The Pink Flamingo :: Voices of Reason Try to Overcome Those of Madness and Political Suicide

THE RANT
I’ve been working on this one for weeks, as well you can tell. There's a heck of a lot of information here, that is going to take awhile to read, so just kick back and grab a pacifier. I’m not quite sure where to start, stop, copy, paste, and mutilate. I think the bottom line here is that conservatives are either suffering from early on-set dementia or a very serious mid-life crises. As a whole they are out of their proverbial “Reagan-aping” minds! They take the name of Ronald Reagan in vain so often that they no longer know who he was or what he stood for. When they do, but don’t want their prodigious criticism of him know, they resort to the usual Democrat tactic – they lie.

Just deal with this do-do. If you are one of the above, use my comments for constructive growth. Without personal growth and evolution we wither and die of mental atrophy. Yikes – I’ve just realized I think they are already past go. We need more “Smart Conservatives and Republicans” who understand what we are dealing with. The problem is many of once reliable conservatives have gone over Niagara Falls – in the Titanic!

They are driving me crazy! I am still “conservative” in nature. I agree with something like 95% of their agenda when you exclude extreme hard-line anti-immigration and the death penalty. Other than that – heck – I agree – as long as you don’t go taking out good people like Lindsey Graham. What Buddy Witherspoon is doing to him in SC is beyond deplorable – it is unprecedented and in my mind, reeks of criminal betrayal. Conservatives need to learn they are being manipulated by forces that have nothing to do with REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVISM and everything to do with Group Think.

We’re no longer dealing with “regular Republicans” but a tremendous number of people I liken to “Trekkies” – people who are willing to allow themselves to be lead around and not use their heads for what the Good Lord Intended. Republicans are individuals and leaders. They are not mindless followers like the people who are attracted by the anti-immigration mess and Ron Paul.

It’s like Ruffini said the other day about Jim DeMint’s Reagan whatever – give me a break. Reagan is dead. Find a new icon. Move on before you create a new religion and truly dishonor the great man’s name.

Not to worry, AJ Strata thinks a strong GOP contender will beat Hillary.

Harold Hutchison started it all with his Monday morning observations about conservatives, the GOP, elections, and the Hispanic vote. He links to a recent Fred Barnes article.

And more from Harold.

James Lewis’ American Thinker commentary on conservatives:

“…So it may be sensible to ask conservatives elsewhere to prove their good intentions, just as we need to demand that the Democrats throw out their totalitarians. Maybe Paul Belien should clarify his position on these issues. Vlaams Belang should clean up its public image, and explicitly denounce suspicious characters. The political benefits of doing that are clear. It is also the right and proper thing to do.”

RELIGIOUS "CONSERVATIVES" TURN HELLISH
Save the GOP has an article about Fred Thompson and the religious right.

Flap on Laura Ingraham, Giuliani, and Pat Robertson. I find Ingraham increasingly combative, illogical, completely lacking in rational discourse and just plain bitchy. She is the perfect example of the Group Think conservative who needs a lesson in Republican reality.

Liz Mair on the conservative loss in Virginia:

“…Generally, the rule of thumb one hears out of Republicans working the ground in Fairfax in the context of statewide races is that if the GOP can't hold onto at least 40% of the votes there, the Republican candidate pretty much cannot win. Last night, Devolites Davis lost her race with 44%-- above that-- but she's also a more moderate Republican of the type that tends to appeal better in a blue area. That raises questions about how a more conservative (or conservative-looking) Republican, say a Gilmore or a Romney might fare in the state, given Fairfax's importance, demographics, and increasing left-ward tilt. While I wouldn't describe either of these candidates as right-wingers, the fact is, given the way Fairfax looks just now, neither seems well-suited to playing marginally well in such an area against the likes of Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton (especially if she has a centrist like, say, Evan Bayh as her VP candidate). Sure, Fairfax isn't the be-all-and-end-all in Virginia (I live in Arlington, so have little reason to tout Fairfax's importance), but it is very, very populous-- and the way it votes is how neighboring Loudon County seems to be starting to vote. And that County is the fastest growing in the state. Virginia is getting bluer, that's for sure-- and even if some of the Democrats elected last night don't look or feel like outright liberals (Devolites Davis' opponent looks quasi-Jim Webb like, in fact), their election is likely to help condition the state towards accepting members of an overwhelmingly liberal party. That's bad news for Republicans, I'm afraid, and the party had better figure out what it's going to do about it….”

The Politico on VA:

“Hitting hard on immigration might make sense in a place like MA-5 which doesn’t have a huge immigrant population, yet. But unfortunately, Republicans in Virginia are running on messages that are about a decade late. This isn’t your father’s Fairfax County anymore. The fact that there were a tangle of elderly Asian immigrants ahead of me in the voting line today requesting help filling out their English-only ballots is testament to it. Now, don’t count me as a Tom Davis squish on this. Instead of applying blunt force on the immigration issue in a diverse community, you zero in on the illegal immigration-related quality of life concerns that 90% of the electorate can identify with, like the scourge of MS-13 gang violence in the region. Were I running in Northern Virginia, I wouldn’t mention the words “illegal immigration.” I would talk exclusively about MS-13, and about working with ICE to deport every violent criminal in the area illegally. This is the fatal mistake that ex-prosecutor Jerry Kilgore made in 2005 — and the GOP candidates this time around didn’t do much better….”

Immigration Prof Blog – Immigration IS NOT a voter issue!
Paul Weyrich is endorsing Romney
Why Robertson endorsed Giuliani:

:,,, “In all of the crises which confront our nation and the world, we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead. For months I have contemplated our future and the outstanding group of men who are offering themselves to the Republican Party to be its standard bearer in the 2008 presidential election. Today, it is my pleasure to announce my support for a mayor, America ’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and a proven leader, who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans. “Rudy Giuliani stood tall as his city was rocked by the worst terrorist act in America ’s history. Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a wealth of bureaucratic regulations and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship, which is so urgently needed in Washington today. He proved time and again that he is a true fiscal conservative. Rudy served as a high official in the Justice Department of Ronald Reagan and later as a United States attorney. Won acclaim as a valiant crime fighter. Justice triumphed as he took down mafia dons, drug traffickers, and corrupt politicians. He understands the need for a conservative judiciary and with the help of the distinguished Ted Olson, who’s here today, and other members of his team has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia….”

Flap on the unhinged anti-abortion right’s reaction:
Outside the Beltway on the Unhinged “Christian” Right.
Rove thinks the “Christian Right” may stay home.

“…But he also suggested that evangelical leader Pat Robertson’s support for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) is a sign of growing pragmatism in the movement. Rove described evangelicals as going through a process common to newly active political groups, in which they gradually learn to concede certain issues in favor of bigger ones. Questions have been raised about the GOP field’s ability to attract religious conservatives, and Democrats including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have played up their faith on the campaign trail in hopes of wooing religious voters. Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani surprised many, since the mayor isn’t socially conservative on issues like abortion. Rove suggested Giuliani’s strength on national security took precedence over social issues. “When people come into politics for the first time … there’s an insistence on ‘Everything has to be my way, 100 percent fidelity to my cause,’ ” Rove said. “I think [Robertson’s endorsement] is a sign of a broader perspective.” He also said Giuliani has done a good job using his time as mayor of New York to portray his values on the campaign trail and has remained the front-runner for longer than he expected. Rove said Obama and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), meanwhile, haven’t proven adept at taking advantage of openings provided to them by front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). He said former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.), Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and even former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have chances to become the GOP nominee….”

The “Christian” response to the Robertson endorsement is to be expected, tolerant, loving, kind, all the Fruits of the Spirit – NOT!
And yet more gracious “Christian” response.
More “Christian” responses:

“…OneNewsNow contacted several pro-family leaders to get their reaction to the Robertson endorsement. Some did not return calls, while others said they did not want to comment. One of them, a close personal friend of Robertson, said he believes the endorsement is "tragic," and that if Giuliani wins the nomination, it "will destroy the Republican Party."…”

Kenneth Blackwell’s take on things.

“…Almost immediately, the press was panning the endorsement as a sell-out. That’s ridiculous. Mr. Robertson is not selling out. He just happens to have a J.D. from Yale Law School, so he knows what Mr. Giuliani’s commitment to appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court means. The fact that Ted Olson, an unimpeachable legal conservative, is Mr. Giuliani’s closest advisor on judicial matters seals the deal for many as to the kind of Supreme Court he would create. There were even pundits saying that Mr. Robertson was putting fighting terrorists ahead of ending abortion. Nonsense. Yes, he places great emphasis on winning the war against the global network of terrorists. But, he also knows Mr. Giuliani would appoint conservative judges and believes he has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he believes supporting Mr. Giuliani gives conservatives the best chance of overturning Roe v. Wade. He didn’t drop abortion as an issue; he thinks this gives us the best chance on the issue, and is acting on principle. So the story here is not a fractured coalition or evangelical leaders who have “sold-out.” Although that’s what many in the press would like you to think. Instead, the true story is that men, acting in accordance with their principles, can come to different conclusions. It shows how a principled Yale Law School graduate can come to one conclusion, while a principled public servant in the Senate can come to another, while two major conservative leaders can come to two other conclusions. And, they did it all at the same time. These leaders are all men of principle. Each stuck with his principles, and did what he thought was right. And each respects the others’ decisions. Now that’s quite a story. It’s the kind of story that should lead to a productive public discussion of how people can share many of the same principles yet can come to different conclusions. What also should be discussed is how their decisions will affect other people who have yet to make one. It means this race is still wide-open. It also means social conservatives matter….”

Pro-lifer’s are disappointed with Thompson.

VOICES OF REASON
Conservatism with Heart

VOICES LIVING IN THE PAST
Peggy Noonan continues to prove she is completely lacking in relevancy with her column comparing Hillary Clinton to Dame Thatcher. I miss the point.

VOICES OF VISION
Linda Chavez on why Immigration cannot save the GOP.

“…The one race in the county where a challenger tried to make illegal immigration the big issue was for county sheriff. The incumbent, who had run in the past as a Republican, failed to get an endorsement from the state party this time because he was viewed as insufficiently tough on illegal aliens, forcing him to run as an Independent. His Republican challenger harped continuously on the illegal immigrant threat, but apparently few people cared. The Republican came in third, behind both the Democratic candidate and the now Independent incumbent. It didn't help matters that the Republican admitted that as deputy sheriff he routinely fixed friends' speeding tickets, leading at least this Loudoun voter to wonder: What part of illegal didn't he understand? Even in Prince William County, which gained national attention this summer for passing one of the toughest local anti-illegal alien measures in the country, immigration wasn't decisive. Two of the most outspoken anti-illegal members of the board of supervisors won re-election, but so did the incumbent Democratic state senator in the race, whom his opponent had tried to paint as soft on illegal immigration. What the Virginia GOP failed to appreciate on the illegal immigration front is the difference between intensity and salience in voter behavior. Some voters are intensely angry about illegal immigration, and they tend to dominate the talk show airwaves and show up at candidate gatherings. But the number of voters for whom this is the single biggest voting issue is relatively small….”

George Archibald on John Lofton.

BUCKLEY GONE SENILE

Sorry, but WFB’s definition of “conservative” doesn’t make sense.

“…Q: Can you give us a concise definition of conservatism?
A: Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition. Now this leaves room, of course, for deposition, and there is deposition -- the Civil War being the most monstrous account. But it also urges a kind of loyalty that breeds a devotion to those ideals sufficient to surmount the current crisis. When the Soviet Union challenged America and our set of loyalties, it did so at gunpoint. It became necessary at a certain point to show them our clenched fist and advise them that we were not going to deal lightly with our primal commitment to preserve those loyalties….”That’s the most general definition of conservatism...."