I’m not sure McCain is up to that type of campaign as he seems to want to please his opponents on the left more so than his sometimes allies on the right.

Newt says the President deserved more criticism, everything from the conduct of the war to domestic matters. He even declared late last year that GWBush is the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. To that, Newt needs to grow up a bit. For those of us that voted for him in 2000 and again in ‘04, we knew what he stood for. We admire him for his ability to lead based on principles and trusting to follow his own instincts. The President has not kicked issues down the road for someone else to deal with when it’s too late. He’s offered solutions, and stuck with them, even in face of opposition from his own base. That’s leadership.

We’re not exactly inspired by the line-up that’s running for president, even when Fred and Rudy were part of the field. This year’s field, from day one, represented a portion of what makes up the conservative base. May be we weren’t aware of the true composition of the base, and unsettled by its appearance.

And, though, McCain may not be everyone’s cup of tea (and certainly not mine), we need to suck it up. There’s no time for all of this “woe is me” nonsense. If we’re looking for 100% ideological purity, then we’re hanging out in the wrong place and deluding ourselves.

I’ll gladly settle for 80% conservative versus the less than 0-5% “conservative” the Dems offer anytime.

However, this post of Steve’s is less laced with brainwashed hatred than his others. Still full of Kos/DU programmed talking points, but less direct attacks.

On good points Steve, you are correct about the superdelegate issue. Amazing that two states have been disenfranchised by the Dems, and in the end, all the primaries may not ammount to anything for the Democrat Nominee. Conservatives tend to “sit out” votes when upset (i.e. 2006 when conservatives voted on local/state/national innitiatives but left the congressional ballot empty). I do not agree with this tactic, but I can see is it born of the feeling we have a choice of Socialist Democrat (left) and “Democrat Lite” (Republicans) on many issues. Maybe two more parties, a true Leftist Socialist Party and a Conservative Constitutionalist Party will rise to power, but I doubt it.

That will never happen.

Liberals have walked away from the Democratic Party occasionally, as Ralph Nader demonstrated in the 2000 elections, giving America President Geroge W. Bush. And they might again, if Hillary Clinton gains the presidntial nomination through the votes of the Super Delegates alone.

The last time Conservatives showed that level of independence was in 1992 (Ross Perot), and too much has changed (including the changes in the Republican Party engineered by Newt Gingrich himself) for that to ever happen again.

Just as the “threats” being balyhooed by Newsweek in the current issue about Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and James Dobson (the strongest thought leaders of the Conservative/Republican movement) are hollow threats, so too is the “we will stay home” Conservative talk.

Conservatives are now totally loyal to the Republican party, at least in November of election years. That will remain the same for the forseeable future, as long as Karl Rove’s dream of a “Permanent Republican majority” is the goal of the Conservative/Republican movement.

We as conservatives need to support someone that holds our values on pro life, smaller government, strong military, and enforcing our borders by what ever means. That person, by all accounts, is Alan Keyes.

2. Money has been spent on the military, but people complain they have to take a detour for months because a bridge fell apart and the government is waiting for funding. The estimated funding to correct the U.S. infrastructure is listed at $1 trillion in the next five years more than what is what’s being funded. It’s a plank that Obama just seized on ($210 billion in projects)when the neocons had 20 years.

3.The necons spent more time trying to get more oil out of Alaska than promoting environmentally friendly energy sources. The idea of big oil running the neocon agenda is something that didn’t have to happen.

4. Tough on crime? With the lack of prisons, mental hospitals and staff, the criminal system is a joke. It also doesn’t help that the average drug crime sentence is longer than the average sentence for a violent crime. There is already 3 people in prison for every one person in the military. Capital punishment has led to less than 1,100 executions in the U.S. since 1976. Here the neocons talk the talk, but don’t deliver causing people associated with the criminal justice system to get a good laugh. It was Gingrich and his fellow Republicans that prevented Clinton from adding 100,000 new police officers.

5. The war in Iraq has been poorly sold plus Hillary and Barack have detailed end plans while Bush is stuck on stay the course.

6. Reagan tried to get rid of the department of education, while Gingrich is expanding on the theme (somebody has to keep track of Leave No Child Behind). Why wasn’t LNCB a Reagan program? It gets better. Clinton had a project much like Bush’s LNCB, but it was Gingrich
and the Republicans that vetoed it back in 1997.

I would have to say Gingrich was an obstructionist more than a conservative while he was a Republican leader. If the Republicans did it, it was ok, but if the Democrats did the same thing he acted upset. I would say the Republicans’ worse attempt at that was the line iteam veto. When the Democrats were in power and wanted the line iteam veto, it was the Republicans that complained. Then when the Republicans were in power, the line iteam veto became important. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats bring up the line iteam veto, if they get back into power and again the Republicans shoot down that idea.

I have PERSONALLY confronted him with my displeasure on a number of those issues and also represented to him the displeasure of what he later referred to as “my blogging friends.”

Mike’ll love this:

John McCain held his first blogger call since becoming the presumptive nominee. He told us he would continue with these calls with bloggers, because,

“I’ll never forget you were the only guys who would listen to me for a few months there …”

Lmao!

In all seriousness, though, I think you actually will find agreement with the last part, given that I do believe you disagree with him on the waterboarding/torture issue and closing down Guantanamo:

He stood behind the concept that the six 9-11 Guantanamo terrorists don’t deserve the same protections as American citizens, and said they were some of the most evil people, “in the history of the world.”

McCain also acknowledged he still needs to unite the base and unite the Republican Party, to win in November.

I have yet to read a single compelling reason on why falling in lock-step behind that poor nominee is a required step. And as I said, Newt only touched that tangentially.

In the excerpts I selected, I was focused on what we need to do to WIN. So, you may not have seen this from the entire speech:

Second, I think we need to get independent from this leader fascination with the presidency. Remember Ronald Reagan rose in rebellion because Gerald Ford was negotiating the Panama Canal Treaty. I voted against two Reagan tax increases. I voted against George H. W. Bush’s 1990 tax increase. It is a totally honorable and legitimate thing to say I am going to support the candidate and oppose the policy. This idea [is] that I think we [did] President George W. Bush a grave disservice by not being dramatically more aggressive in criticizing when they were wrong, and being more open when they were making mistakes.

And I don’t think it helped them or the country.

I’ve already made it QUITE CLEAR that while I intend to honor my pledge to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, I WILL NOT fall in lockstep behind policies or ideas with which I have expressed profound disagreement.

When it comes to McCain’s maverick positions, I have PERSONALLY confronted him with my displeasure on a number of those issues and also represented to him the displeasure of what he later referred to as “my blogging friends.”

And I’ll fight McCain just as hard on those issues if he is the President.

And if you are seriously concerned, as I am, on stopping some of this politically correct idiocy that McCain and every Democrat supports, you MUST KNOW that you have a better chance of stopping it by holding McCain accountable than Hillary or Obama.

That doesn’t mean we are always going to get our way in these fights with McCain. But we shure as heck stand a better chance than we do with Imperatrix Hillary or Saint Obama.

We need to rebuild conservatism from the ground up. But he’s also right in that doing so will require fighting the party establishment every step of the way.

Yes, and you don’t do this by putting more Democrats into office and allowing Republicans to lose elections in order to “teach the Party a lesson”. The answer isn’t more Democrats; we already know without actually, willfully harming the country, that more Democrats in office is not a good thing. Primaries are for teaching lessons; general elections are for winning.

The whole 80/20 thing is a strawman argument anyways. McCain lately is more of a 65/35 guy,

I wish we knew what his 2007 ACU rating is. Even so, the choice is this: the 65% guy, or the 8% guy (Obama’s ACU rating). To me, the choice is clear. We have choice A and choice B. That’s all.

but even that’s not the problem. If you’re 65/35 on a group of people and you want to lead 100 percent of them, you have to show some ability to lead the 35 percent that you disagree with. And that is the piece McCain is missing. As a counter-example,, Giuliani as another 65/35 guy had, mostly shown it, and while Romney’s actual ratio was unknown, he was definitely trying to show it.

The problem here is, you will never find someone you will be in agreement with 100% of the time. Ultimately, pushing the country further to the right is the goal; but it takes time and patience. You have to build slowly. That requires some concessions to weighing in a candidate’s electability. Remember: Half the country does not share the same values and ideology as you and I. We have to put forth a candidate in the general election who can appeal to the other half of the country that does not lean conservative. And unfortunately, during this election cycle, we did not have a GOP rock star with the same charisma as Barack Obama. So we make do with what we have, and lose elections from trying; not by giving up and throwing elections away. It’s difficult to unseat incumbents, and allowing Republicans to lose, ultimately, hurts the conservative movement more than it helps. I think it’s far easier to put into effect change, by being in power; not by being out of it.

That I agree with wholeheartedly. But I have yet to read a single compelling reason on why falling in lock-step behind that poor nominee is a required step. And as I said, Newt only touched that tangentially, and only by stating that he thought we should. The whole 80/20 thing is a strawman argument anyways. McCain lately is more of a 65/35 guy, but even that’s not the problem. If you’re 65/35 on a group of people and you want to lead 100 percent of them, you have to show some ability to lead the 35 percent that you disagree with. And that is the piece McCain is missing. As a counter-example,, Giuliani as another 65/35 guy had, mostly shown it, and while Romney’s actual ratio was unknown, he was definitely trying to show it.

But Newt is definitely right. We need to rebuild conservatism from the ground up. But he’s also right in that doing so will require fighting the party establishment every step of the way. And in fact, that is what we should be working on this fall. Hold your nose, bring your barf bag and vote for President if you must, but work to ensure that, maybe, just maybe, 20 years from now we won’t be in this position.

In a fundamental way, the conservative movement has to declare itself independent from the Republican Party.
Let me make very clear what I’m saying here. I am not saying there should be a third party – I think a third party is a dumb idea, will…

And by advancing the issues he highlighted we WOULD be making both America and conservatism stronger.

I only agree with Newt about 92% of the time. But unlike some, I am not willing to throw him overboard because he’s not 100%.

At some point we are going to have to put aside our anger, disappointment and frustration with the poor choice of nominee that our party is about to select. The best way I can think of to do that is go back to work and start building and rebuilding conservatism, not tearing and destroying it.

I worked for John Ashbrook, one of the founders of the conservative movement. He fought for his principles for years and years with little success to show for it. And through all that frustration, he never stopped trying to build a party and a movement that would win. He died in April 1982. But that was after he witnessed the first heady years of the Reagan Administration.

We cannot relive the golden years of the Reagan era. But we can rebuild a conservative movement that will WIN and GOVERN as conservatives. It’s not going to be easy. But to say we won’t try unless it’s perfect means we will never achieve the goal.