allow people who aren’t registered as Republicans to vote in Republican primaries?  This has done more to help McCain than any other factor, combined with the “horse race” mindset of the media.  As a Republican, I don’t think non-Republicans have a right to say who my party’s candidate should be.  This to me is so basic that it defies argument. Yet so many of the early state primaries allow non party members to vote in that party.  So-called independents have done more to put McCain in the “front runner” spot than have Republicans. Republicans need to take their party back.  If you want to choose our party’s candidate, then you have to be a member. It’s not complicated.  I think I’ll go to the next meeting of the Service Employees International Union (of which I am not a  member) and demand my right to vote on their policies and leadership . . . See you at the bottom of the river.

Conservative talk giants did not get behind him.  Why didn’t Rush and Hannity endorse Romney, and do so early?  Now Hannity “endorsed” him by saying he’ll vote for Romney in the New York primary.  Whoop-de-doo.  Were they afraid to endorse someone that might not win and then look like they “got it wrong.”  This treating of politics as a football season has got to stop.  Media types are more concerned about “calling it right” than about getting it right.   Everybody wants to be the one that knew who was going to win before it was over.  The obsession with polls (if I could be a dictator and override the first amendment, the first thing I would do is ban any talk of polls) has made selecting the president into a game.  It’s not about the won/loss record.  It’s about the delegates.  How many average voters (average idiots) even know this?

The talkers were great at pointing out McCain’s areas of unsuitability.  But they never outlined how only two candidates–Romney and Thompson–and now only one remaining candidate (Romney) had pretty much a solid slate of conservative views on all the most important issues. 

Pro-life conservatives don’t trust Romney, because he flip-flopped on abortion. He used to be pro-choice, and now he is pro-life.  This one is frustrating and demoralizing.  The pro-life movement has spent the past 35 years trying to persuade people to do just that–change from pro-abortion to pro-life.  Then a major political figure does that, and we punish him, because, you see, we “can’t trust” him.  He is not really one of us.  He wasn’t there all along.  Good job, pro-lifers! The next time you try to change a pro-choicer’s mind about abortion, maybe they will remember how Mit Romney was “rewarded” for doing that.

Who are we kidding? Anti-Mormon bigotry is a big part of Romney’s problem.  Nobody will admit it, but most Republicans, especially the evangelical conservatives who are needed to derail McCain, do not trust Romney, because they think Mormons are at the very least a little weird, and at the worst some kind of cult that isn’t a real religion; and, if it is a religion, it’s certainly not Christian.

What else could account for Pat Robertson’s (who has finally gone off the deep end) earlier endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, a lapsed Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun, “moderate” in a field containing solid Christian conservatives like Romney and, at the time, Thompson?

Then there’s James Dobson.  Why on earth he went after Thompson months ago, declaring him not really a Christian, who knows.  And how does “Dr.” Dobson know what’s in a man’s heart to critique the depth of his faith in Christ, a man who professes publicly to be a Christian?  Now Dobson says he will never vote for McCain.  Again, what use is that anti-endorsement?  Has he come out for Romney?

Sad thing is, Romney is probably the most family-oriented candidate of the bunch.  While Mormons are ridiculed for the past acceptance of polygamy (a common practice in the earliest days of Judaism in the Bible as well), the irony is that Romney is the only viable Republican candidate remaining to have had only one wife, to whom he has been married for 38 years and with whom he raised five sons. 

And we know how dangerous those Mormons are?  How many times do you see gang violence, drug running, kill-for-thrill sprees, armed robbery, you name it, and the perp is invariably a Mormon . . .

Romney has a lot going for him.  He’s right on all the major issues.  He had a successful career in business.  He turned the Olympics around and led it to a stellar success.  He won as a Republican in one of America’s most liberal states.  He has strong executive experience.  He has his own money so he doesn’t have to be beholden to the Soros-types out there.  And he has a track record as a wonderful family man.  He’s smart and articulate and looks like a president. 

You can see why the Republican party is about to reject him in favor of an elderly global-warming true-believer with a volatile temperament who is for open borders and the evisceration of the first amendment, and is against tax cuts and principled conservative Supreme Court justice nominees.