(2007-03-02) — President George Bush today refused to comment on Sen. John McCain’s recent remarks on The Late Show with David Letterman, implying that Mr. Bush's management of the Iraq war had “wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.”
However, the president did welcome Sen. McCain's second run at the Republican nomination, and said the Arizona senator shouldn't be discouraged by the failure of his previous attempt.
“I admire John McCain's persistence and willingness to throw himself into an apparently hopeless battle because of principles that he truly believes,” the president said. “He fights on, though he's been defeated before in a similar conflict and faces strong opponents. Even if he wins this fight, he knows that sectarian divisions could continue indefinitely.”
The president said he would refrain from “Monday morning quarterbacking” Mr. McCain's 2000 presidential campaign.
“In hindsight,” said Mr. Bush, “it's easy to question whether more money, or more people, or a different strategy or new tactics would have led to a different outcome. But a leader must act with integrity, do what seems right today, learn from the past, ignore the skeptics, adapt the tactics, hold tight to the vision of victory, and leave the verdict to history. You go, John McCain.”
64 responses so far ↓
1 conserve-a-tips // Mar 2, 2007 at 8:44 am
God Bless America
2 conserve-a-tips // Mar 2, 2007 at 8:47 am
Good morning all.
I posted this on the last topic, but Scott got industrious and put up a new gem.
A little off topic here and going back to another of Scott’s great pieces, The Right Reverend “Let ‘em eat cake” Algore arrived in our fair city yesterday to hold an Algore Crusade at the University of Oklahoma. He held an invitation at the end, after admonishing the crowd that Global Warmism - the religion of choice - is a “moral, ethical, and spiritual issue.” Previous to his arrival, Algore skirted authorities in the Nashville airport and was led past all forms of security by an American Airlines official so that his precious Right Reverend time would not be subjected to the same delays that the average Joe must endure.
I have some questions. If there must be a separation of church and state, according to the liberals, why is Congress considering laws establishing Global Warmism as the State Religion? And why is the Right Reverend AlGore, appearing on state property?
3 Hawkeye // Mar 2, 2007 at 8:56 am
“I admire John McCain’s persistence and willingness to throw himself into an apparently hopeless battle because of principles that he truly believesâ€
McCain is even more persistent than Bush… Bush hasn’t lost yet!
4 Scott Ott // Mar 2, 2007 at 8:56 am
Bush Ignores McCain’s ‘Wasted Lives’ Remark…
by Scott Ott
(2007-03-02)
— President George Bush today refused to comment on Sen. John McCain’s
recent remarks on The Late Show with David Letterman, implying that Mr.
Bush’s management of the Iraq war had “wasted a lot of …
5 mig // Mar 2, 2007 at 9:14 am
Demented Demagogic Democratic Destruction Derby of American national security interests - cut and pasted from Patriot
On to Yugo McCain. If it’s anything like Rushs’ parody, McCain is a goner. But all the mainstream candidates are either old and tired or polished and trendy. Substantially substance-less and unsustaining.
Do you think Kunich will jump in? McCain, Gore and Kunich have now reached the Ralph Nader level of tiresome but hopeful like keeping your fingers crossed.
McCain. McCain. McCain. ( saying it while shaking head back and forth slowly) What drives him so? His interest in public financial welfare or the welfare of his financial interests?
Where or where is Mrs. Kerry-Heinz? She was such an asset to the Kerry/Edwards PR team, will she be backing anyone (into a gutter).
So much parody. So much satire. It is the reason I get up in the morning. Everyday promises hillaryity.
6 Darthmeister // Mar 2, 2007 at 9:36 am
McCain’s explanation for using the term “wasted” borders on stupidity. After serving his mea culpa he said what he meant to say were their lives were “sacrificed” because of flawed policy. I don’t see how that’s much better.
Previous in his conversation he had said that things would get worst in Iraq if America pulled its troops out prematurely. And it seems to me McCain could have simply said that was the context in which he used the word “wasted” (an argument I’ve even made myself) - if America prematurely withdraws American troops from Iraq (or even Afghanistan) under the guise of a “redeployment”, then yes, those 3000+ lives would have been “wasted” on an ignoble and failed mission. Only victory (i.e. the stablization of Iraq) gives meaning to lives that were given in what I consider to be a strategic and noble mission.
7 Shelly // Mar 2, 2007 at 9:44 am
Was he not paying attention when Obama made this same mistake? It’s one thing for McCain to repeat his own political blunders, but to start parroting others? That’s pretty bad. And then to ditch CPAC?
8 Darthmeister // Mar 2, 2007 at 10:02 am
Shelly, that’s what makes it even more stupid. If McCain didn’t see the firestorm resulting from Osama Obama’s use of the word “wasted” in describing the deaths of American soldiers in a noble cause … he’s dumber than dumb. The man looks like he doesn’t have either the enthusiasm or the gut-level desire to be president during perilous times like this. And what is even more shameful is his spin that his stand on the war is “costing” him votes and money. What a crock. Giuiliani is no less dedicated to the GWOT and Iraq and his numbers keep going up. Doh!
ALL THE NEWS NOT FIT TO BE PRINTED BY THE AMERICAN LAMESTREAM MEDIA … here … and an Reuters update here.
9 Darthmeister // Mar 2, 2007 at 10:03 am
…double doh!
10 Scott Ott // Mar 2, 2007 at 10:11 am
[Editor's Note: Here's a novel experiment for you citizen-satirists. Take it for a test drive and let me know what you think.]
11 da Bunny // Mar 2, 2007 at 10:35 am
John McShame…RINO extraordinaire! His tired, pathetic pandering is so old…and we’re so over it! It’s so sad that strong conservative people like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter really have no chance at building up their name recognition and promoting their candidacies in the current media climate. Instead, we get to keep hearing McShame’s gaffes, Hitlary’s screeching propaganda, and Osama Obama’s “clean, articulate” phoniness. I’m sick of the 2008 election already, and it’s 20 months away!
12 Darthmeister // Mar 2, 2007 at 11:30 am
Obama’s Ancestors Owned Slaves
Oh, oh! But that’s okay, he and his mother are Democrats so there’s no scandal here! Now if it was Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney …
13 Fred Sinclair // Mar 2, 2007 at 11:45 am
da Bunny - Love your “John McShame…RINO extraordinaire!” I think the only thing he could do to garner some degree of my respect, would be to withdraw and announce he will be voting for Duncan Hunter in the Presidential election.
I believe that Obama is the one in danger. Hillary has one thing in common with Lyndon B Johnson. NOTHING will stand in the way of her “entitlement.” John F, Kennedy sealed his fate the minute he told Johnson that he would have a different running mate in his bid for re-election. From that moment his life wasn’t worth a plugged nickel. Johnson had said that he would be President and that no force on earth could prevent it. And so, sure enough…..
If Obama is ever percieved in her mind to be a real threat to her nomination….and so, sure enough… he won’t be.
Heirborn Ranger
14 Shelly // Mar 2, 2007 at 12:00 pm
This is completely off topic, but I was so amazed I thought I’d share. (In fact, many of you may not even believe my story!) I just went to the DMV to renew my driver’s license, and I got in and out of the place in under 45 minutes. No, really.
15 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 2, 2007 at 12:55 pm
RE: #14~~
Shelly~~
Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure.
Right…..
We believe you-honest-really…..
Did you “drive-thru”?
16 Shelly // Mar 2, 2007 at 12:57 pm
JL3rd, I almost don’t believe it myself!
17 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm
RE: #10~~
Scott~~
What a great idea!
It took me a few minutes to figure out how, but I made a little test run that seemed to work (I deleted it because it was just a silly test). I do believe I will be making a humble contribution or two and I hope some of our more (than me) articulate (no offense) Scrapplers do, too.
Thanks for the opportunity; this could be great fun.
18 kajun // Mar 2, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“You go, John McCain”…to the Democrat Party; where you belong!
19 Pros and Cons » Pressure works // Mar 2, 2007 at 2:23 pm
[...] Scott Ott has his opinions too. So too does would-be President McCain, twice. Don’t worry, our domestic politics will catch up to events on the ground, unless something Watergatish happens. [...]
20 myword // Mar 2, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Oh Great Scott,
I would like to contribute to this worthy cause, but
I still don’t send money over the internet.
Do you have a post office box to which I could
send a check?
lettypack@aol.com
21 upnorthlurkin // Mar 2, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Hi Kajun!! How’s it?!
Anyone remember just how long Camojack is supposed to be gone?!
22 da Bunny // Mar 2, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Fred, I just call ‘em as I see ‘em, and McCain…er, McShame has earned my nickname for him. He’s no more a “conservative” or “Republican” than Ronald Reagan was a “socialist” or “communist.”
23 da Bunny // Mar 2, 2007 at 2:39 pm
upnorthlurkin, camojack should be back home at the beginning of next week. His wit and wisdom have been missed ’round these parts, ’tis true.
24 upnorthlurkin // Mar 2, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Any of you Pennsylvanians know how I can get my hands (around the neck) on Pucksatawny Phil?! 18 inches of new global warming so far. Now we’re under a blizzard warning. Not sure what difference that makes…I guess it’s easier to call off school when the national weather peeps call it a blizzard!
25 Darthmeister // Mar 2, 2007 at 5:37 pm
upnorth, let’s hope March is in like a lion and out like a lamb. If not, Pucksatawny Phil would make some good crawdad bait.
26 RedPepper // Mar 2, 2007 at 5:43 pm
upnorth #24: I feel your pain. I spent most of this morning cleaning layers of ice (left by freezing rain) off two cars. There really must be something to this global warming stuff tho … I looked out the window few days ago, and I saw a robin perched on the power line!
Frankly, I suspect the dumb bird is smoking crack!
27 MargeinMI // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:28 am
Shelly #14, I’ve got you TOPPED girl! My friend and I went yesterday, about 3:30. She went first (no waiting at all) to get plates, and change the month (had been in her ex’s). Then my turn, just tabs. Ten minutes tops! There were 3 other people working, 3 taking tests, two at the counter being helped. The woman who had helped us was calling the next person before I had closed my purse. Just another benefit of living in fly over COUNTRY!
Jack’ll be back the 4th. Lucky dog.
da Bunny #11, Exactly! Don’t they know the average American has the attention span of a gnat? We’re gonna burn out on these folks! Maybe by election time they have come up with a whole new roster ’cause this bunch’ll have been through the grinder with nothing left. Here’s hoping!
Morning all!
28 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 3, 2007 at 7:10 am
The last couple of paragraphs in the AP article linked to in Scott’s piece are a good demonstration of why I hardly ever read (or listen to) the MSM-everything, no matter how crucial it is in the overall scope of life on Earth (or in Heaven, for that matter), has been “American Idol-ized” beyond the superficial, mundane or trivial.
Can anyone name a war which was “popular”? Why is it important for a war to be “popular”? And why is it important for the adjective “unpopular” to be used in this context-well, it is to show that, while Guiliani and Romney are doing “constructive” things like raking in millions of dollars for their respective war chests, McCain is wasting his time “in his role as the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is focused largely on the unpopular Iraq war.”
Anyway, I could go on parsing the language of the article but I’ll end with this:
How is it that “Guiliani’s “popularity” in the polls or Romney’s “deft fundraising” makes either them a better candidate than McCain, “a former Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he has emerged as the Senate’s go-to guy on Iraq. In recent months, McCain has become Bush’s most outspoken supporter of sending in another 21,500 troops to Iraq — even though he for years has leveled strong criticism about how Bush has handled the war”?
It just seems to me that the last paragraph in the above-mentioned article is meant to show that McCain is, somehow, unbalanced or something.
Disclaimer: I am no fan of McCain for president and will only vote for any of the three I’ve mentioned (if it comes to that) out of desperation (and, maybe, while holding my nose).
29 Darthmeister // Mar 3, 2007 at 9:38 am
• 6 Sunnis killed for meeting with Shiites
The “religion of peace” at it again. Where is the “moderate” Muslim outrage over this transparent attempt to undermine peace efforts in Iraq?
Ooops … sorry … I forgot … it’s all Bush’s fault!
30 Darthmeister // Mar 3, 2007 at 9:50 am
Wacademia hiding behind the First Amendment is on full display again. Check out this videoclip.
I’ve been following this story for the last three or four days. Why hasn’t any talking head made the point the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone trying to foment a riot? Certainly advocating jihad goes way beyond merely fomenting a riot since its very aim is to kill infidels and not just make trouble.
31 conserve-a-tips // Mar 3, 2007 at 11:27 am
James, you may hold your nose, but I will just stay home. I know. I know. You should take your civic responsibility and vote. But I shouldn’t vote if the choices are against my strong conservative/biblical beliefs. And I know. I know. But then the liberals will take the office and we’ll be doomed. I am one who believes that people should be allowed to fall flat on their faces because, otherwise, they don’t learn a thing. If the Republicans can’t come up with a true conservative because they are too lily livered to take a stand, then they should be allowed to fall flat on their faces. And if the liberals take the helm, then they will show themselves to be who they are and the country will get sick of them. But compromising our conservative/biblical values just so that the person in the office has an R behind their name is wrong and destructive to conservative principles. Just my thoughts on whether I will vote or not.
32 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm
RE: #31~~
c-a-t~~
Yes. As soon as I re-read my post I realized that, for the sake of using the “hold my nose” line (and the desire to use the opportunity-the privilege-to vote), I had denied my core beliefs-everything for which Almighty God, His Word and, yes, I stand. Thank you for calling me on it.
33 mig // Mar 3, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Jesus Loves Osama
34 Darthmeister // Mar 3, 2007 at 2:25 pm
For sake of argument I don’t believe one is “denying their core values” by voting for someone who comes closest to one’s political views. We aren’t installing an elder in the church here. Personally I believe one would be denying core values if he/she vacates the playing field and leaves it to militant unbelievers or secular liberals to install someone who in all likelihood would be promoting a social agenda totally inimical to civil society and good government.
The operative principle here is: vote for someone who comes closest to your personal value system. And that vote may change from the time you vote to nominate someone for presidency and actually voting for a president. I’ve yet to vote for a candidate - even George W. - who accurately reflects my views on all issues. Ronald Reagan has probably come closest to my ideal candidate but there won’t be any RR running this election. We must be wise as serpents but innocent as doves. Given our two party system, there will always be someone who more closely reflects your political, social and moral views than the other candidate. If it came down to voting for either Giuliani or sHrillary, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for the former because he comes closest to my core values.
35 GnuCarSmell // Mar 3, 2007 at 2:55 pm
A chap in New Brunswick, NJ, Ahmed Rashed, has discovered a novel way to win the heart of an exotic dancer:
“A young doctor who admitted to severing a hand from a cadaver as a medical student, then giving it to a stripper, was fined Thursday and told to stay out of trouble for 15 months.”
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/0435700021142891837917423025982466815539
Apparently, this sort of thing is permitted under Sharia law.
36 Fred Sinclair // Mar 3, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I will vote for ANYONE…..ANYONE….so long as he or she spells his or her name Duncan Hunter on the ballot!
Heirborn Ranger
37 conserve-a-tips // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Darthmeister, I don’t mean to imply that I want a perfect person in the office or else I won’t vote, but I do want a conservative. None of the three mentioned are conservatives, not even Romney. I see the Republican party moving further and further away from core conservative values in order to “get the vote” and what they will find is that they will lose every time. And so, no I won’t vote for these three no matter how much “closer” they are then the opponent because I would rather the truth be brought out into the open by putting a liberal in office (and showing this country “be careful for what you ask”) if we can’t come up with what this country really needs. In other words, I guess that I won’t accept a lie - Guiliani and Romney are half-truths while McCain is a bald faced lie.
38 Darthmeister // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:07 pm
And you may have that opportunity during the primaries, Fred. And if he makes it to the presidential campaign, many of us here will probably be voting for him, too. But if his name isn’t on the ballot, what then?
Vote for the candidate whose views most closely approximates yours in November 2008. Your conscience will be your guide.
39 RedPepper // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Darthmeister #34: I’m with you. As a life-long resident of the Empire State (or, as we conservatives affectionately call it, the Vampire State), I must either be willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, or forgo voting entirely (at least in local contests …)!
In the 2008 presidential election, Giuliani might well get my vote. For that matter, if Hillary Clinton is running against Satan incarnate, you may occasionally see me mention Beelzebub’s kinder, gentler side. Take it for what it’s worth, folks …
40 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:24 pm
If a candidate openly advocates and/or does not decry deviant sexual behavior, I will not vote for him/her. If a candidate openly advocates and/or does not decry infanticide, I will not vote for him/her. If a candidate openly advocates and/or does not decry surrender to evil of any kind, for that matter, I will not vote for him/her. The “lesser of two evils” is still evil and the political affiliation of the candidate does not negate that.
If there is needless suffering involved as a result of my vote-no matter which party’s candidate I vote for, I will not vote for either candidate. I really can’t see myself condoning an agenda that goes against all that I believe in. I’ll go to the polling place, there’s always other stuff for which to vote.
A candidate who says, for example, that even though they think that degenerate sexual behavior is, somehow, “normal”, they will, nevertheless, appoint judges who are going to go strictly by the Constitution does not fool me. They will no doubt still appoint a judge of the same mindset who, in the name of the Constitution, will advocate perversion as “normal”.
I’ve heard it said that, as far as the presidency is concerned, the candidate’s stance on such issues is, somehow, irrelevant and I just can’t agree with that.
Jesus stood mute before His accusers there at the end and spoke volumes by doing so.
41 Darthmeister // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:26 pm
c.a.t.
God only asks us to work with what we have. We can’t take “timeouts”, even when it comes to an election. Though I have to admit I couldn’t bring myself to vote for BobDole. But I only took the liberty to lodge my own protest non-vote in 1996 because I knew Bill Clinton was going to win anyway. However, in 2008, I believe we have several candidates available to us who have better than a 50-50 chance to win the presidency.
Every step of the way we must vote for the person whose own core values are closest to ours. Far better to vote for someone whose views are honestly held than someone who may not be of the same character yet holds to “conservative values” for image sake.
Now I imagine the Amish see us “conservative Christians” to be practical heathens for prostituting ourselves to modern conveniences and putting ourselves into a social context which unnecessarily exposes us to worldly entertainment and recreation, yet I doubt many of them are “going to stay home” when it comes election day 2008. I assume the Amish have been voting in past presidential elections and I doubt there was ANY candidate that came within light-years of their “traditional/conservative core values”. In fact they would probably say we aren’t true Biblical conservatives because we aren’t raving pacifists. So we have to be careful about what we really mean when we speak of conservativism vs traditionalism vs common decency.
Not promoting a type of moral and social relativism, but I see both Romney and Giuliani are decent and honest sinners (as we all are) who indeed may not exemplify what we embrace as traditional conservative values here at Scrappleface … but far better one of them leading this country than Obama/sHrillary/Edwards or any other Dhimmiecrat moonbat who are way, way outside of the mainstream. Hard times always requires hard decisions. And in my view, given what’s at stake for America, not voting is not making a REAL decision.
42 GnuCarSmell // Mar 3, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Here in the GnuCarSmell household, we have a long-standing policy of not voting for anyone whose name rhymes with ‘Yo’ momma,’ so that more or less rules out the ‘clean articulate” guy.
There’s some talk that Fred Thompson (former Senator, R-TN and current actor on Law and Order) is also considering a run for the prez. I think he could be a serious contender.
43 Ghoti // Mar 3, 2007 at 6:28 pm
OT, but… I wish Mr. Gore would make up his mind. 40 degrees - snowing hard - and it’s sticking and accumulating. I think the earth’s thermostat is just confused. Gore turns it down, Bush turns it up, Gore down, Bush up, Gore down, Bush up………….
44 Fred Sinclair // Mar 3, 2007 at 7:19 pm
How about we set it up so the bad guys “steal” a dozen of these - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=087017c573 they’re mainly slight in stature and short. After a couple of rounds they might question the advisability of fighting people with rifles like these marked “Sporting Rifles”!
Heirborn Ranger
45 Ghoti // Mar 3, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Gore invents the Internet, makes it snow at 40 degrees, holds the “who-o-o-ole, worled, in his hands,” and now he takes away our moon.
If I had known he was that powerful, maybe I’d have given him a second thought in 2000. Nah… prob’ly not.
46 Darthmeister // Mar 3, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Global Warming is hitting Duluth, MN hard!
Dang that Rovian Weather Control Machine!
47 Beerme // Mar 3, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I like the new “stringer” site, Scott!
Check out my new article on Hillary, under Politics. Any new attempts should include at least one reference to something beery, though…
48 MargeinMI // Mar 4, 2007 at 7:37 am
Good one Beerme!
Good morning all.
49 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 4, 2007 at 9:23 am
RE: #47~~
Beerme~~
You mean like Wallace Beery was overheard saying, “…..”?
50 Beerme // Mar 4, 2007 at 10:42 am
JL3,
Yes, as long as Mr. Beery was overheard saying it over a pint at the local pub…
51 Beerme // Mar 4, 2007 at 10:49 am
I see someone has corrected my mistake. Bravo! Seems I wasted my chance on that one but was redeemed. Let’s just consider it a draught, eh?
52 Mrs. Kajun // Mar 4, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Does anyone have any news of MsRightWing?
53 Fred Sinclair // Mar 4, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Steny Hoyer is a crook too - ref. From Wonkette.com, Feb. 21, 2007
Heirborn Ranger
54 kajun // Mar 4, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Mrs. kajun’s ancestors owned slaves; She still owns one!
55 GnuCarSmell // Mar 4, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The father of Sulejman Talovic, the young Muslim who randomly murdered five people in Salt Lake City last month, has a brilliant rationalization for his son’s prank:
“The authorities are guilty for not alerting us that he bought a gun,” explained Suljo Talovic.
I’m betting twenty-to-one odds that Mr. Talovic is a registered Democrat. How quickly they learn.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1077629
56 Ghoti // Mar 4, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Funny link:
http://www.michaelhodges.com/hillary.html
“I can’t wait till 2008,” featuring the Queen Bee wannabe.
57 Darthmeister // Mar 4, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Muslim taqiyya on display again. When it comes to advancing their religious causes, both Sunni and Shia have demonstrated a very sophisticated ability to bald-face lie. The Palestinians are also very good with their lying Pallywood renditions of reality.
Special report by Omar Fadhil, PJM Baghdad Edition:
Operation “Imposing Law†is an escalating effort with military and political components. After the troops fixed their feet on the streets of Baghdad, PM Maliki and the troops are pushing forward with both components.
Politically, Maliki put an end to speculations about his real intentions of a cabinet reshuffle and announced that the reshuffle is going to happen within two weeks from now.
In his press conference this morning, Maliki also announced that the Supreme Judicial Council will be issuing warrants against a number of politicians and members of parliament who have connections to militant groups that are involved in attacks on civilians and security forces.
Meanwhile Iraqi and American forces are increasing their presence in and around Sadr city. Today hundreds of American and Iraqi solders swept through Jamila district just north of Sadr city. They searched homes and shops without meeting any resistance.
The Mehdi army is not responding to the raids with fire, but they are trying to undermine the security plan by spreading rumors about alleged crimes committed by US soldiers, specifically against the Shia. The latest of these rumors was a ridiculous one I heard yesterday from a taxi driver from Sadr city. His story, quite similar to one told by a Sadr city council member, is that US soldiers are raiding Shia homes, arresting innocent civilians, and then dumping them at night near strongholds of Sunni insurgents, blindfolded and handcuffed so that the insurgents would find them defenseless and slaughter them!
Like liberal moonbats, Muslim fundamentalists are quite willing to believe anything which casts American soldiers in a bad light.
58 Darthmeister // Mar 4, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Noemie Emery argues in the Weekly Standard that if the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani, an increasingly likely prospect, “it may see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party.” In that event, the litmus test will have been “done in not by the party’s left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.”
Noemie perceptively identifies the four reasons for the possible demise of the traditional litmus test: (1) the war on terror, (2) Giuliani’s status as a different kind of pro-choice Republican — “the furthest thing possible from a liberal on a wide range of issues (law and order among them),” (3) the flaws, from a conservative perspective, in Giuliani’s competitors, and (4) the realization after 30 years that, apart from appointing non-activist judges — which Rudy says he will do — a president is not well-positioned to turn the tide on abortion.
It seems to me that Rudy’s nomination would signal not that the social issues litmus test has ended but that it has been modified, with the focus now on a commitment to appointing judges who agree, in the words of Power Line which Noemie quotes, “that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided democratically, and not by the courts.” This shift in the litmus test might very well carry Rudy to the nomination. But I still think that a considerable number of social conservatives would refuse to vote for him in the general election, placing him under extra pressure to win moderate voters even as he’s forcefully taking conservative stands on nearly every issue other than abortion and gay marriage.
JOHN at PowerLineblog adds: I agree, except that I doubt that a lot of social conservatives, faced with a choice between Giuliani and any foreseeable Democratic nominee, would sit out the 2008 election.
But then Mitt Romney seems to be on his way to becoming a viable candidate within the Republican Party.
59 Fred Sinclair // Mar 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm
It’s still a loooong way to the 08 elections and I’ve heard “there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip”.
God will see to it that His choice, for His reasons, becomes the next President. I am praying earnestly that Duncan Hunter will be His choice.
Heirborn Ranger
60 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Hm. It looks like they need to stop driving those SUVs on Mars.
61 Fred Sinclair // Mar 5, 2007 at 6:55 am
JL3 - Right on! I light a cigarette in Holland, Michigan and a glacier at Mars South Pole melts. (or is it the North Pole?)
Don’t believe it? Just ask”The World’s Smartest Man” (who, by the way, also invented the internet).
Heirborn Ranger
62 Darthmeister // Mar 5, 2007 at 10:01 am
The Global Warming swindle here.
63 Darthmeister // Mar 5, 2007 at 4:13 pm
So, bober, the Muslim men I listed who committed crimes in America under suspicious circumstances weren’t terrorist wannabees?
UNC Chapel Hill Jihadist shouts, “Death to Israel” in courtroom
Hope this is enough of a smoking gun for you. Please note that for the last 18 months the lamestream media has refused to investigate the evidence surrounding his attempt to kill American infidels at an American university. This left-wing institutional silence has apparently led people like you to continue in your denial that Muslim jihadists are trying to kill Americans here in our own country. The State Department and Defense Department are both in denial on this point, too.
64 Sites That Don’t Suck» Blog Archive » Bush ignores McCain’s wasted lives comment and encourages McCain’s second run at Republican nomination // Mar 6, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[...] However, the president did welcome Sen. McCain’s second run at the Republican nomination, and said the Arizona senator shouldn’t be discouraged by the failure of his previous attempt. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.