Savage Republican

Chad the elder has a very interesting post.

http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2008/02/between-lose-and-hard-case.html

While I don’t agree completely with his over premise (that McCain is the only one who can win), I think he has a point with this:

– Romney is a good man with many fine qualities. But if I’m going to sign up for a sacrificial defeat of Goldwater-like proportions, I want it to be with a man of Goldwater-like convictions. With the prospects of a McCain nomination looming ever closer, a number of pundits are suddenly touting Romney as some kind of conservative standard bearer. Yet most of them kept their distance from Romney for all these months hoping for a real conservative to support. Why? Because they doubt if this latest incarnation of Romney is the real deal. There can be a certain nobility and honor in defeat, but not by going down with The Mitt.

That is one of the reason I am supporting Huckabee – He has a proven track record on key issue to me: Life, 2nd Amendment, States Rights and he has not changed his story.

You can disagree with his vision, but a least it is a consistent vision.

I will take pride that I stood for life and honor.

I’d like to posit a question to those who support John McCain.
I’m fairly certain that in the mix of positions of McCain that you have thoughtfully considered perhaps one of them is “He is electable” as President.
My question goes back to a comment by Richard Nixon “You can’t win with the conservative vote only. But, you also can’t win without them.”
So, as you consider voting or supporting for John McCain this Tuesday, be acutely aware that I have never heard so many conservatives so opposed to any Republican as they are to John McCain. Should McCain go on to win the nomination (though if able when I see Mitt Romney tomorrow evening, I’ll remind him that the nomination is in St. Paul in September, not this Tuesday in February). A John McCain nomination seriously risks alienating the conservatives to point of voting for someone else, anyone else. Be aware that there is a high likelyhood that McCain will lose a general election bid.
Should Hillary win, I believe, in the military, there will be a repeat of what happened in 1992/1993. I know a high ranking officer who was an Airborne Ranger who retired in 1993 rather than serve under Bill Clinton. His experience and talent was such that the Army bribed him by offering to promote him immediately to general officer status. He turned them down. He told me that a number of officers with his experience also resigned. Just when we need them most, that experienced officer corps may very well resign rather than endure serving under another military hating Clinton. One was quite more than enough.
And how long do you think the left wing lovefest with McCain will last? Do you believe that there are not Keating Five editorials are already written and waiting to be published in the NYT, the LA Times and Prairie Pravda just as soon the gavel comes down on the McCain nomination? The left wing is giddy at the prospect of having John McCain as the Republican nominee.
Actions have consequences.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is in full force with the support of John McCain.

Drudge is reporting that McCain seriously considered leaving the Republican Party. Leaving? Wouldn’t that be the same as considering whether or not Tip O’Neill is dead? A more truthful version would be that Senator McCain was seriously considering whether he would join the Republican Party. As I’m writing, Laura Ingraham is reporting that McCain and his people were in deep discussions with John Kerry about running with him. Deep discussions.
Former Senator Ric Santorum has just endorsed Mitt Romney on Laura’s show.
And he gave an excoriating review and critique of John McCain as Senator Santorum tried to work with McCain in the Senate.

Dr. Schoenleben was my dentist when I was a boy. The day before an appointment with him, I brushed my teeth until my gums bled. Yup, I was gonna brush away all the effects of Slo Pokes, Jolly Ranchers and a toothbrush gathering dust. Just watch.Brush, brush, brush, brush…
And so John McCain is walking into the lions den by agreeing to go to CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), the conservative epicenter that he snubbed last year. And I believe there’s a bit of the old dread of Dr. Schoenleben in the Senator. How he thinks he’s going to walk in make nice with the people (and their love of liberty) that he’s poked in the eye consistently for years and walk out feeling good is beyond me. This makes as much sense as the abusive husband telling his wife “I’ve changed. Really. Not like those other times I said I changed and didn’t. This time for real!”
I brush and floss regularly now.

From reading blogs across the spectrum – this seems to be the item that everyone agrees was the best answer last night.

By the way, my wife has been asking, who is the blond next to the Govinator?

After I read the NOW-NY screed on Uncle Teddy’s betrayal by endorsing Obama, rather than Monica Lewinski’s ex-boyfriend’s co-habitant, my brother reminded me why I ignore whatever falls out teddy’s mouth:

(Click then click again on the image for a larger view).

Uncle Teddy endorses Obama. And watch the feminists scream!!! This is just too much fun.
Here is the official response from the NY chapter of NOW (from the Times Union blog):

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation – to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”

I’ve also linked to the comments that are well worth the read. The one that impressed me was the one that took the first sentence of NOW’s press release “The ultimate betrayal”. The commenter wrote : “Uncle Ted leaving Mary Jo Kopechne in the car was the ultimate betrayal.”
Go read the comments. It will be well worth your time.

I don’t normal promote my local column, as it tend to narrowly focus on the city of Savage, but I think this one would be of interest to those who care about civil rights and life issues:

Why not save two lives at one time?
http://www.savagepacer.com/news/opinions/community-voices-why-not-save-two-lives-one-time-5930

I just got this from one of my good 2nd Amendment friends.
The more times you watch it, the more detail and precision you’ll see. Some of the best editing and timing to detail I’ve ever seen.
It was filmed at 15 locations.

I hate responding to talking points – But Amendment X doesn’t like me commenting in his posts, so here we go:

Talking point 1:
“Governor Huckabee has recently said that he would sign a federal smoking ban”

Answer:
Could you clarify your views on tobacco regulation?
MH: Certainly, I don’t believe that we as a govt have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety … the same reason that the govt regulates the exposure of radon and other toxic gases in the work place. In AR I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not. So, in the work place, if we regulate smoking, it is an issue of worker safety. Even though I think it’s an unhealthy habit and is terribly expensive to the country, but when that smoke reaches my nose, that right ends. The responsibility initially lies with the states of course. The only way this would be a federal responsibility is for it taking on that roll as part of OSHA as it regulates other work place safety.
[Not a big OSHA fan, but don’t see any issue here from a conservative point of view]
(*Also, Mitt fans probably want to stop pushing this –
“Governor Mitt Romney, who had said earlier in the year that he preferred to leave smoking laws to individual cities and towns, but who now says he is willing to consider a statewide ban.” Boston Globe, 2003)

Talking point 2:
“Would push federally mandated, government run health care”

Answer:
MH: Government-run socialized medicine is not the answer but neither is employer controlled insurance. You should own your insurance.
MH: “I think the better idea is to turn [health care] over to each individual…I trust me a lot more than I trust the government or a lot more than I trust the insurance companies.” The best way to fix our health crisis is to put the decision into the hand of Americans and reward them for making the correct one.
(*For a good discussion on why employer health care is starting to be a problem read – “liberal fascism”, Employer owned, government mandated health care is the problem right now)
(* Also, don’t think Mitt Romney fans want to go with this line of attack – Mitt actually implemented Gov’t Run Health Care)

“Mandatory weight control”
See above, but even if he was for it can you blame him – look at that picture of him in AK and now.

Since people like talking points –
Romney’s Health Care Plan:

Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50.

Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney’s legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney’s plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented.

Incredibly, Romney used his line item veto to strike things from this plan that he found “objectionable” (such as dental benefits for Medicaid patients) but he DID NOT strike the $50 elective abortions or Planned Parenthood’s demand that they be given a seat at the negotiating table to ensure the continued EXPANSION of abortion.

As someone said,
Is 50 bucks-per-baby “100% pro-life” to you.

That does not seem too conservative to me either fiscally or socially.

New Post Debate Update:
How about the Second Amendment –
Romney supported an assault weapon ban and the Brady bill yet still claim to support the second amendment?
He explains that those were bipartisan bills that he supported, but trust him, he won’t take your guns. I assume he means unless there is bipartisan support to take them. Of course, why take them when he can just support the laws to effectively ban them.