You Are Among The Elite!

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

After Super Tuesday Blues

Yesterday I told you that I had no idea which lever I might pull. In actuality we use paper ballots, and it consists of filling in an arrow to point to a candidate.

I was torn between wanting the party to defeat Hillary - in which case McCain was the best candidate - and sticking to my conservative beliefs as closely as I could - in which case Romney was the best candidate - and finding some integrity on the social conservative side - in which case Huckabee was the best candidate.

My issues with McCain have been about his reluctance to stick with the party on issues that matter the most. McCain-Feingold is of course a prime example of him departing for the liberal side. I think that he might be more Reagan-esque than I previously thought, as his ability to work with moderates and find compromises that make the important thing work. A McCain presidency could be the best thing for conservatives - they might become motivated to find a candidate that represents our values a little better. After the left villifies McCain for either four or eight years, we could offer something as a change in 2016.

Why can't the GOP find a candidate that is a mix of all three choices? Why do we have to continually struggle with sorting our our own beliefs and choosing between a fiscal conservative and an evangelical one?

In the end my ballot pointed at Romney. Huckabee won Alabama and Romney finished a pretty distant 3rd place, but I couldn't help it. In the end, I figured I can fight over the social issues, but the fiscal issues need someone in place to wage those battles.

Last night was interesting. I thought Obama might trounce Hillary a little better, but she is on the ropes regardless. I do have one totally partisan question. Actually, it isn't really partisan except that Hillary isn't my candidate. Here goes:

I was watching the news coverage when Hillary came on stage for her speech. It was the typical dem speech, intended to reach out to the left and the poor. Part of her speech was insisting that they needed her in the White House because the President had done nothing for eight years. She said over and over that someone need to be in place to do things that should have been done for years.

The only thing that kept going through my head was "Haven't you been on the Hill for more than four years? Hasn't your party had control of the legislature for two years? Aren't you the one touting all of your "experience?" Why haven't you done all of these things yourself?"

9 Posts From Readers:

Shaw said...

The only thing that kept going through my head was "Haven't you been on the Hill for more than four years? Hasn't your party had control of the legislature for two years? Aren't you the one touting all of your "experience?" Why haven't you done all of these things yourself?"

Because, Robert. The Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate. They need 60 to get anything passed. AND, have you forgotten that Bush is still president and has the power of the veto?

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Which goes to prove my point about statesmanship versus politics.

Politics is spending your life trying to get a majority that can run over anyone and everyone to pass legislation. Statesmanship is working for the good of the ocuntry, forging alliances and moving forward.

And Bush has used the veto stamp sparingly. If I am not mistaken, he didn't veto anything during the entire first four years, but I will have to check and verify that.

ECOPHOTOS said...

When I introduced myself to this forum several months ago, I represented my political views as "eclectic" and independent. Let me explain in more depth.

On economic and foreign policy, my views tend to be more liberal. On fiscal spending, some social legislation, immigration, Constitutional issues, and the rule of law, my views tend to be more conservative. On military matters, my views follow no particular path; I choose the most logical and practical solutions as dictated by the facts.

In short, I follow no particular ideology or doctrine, and this sets me free. With no baggage or partisan loyalties to tie me down, I can pick and choose more freely than those who feel compelled to follow a party line. In short, I can separate the baby from the bath water. I am not forced to take chaffe along with the wheat.

On the issue of environmentalism, I used to think "conservation" meant "conservative." It was, after all, a Republican administration (Nixon) that gave birth to the Environmental Protectional Agency. How the hell this got polarized into "left" versus "right" partisanship is beyond me. At any rate, I am a strong promponent of conservation, and this, in my mind, is a conservative idea.

Does this mean I lack a set of guiding principles? Hardly. Democracy, freedom, and civil liberties mean as much to me as anyone here. It is just that I see a "mixed" approach to a set "mixed" problems, and being free of doctrine means I can be free to pick and choose as the situation demands.

For instance, there is a proper place for laissez faire economics and there is a proper place for regulation and government intervention. There is no "one-size-fits-all' approach to this subject. To be more specific, to much governmental hand-on stifles business; too little hands-on gives rise to "bubble" economies that hurt ordinary citizens and cost them dearly. The non-doctrinaire approach, in my opinion, is the right one.

The polarization we see today in public policy making is terribly self-destructive. I would like to a more balance in how we make public policy, neither left nor right but practical, realistic and level-headed.

In case any of you have been wondering whether I am lunatic left or lunatic right, I hope this clarifies my political slant. I am none of these. I am free !!!

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

So you are saying you are just plain old lunatic?

Forgive the humor. I am not in the mood to be too analytical today. I recognize your post for its seriousness, and will reply soon. Just don't have the energy today.

Besides I thought that was funny.

ECOPHOTOS said...

plain old lunatic

There is nothing plain about me.

Shaw said...

And Bush has used the veto stamp sparingly. If I am not mistaken, he didn't veto anything during the entire first four years, but I will have to check and verify that.

I believe he used his power of veto only once and that was for the children's health coverage. That means he did not veto any pork or earmarks that were attached to any legislation. Anything the majority Republican Congress proposed and passed, he signed into law.

I'm pretty sure about the one veto, but not absolutely. I'll check on it.

Shaw said...

President Bush has spent six-plus years not using his veto. In 2005, he became the first president since John Quincy Adams to complete a term in the White House without once standing up to Congress.

July 20, 206 was the first veto. It was on stem cell legislation.

The child health care bill was his fourth veto.

Another one was the Iraq spending bill.

So I stand corrected.

Wadical said...

I shall do what I do every election year. I will vote for the lesser of two evils, the devil with the least menacing horns. The same seems to always be true whether I'm voting for county sheriff or President of the United States. It sickens me.

What's the answer, though? The answer is exactly what you probably think it is. It is exactly what you and I probably want it to be. It is exactly what I am not brave enough to do, but should do nonetheless...vote for a 3rd party candidate. But considering how close the last Presidential election was, how can a person not feel as though they are throwing their vote away by casting it for a 3rd party candidate?

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Exactly, Wadical. The problem with third parties is that they pull republican/conservative voters, which guarantees a dem victory.

What I do see, possible in 2016 is a very viable and competitive third party candidate. The GOP is not getting the job done, and there are too many conservatives out there who are tired of doing as you describe. I know I am.

I think a McCain nomination will drive conservatives out of the party, and a new movement will rise. It will take 10 years for it to take hold, but the party is not holding to what the base wants it to be, and it won't be tolerated for long.

Other Stuff