On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.

To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.

By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.

Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.

We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.

Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.

I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.

Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.

On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.

The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.

To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.

The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.

So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.

So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.

As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.

If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.

Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.

Notes:

{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.

{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.

{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.

{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.

{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.

{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.

{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.

{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.

{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.

{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.

{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.

{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.

{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.

{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.

{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)

{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.

{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).

{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.

{19} See footnote fifteen.

{20} Too numerous to go into here.

{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."

{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.

{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.

{24} See footnote twenty.

{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.

More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part V of a Dialogue)

This is a continuation from the fourth part of this series which can be accessed here. To start from the beginning (if you have not read the previous parts) please go here.

And though I have noted it in every part of the series so far, a reminder of the colour schemata in this series (to cut down on confusion as to the sequence of arguments) still seems pertinent; ergo I reiterate for a final time what I noted in the first part of this series:

The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

Without further ado...

Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. (The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.) TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.

Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.

Well, Goldwater was actually closer to Rudy Guiliani that he was to Reagan. Once issues like abortion and homosexuality became issues Goldwater was both pro-gay and pro-abortion.

Sigh...more education is needed on this obviously.

I think it is more than safe to say that Reagan turned out to be a true conservative while Goldwater didn't.

Senator Goldwater did take the view that someone who was gay should not be disallowed in the military if they are competent soldiers. If you are going to oppose his view on that then at least familiarize yourself with it first. It is not a matter of being "pro gay" but instead pro military and recognizing that those who can shoot straight can make valuable contributions to the nation's defense even if they are not personally straight. There is also the recognition that there have been homosexuals in the military in every military since the days of the Roman empire and policies that involve pretending otherwise are both naive as well as stupid.

I happen to have not viewed the gays in the military issue as much of a big deal -ironically I differed from Goldwater on means though not the end if you will. I had no problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when Clinton announced it (unlike Goldwater) and I do not now: it has nothing to do with being "pro gay" any more than defending someone's right to believe something makes me "pro" their view. And I am not going to anathematize Goldwater for disagreeing with me on this issue viz. the means.

As far as the abortion issue goes, to understand Goldwater's position it helps to consider some of his comments from The Congressional Record:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From The Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]

I can not only understand Senator Goldwater's anger on these matters but to some extent I have long shared it. On religious matters it embodies opposing those who would try to make others follow every jot and tittle of their personal opinion as if it was required dogma lest they be viewed as "heterodox" "anathematized", or whatever.{1} On political matters it encapsulates those who try to claim some unique franchise on the term "conservatism" by focusing on one or two issues and disregarding the rest; essentially, ignoring the underlying philosophy of a conservative outlook while uncritically parroting one or two talking points positions which are based on certain foundational presuppositions which they do not bother to question. To quote Goldwater, "just who do they think they are"???

Of course there are some areas where Reagan fared a bit better on the issue of conservatism. Neither man was supportive personally of abortion but they went about it differently. In Goldwater's case, his claim that women had a "right to abortion" late in his life was a recognition that RvW was "settled law" (cf. John Roberts) whether we like it or not. But just because something is "settled law" does not mean it cannot at some point be changed.

Goldwater according to his autobiography was personally was opposed to abortion -viewing it as a states right issue not a federal one. And while Reagan was better on balance than Goldwater on abortion perhaps;{2} nonetheless, on the plethora of what embodies conservative principles, Reagan did not fare as well overall as Goldwater.

For Goldwater was not only opposed to The Great Society as Reagan was but also to The New Deal which Reagan was in many respects not. (My view on this is somewhere between that of Reagan and Goldwater.) But the root difference between Conservatives and Liberals was one that Goldwater noted decades ago in the following fashion:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for "human beings"—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Senator Goldwater did not believe in trying to harness any governmental entity to try and "compel progress" regardless of what that proposed "progress" happened to be. He was in other words completely consistent on this matter. The same cannot be said of The Gipper who did not mind trying to use government at times to "compel progress" depending on the issue at hand.

The problem with judicial activism on one hand is it makes one lack credibility when they criticize the other side for doing the same thing: yet this is precisely what the religious right sorts want to try and do. The hallmark of conservatism is advocating the maximum of human liberty consonant with societal order: subsidiarity if you will. And part of subsidiarity is not involving the federal government in the attempt to compel societal virtue.

This is why Goldwater did not favour activist judges of any stripe and Reagan in this area was a bit inconsistent. They were both conservatives, believing in the same core principles but differing at times on how they viewed those principled to be best implemented. Neither was 100% perfect but Goldwater overall was better than Reagan was.

At bottom, your comments about Goldwater reveal to me that you do not really understand the heart of conservative philosophy despite (usually) having some good conservative instincts XXXXXXX. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...I have said all I intend to for now on it.

And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.) Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on??? The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.

1916, the year of the Bull Moose "It's all about Teddy" debacle.

You mean 1912. Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the "he kept us out of war" platform winning narrowly.

TR's act of self-agranddizement was both embarrassing and destructive.

In a sense it was sure. But your claim that it was an act of "self-aggrandizement" shows me you do not know much about what actually happened. TR followed the Ben Franklin model and did not campaign for the presidency -noting that he would not seek the nomination but if there was a grass roots movement that supported him, he would not refuse out of a proper sense of duty on the matter. As it happens, there was such a movement from many who were pissed off at the Republican party bosses and the most visible person they could find to champion their cause was TR. I could note more on this but that you do not even realize that TR responded to a movement to draft him and did not lead such a charge himself tells me just how shallow your knowledge on this matter really is.

But you are right about this event having a destructive nature to it as it basically drove the Roosevelt element out of the Republican party and let the conservative oligarchy element to deservedly die on the vine in the general election. But it also opened a new vista in the form of the election primary contributing to the nomination of a candidate.

That election also was one of the first where primaries became a factor in nomination and it was the Roosevelt faction that favoured the primary system as a way of breaking the establishment hold on the party machinery. The problem is, the primaries were not viewed as binding back then but instead as voluntary; ergo Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette won two primaries out of the first four, President Taft won two out of the first four, and TR won nine of the last ten including Taft's home state of Ohio which he won by a large margin. The momentum had clearly shifted and Taft was losing where the party bosses were unable to keep a tight control on things. And at the convention, the conservative party bosses rigged the machinery to get a nomination victory for Taft. They did this not only in seating Taft delegates in Alabama and Arizona but also from California -a state that Roosevelt had won. As a result of the California shafting, TR and his delegates saw the screw job in the making and walked out of the convention hall and formed their own party.

Of course you think that TR was the "embarrassment" because he did not smile, lie back, and have "thoughts of England" while he was being screwed by party bosses. But then again, that is the difference between those who are party loyalists (like you) and those who are not (like me). Disgraceful actions are disgraceful in and of themselves, not okay or otherwise worth being quiet about when "our guys" do it but then shrieking like a banshee when "their guys" do.

One of the major differences between TR and Reagan was their post presidential years. Reagan was a true statesman when push come to shove and Roosevelt wasn't.

Reagan was an old man of 77 who did not have much else he could do when he left office whereas TR had just turned 50 and still had plenty of gas in the tank. That point aside what exactly did Reagan do of a "statesman-like nature" that you think was so compelling or otherwise accomplishing of something positive??? I cannot think of anything offhand -he gave a great speech at the 1992 convention and attended Republican functions on occasion but that is about it.

By contrast, TR was involved in a much-publicized African Safari in support of science in 1909-10{3}, fought the corruption in his own party in 1911-12, trekked through South America in 1913-14 again to aid in the advancement of science -though that time he was infected by malaria and the result was a loss of a massive amount of weight and health problems that plagued him for the rest of his life.

Despite that though, he campaigned energetically for Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, offered once President Wilson received his declaration of war to raise an all-volunteer infantry, and on party matters also through his efforts at campaigning for Republicans enabled them to regain control of the Congress in 1918 which put an important check on President Wilson's efforts. And besides these things, he was an energetic campaigner for physical fitness and hunting his entire life, supported the Boy Scouts, and wrote a number of books on a variety of subjects from foreign policy to history.

If I did not want to finish this thread as soon as possible, I would supply links in that paragraph to substantiate every point I made. The bottom line is this: the contributions of TR after he was president so dwarfed those of RR that your assertion is (with all due respect) absurd. I do not fault RR for this for a variety of reasons but your deprecation of TR's post-presidential record overall is frankly quite disturbing.

But McCain has repeatedly stuck the knife in the back of the GOP establishment (and it was not even to being a conservative dagger), whereas the other guys didn't. That's the major difference here.

As I said, I can sympathize with some of McCain's annoyance. I find myself embarrassed by the ahistorical and narrow-minded dogmatism of the self-anointed "true conservatives" a lot. The pro lifers particularly are at times embarrassing and I noted this not only recently but indeed in every election cycle since I have been blogging to some extent or another.{4} And I noted it in discussion forums long before anyone had heard of my apologetics stuff and in various conversations and formats prior to that as well. If not for having spent enough time on this response already, I would make quite a list -my position on this has been both ample as well as consistent over the years.

For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.

David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flop-flop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area.)

No, you are wrong. I hinted above that his voting record does not give us a true picture of the real John McCain. How many of John McCain's votes in the Senate were decisive?

Neither you nor I are in a position to know this without an exhaustive review of the Congressional Record.

I think it is undisputable that the legislation he has co-authored and sponsored tells us more about the real John McCain than his voting record. I can't think of any legislation McCain co-authored or sponsored that wasn't only leftist but to the far left.

So because you cannot think of any, that means none exists huh??? You realize presumably that finding just one piece would invalidate your whole presumption. However, I am not sure whether or not you would ignore whatever I would present as if it was non-existent. Certainly without a pledge to avoid such things I will not expend an ounce of time on the matter.{5}

Just the damage wrought by MF itself more than wipes out any positive effect of his voting record.

By whose assessment??? The intention was to (i) control soft money contributions in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees -in not only national but also state and local races-from raising or spending non-federally limited funds and (ii) utilizing issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election which named candidates along with any such ad paid for by corporations -be they non profit or unincorporated entities -one that stretches to both business entities as well as union ones.

The result so far is a significantly lessened influence of soft money on campaigns since MF was signed into law. It is a regrettable piece of legislation in several ways this is true and we will see clarifications on it coming from the courts which in my mind is just fine. But I doubt you have taken any time to look soberly at this piece of legislation -a presumption based on your track record thus far in what I have responded to.

Medved is lying through his teeth when he says that MF was only "useless" and has done no real harm, especially to the Right to Life cause. The Wisconsin Right to Life case soundly refutes him there.

One example doth note a definitive statement on this matter make. MF affects a variety of activist causes -among the organizations fined for failure to follow campaigning guidelines in the 2004 election were (according to Wikipedia) the liberal League of Conservation Voters ($180,000) and Moveon.org ($150,000) as well as the conservative Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ($299,500). I do not know the reasons for the fines so levied so am not in a position to say whether they should have been more or less in any given case.

Presumably Medved was referring to the effect of MF on balance as opposed to one particular issue or group. But then again, I am inclined towards giving a charitable interpretation whenever this is feasible to do where the party in question has not given me just cause to not do so. By contrast, you apparently are driven to presume the worst without sufficient cause to do so viz. Medved's statement on this matter. This shows the depth of who really has a "derangement syndrome" here XXXXXXX and I will give you a hint: it is not this little black duck, nosiree.

And MF is as brash a violation of the First Amendment as the criminalization of porn isn't.

You appear to take a Hugo Black approach to the first amendment and historically the courts have never sided with that interpretation -heck the 1919 Schenck vs. United States case{6} is the example that most readily comes to mind. That point being noted though, there is still a question as to the extent of MF in passing constitutional muster. And that being noted, I have no problem with the Supreme Court (in its current configuration under Chief Justice Roberts geared as it evidently is towards judicial restraint) hearing cases on MF.

But it doesn't stop there. You have McCain Leiberman, which is McCain's open vying for the Cardinal's red hat in Pope Algore I's church of the environmentally ill.

You realize presumably that variations of that bill have been introduced since at least 2003 and they have died every time right??? Even the one currently up (S. 280) is nowhere near being in danger of being made into law. But to know this would be to know the status of the bills and the percentage of bills that actually make it out of committee.{7}

I don't think I need to tell you how dangerous the radical evironmentalist agenda is to this country in terms of economics and national security.

I agree with you on that.

And yes there is the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill. This is the only area where the unconservative Bush is anywhere near as liberal as McCain.

Bush is a fiscally irresponsible "dime store new dealer" (cf. B. Goldwater) and McCain is not. There is another issue for you.

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, McCain's voting record post-2000 is only in the low 60's to high 50's.

It varies from session to session but you are (as you have been thus far) quite spectacularly wrong. The average in that span of time excluding 2007 is...well...you do the math yourself. Here are the numbers:

2006: 65%
2005: 80%
2004: 72%
2003: 80%
2002: 78%
2001: 68%
2000: 81%

I trust you do not need a calculator to figure out that you are (yet again) quite mistaken.

Furthermore, the average numbers are even higher than that prior to 2000 on balance with only five years with a rating of less than 83% going all the way back to not only his first Senate year (1987) but even including his previous four years as a Representative from Arizona (1983-1987). I could say more but once again: the facts do not substantiate your presumption.

If you are going to say that McCain is going to govern more conservatively than Bush you need to bring something more substantive than "Bush has set the bar so low" to the table.

I have not said he would govern more conservatively.{8} What I said was simply that it would not be hard for him to since Bush set the bar so damned low.

Finally, you really have a lot of nerve engaging in the same kind of deadagenting and sophistry that you have railed against (and rightly so) these last few years. In the text of this letter I have pointed out where you have done that to the point of moonbattery.

Since so little of what you said is sustained under examination, you would be wise to not speak so brashly as you have been. I have engaged in no sophistry at all. What I have done is take a view on these matters which accounts for the diverse streams in the well of what is commonly called "conservatism" while you have shown an ahistorical understanding on these matters both wholly and in most of the significant parts. Conservative instincts are good to have (and on balance you have them) but instincts not informed by facts make for a dangerous combination.

I could get up in a twist about having my intelligence so carelessly insulted. But why? I have better things to do than to expend emotion on such nonsensical horseshit.

If anyone should feel their intelligence has been insulted on this, it is me. Kindly do your own homework next time and do not blindly and uncritically genuflect, bow three times, and incense the opinions of either of the Limbaugh boys.

Notes:

{1} Or someone's particular interpretation of an accepted dogma to the exclusion of other possible viewpoints.

{2} If we rule out his signing of the most liberal abortion law in the country when governor of California.

{3} Financed by both Andrew Carnegie and also sales of his own writings.

{4} I do not have time to look for them but the archives of this weblog contain several examples -the most recent one from January of this year:

On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers (circa January 9, 2008)

{5} I spent enough time tracking down the sources on this note already.

{6} Which upheld the US Sedition Act of 1918.

{7} A hint: it is very small and I gave it to you already.

{8} I did not realize that in responding to the longer email the first time, I actually did say this though I intended more nuance than that. The emailer can consider this to be a victory for them if they want but it would be a pyrrhic victory if they do.

More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part I of a Dialogue)

This is a follow up to a previous conversation which can be read here:

A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)

To facilitate an easier following of who said what -as there are many layers to this thread in divers font colourings- the following hopefully will be of assistance.

The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it).

Without further ado...

Hello XXXXXXX:

First of all, I hope your Easter was a good one. Without further ado…

You surely did not think I would let this one pass now did you??? I could have of course if not for being accused of sophistry and red herrings by someone who quite evidently was wearing blinders when it comes to a variety of the pertinent factors involved in the discussion. Nonetheless…

Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel here in San Diego) has the audicity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.

I read the thread the other day actually.

What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, envirommentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.

I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly.

There's a big difference between reaching arcoss the aisle, making compromises that garner some kind of benefit for our side and putting on the opposition's uniform and singing their fight song, and help construct legislation that is purely antithetical to conservatism. McCain's "bipartisanship" is clearly in the latter category. Can you think of any legislation co-authored by McCain that even has a whiff of conservatism to it? I can't. I am shocked you would even try flaoting this canard by me in regards to McCain.

This line of argument on your part is puzzling to me because your choice of terms admits of a few interpretations. (Feel free to clarify which one you refer to.) When you say "coauthored" do you mean the same thing as "co-sponsored" or do you mean he had to have written it himself or been the key sponsor to it???

Of course no matter which standard above you are applying, your claim of "co-authored legislation" is a canard itself since the lions share of bills never make it out of committee anyway. According to the NAAYP{1} and a "hostile witness" if you will for the sake of this discussion, in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) there were 8,948 bills introduced into the House and Senate. Do you care to guess the number which actually became law??? Try 377. If you do the math, you will find that it comes out to about 4%. That is roughly the same percentage as with any session of Congress: about 95% of introduced bills in every session fail to become law for a variety of reasons and usually because they die in committee and do not even get voted on by the full congressional bodies and sent to the president to begin with. And bear in mind, that is the entire congress, not just Senator John McCain. This fact is why your request to find a "piece of legislation" is on its face rather humourous. But heck, let us up the ante a bit now shall we???

Since you want to argue in this fashion -and presumably because you were not aware of the low number of bills that even become law in any session: if you actually knew this would be disingenuous and I doubt that was your intention- I will ask you to tell me if you can think of any legislation that President Bush vetoed in the first six years of his presidency that had more than a mere whiff of liberalism to it??? I guarantee you I would have better luck with answering your question than you would mine because even if I found one example for McCain which meets your criteria, you will never find a single example that meets mine because W did not veto a single piece of legislation in his first six years!!! That showed tremendous executive weakness since unlike McCain and the laborious process that it takes for any proposed bill to become law, the president has a pretty solid way of not letting bad legislation through. It is called the veto pen...you know that thing he only discovered after the Democrats took over Congress.

It is hard enough to get a bill through for presidential consideration and a veto is darn difficult to override. The historical average on overrides is 4% with recent presidents (since Truman to draw the line somewhere) having the following percentage of success in over-riding a presidential veto:

Harry S. Truman: 5%
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1%
John F. Kennedy: 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson: 0%
Richard M. Nixon: 16%
Gerald R. Ford: 18%
James E. Carter: 6%
Ronald W. Reagan: 12%
George H. W. Bush: 2%
William J. Clinton: 5%
George W. Bush: 11%

You can follow this thread here. With regards to percentages, one must consider that except for Eisenhower having Republicans running Congress for a small part of his term, the Republican presidents (except W) had the opposing party in control of Congress and the Democrats (except Truman and Bubba) did not. But even the most embattled of presidents still succeeds at least 80% of the time in sustaining a veto; thus the failure of W to wield that instrument the first six years of his presidency against the unprincipled Republican congresses starting in January of 2001 and running through January of 2007 is a significant weakness on his part to lead.

And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically. You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example. The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those

Yes, but as I point out above, this is not in the least the case with McCain. McCain throws in with the Democraps to poke conservatives in the eyes whereas Reagan at least did what he did to help the conservative agenda, not undermine it the way McCain has.

Undermine whose "conservative agenda"??? I really tire of this idea that there is one monolithic "conservative agenda" XXXXXXX because it is not true. There are general conservative issues of course but even then there is still a degree of difference of opinion which subsists. I am unaware of one single bread and butter definitively conservative issue that John McCain does not in some measure support even if I do not agree with the manner in which he seeks to apply the underlying principles involved. Do not mistaken failure to support certain methodologies as a failure to support particular principles or else you are doing nothing different than those who make matters of Catholic requirement concurring with matters of the prudential order as if they are akin to doctrine.

On the following subjects, McCain's voting record is on the whole quite conservative -not perfect certainly but substantial. For example:

On the subject of abortion, McCain gets a B+ which is not perfect but is still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives we have.

On overall life issues he gets at worst a B- which is not great of course but "conservatism" is a philosophy embodying a number of core principles not just one and there is not definitive unanimity on some of the underlying factors involved here anyway.

On budget issues, McCain gets a solid A and has a sterling record here which frankly after six years of W and a drunken sailor Republican congress would be a breath of fresh air in many respects.

On matters of the economy, he scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.{2}

I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.

Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters).

On the subject of business, McCain gets a B-: not great but not too bad. I would score him a lot higher if he favoured repealing subsidies for companies that move jobs offshore to produce products for sending to American markets. Few things piss me off more and I say this as someone who does not personally benefit in any fashion from this move.{3} Nonetheless, his stance of not repealing such subsidies is more "mainstream conservative" than mine is so arguably that B- could be bumped up to a B+ if the goal here is conforming to what is considered by many to be "conservative" by virtue of what the mainstream pundits believe.

On the subject of civil rights, McCain gets a B-/C+: he is a bit nebulous on affirmative action and gay issues{4} but on balance here he is somewhat decent even if nothing to write home about.

On the subject of crime, McCain gets an A

On the subject of drugs, McCain gets an A+

On the subject of education, McCain gets an A-

On the subject of energy and oil, McCain gets a C. If he favoured more ANWAR drilling and more refineries being built along with utilizing the federal government to provide greater incentives for private businesses to develop alternative energy sources, I would grade him much higher. Those views are traditionally conservative after all: the Jeffersonian model is not the only traditional conservative model even if today it is the most prevalent one.{5}

On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. However, since he supports certain other environmental matters which modern "conservatives" do not generally favour, they would dock him for this. (For example, his stances on national parks and commercial whaling.) But again, there is a tradition of Republican thought as well as a traditional conservatism going back to Theodore Roosevelt which is more mindful of the environment than many modern conservatives are -a tradition that Senator Barry Goldwater also shared throughout his career. So while by modern standards, he would be viewed as lacking in this area, if judged by earlier conservative principles he would rate higher.{6}

On the subject of families and children, McCain gets an A.

On the subject of foreign policy, McCain gets a B+.

On the subject of "free trade", McCain by the general consensus of conservatives today gets an A+ but in my view gets a D.{7} Nonetheless, my point here is to note areas where McCain is closer or further from overall stances which would fall within the parameters of the outlines of what is "conservative." With that in mind, he gets an A+ here as he has never failed to support "free trade" issues thus getting a 100% vote from CATO Institute.

On second amendment issues, McCain gets an A-: I cannot give him a solid A since he does not own a firearm after all ;-)

On the subject of government reform, McCain gets another solid A.

On homeland security, McCain gets at least a B- if not a solid B if we account for general overview, defense spending, and his overall voting record. I dock him from a solid A for his stance on the subjects of Gitmo and water boarding but those are not sine qua non positions for determining or anathematizing someone from being a conservative. If McCain were to favour giving the terrorists constitutional rights -and he has said explicitly he does not favour this at all- then you would be able to make a solid argument on this matter that his conservative credentials would be questionable. But not in the absence of that factor in my humble opinion.

On jobs, McCain is given a 15% rating by the AFL-CIO which means he gets at least a middle B by virtue of the simple acid test of unions generally being wrong on what is best for effective economic productivity.{8}

On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake.

On social security issues, McCain gets a solid A.

On tax reform, McCain gets a solid A.

On technology, McCain gets a solid A.

On the war, McCain gets a solid A gaining points for what he loses on the torture subject for his stubbornness on supporting the surge unlike a lot of congressional Republicans. (He has been the strongest supporter of President Bush on this significant issue.)

On welfare and poverty issues, McCain gets a solid A.

He favours appointing originalist judges to the courts who interpret and not invent law so he gets a solid A+ on this issue pending actual disappointment on the matter in the same fashion I start all presidents (or in this case, potential presidents) off with A's. I did that with W too{9} so my approach here with McCain is hardly a novel one.

Shall I list more general areas or does this suffice??? The problem here XXXXXXX is your apparent identification of "the conservative agenda" as synonymous with what Rush Limbaugh thinks or what the general consensus of talk show hosts happens to be. They do not doth conservatism make. I do not in saying this mean they are not conservatives of course, only that they do not set the boundaries and they do not determine who is in the camp or not -they at times have an artificially narrowed view of these matters viewing conservatism as synonymous with their own personal views or certain zeitgeists of the recent past. And Limbaugh is not the only one who does this.

Now, Reagan made mistakes in that regard, which were miniscule in comparison the good he accomplished.

Of course Reagan made mistakes. So has McCain. So have you. So have I. Etcetera...

Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either. Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.

Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 03, the surge in 07, and two justices on the court in 05 and 06, Bush has been a disgrace.

Say what??? Shawn if you think with McCain's record of real consequence (something I will elaborate on later) he will govern more conservatively than Bush, you need to take few hits off the crackppipe just to come to your senses. You really think I am that stupid to fall for this horseshit? I was born in the morning, but not this morning.

I am looking at two factors here XXXXXXX, the panopoly of issues and not just one or two "talking point" ones selected by Limbaugh and his cronies and also the change in office which comes with a change in responsibilities. There is a significant difference between being a senator and being a president. I am not presuming a priori that McCain cannot make the change as you are. I am open to the possibility that he can particularly if the conservatives McCain will need to win are in positions to be able to influence him in this direction. McCain is not stupid and he saw what happened when W rubbed the conservatives the wrong way on key points. The alternative media is here to stay whether he likes it or not.

Also, as president McCain would not need to haggle and compromise to come up with proposals that may or may not pass congress, he as the executive would be able to sign or veto what is put before him. This sets the stage for a more conservative governance potentially. I am not saying he will of course, only that if he is elected and does, it will not surprise me all that much actually. If anything McCain being no stranger to DC the past two decades means he is less likely to govern more liberally than he manifests himself to be going into the office because of the common change that DC can have on even the best intentioned of persons.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} The "National Association for the Advancement of You People" -coined by Rush Limbaugh circa 1992.

{2} I helped them see the value in it and many including the teacher came to support them until I mentioned I had just outlined "Reaganomics in a nutshell" at which point many flip-flopped but I digress.

{3} Unfortunately, so many people advocate positions because they benefit from them rather than out of principle (whether they benefit or not) and this is not what someone who is concerned with principle and an ethical approach to matters in general.

{4} Leaning towards if not taking a more modern "liberal" stance.

{5} I will write on this very soon on the weblog in a long-planned and finally completed sans final edited posting.

{6} Again, in doing the latter, I give him a B and if not for his support of the unproven hypothesis of global warming, I would give him a solid A.

{7} I do not have time to go through the archives of this weblog and track down the posts I have written on the subject of so-called "free trade" and my opposition to what masquerades as "free trade" in reality compared to the idea in the abstract. Hopefully this thread on CAFTA from mid 2005 will suffice as one example of my rather complex view on this matter.

{8} This is something I have noticed throughout my life and probably could raise this acid test to the status of at least a corollary if not a full blown dictum with a bit more development of thought and analysis on the matter (though I have no intention of doing either anytime soon due to lack of time). Ergo, if the unions do not like what he is doing, he is doing a lot more right than wrong: pretty simple really but effective nonetheless as a gauge of measurement here akin to The Carter Corollary if you will.

{9} Not docking him to A- until his stem cell decision which in light of his response to 9/11 bumped him back to a solid A at the time.

A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism":

This is the text of an email I sent out on February 15, 2008. Barring the permission of the person whose email I responded to below to use their actual name{1}, this response will be posted anonymously. Their words will be in darkgreen font.

Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel) has the audacity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.

I read that thread the other day actually.

What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, enviromentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.

I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly. And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically.

You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through (the parts of it that he did anyway) without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example.{2} The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those suffice to illustrate my point adequately enough for now.

Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either.

Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.

Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 2003, the surge in 2007, and two justices on the court in 2005 and 2006 respectively, Bush has been a disgrace. The budget grew over 30% with a Republican congress during the first six years of his presidency. As the only reason we got Alito was a refusal to accept Miers and as the surge only was announced after the Republicans lost congress, even half of those achievements can be taken away as minimal concessions W made. It would not be hard for McCain to be more conservative than W as the bar sure is not set that high.

I would advise that you put down the crack pipe and look at W's real record. The liberals who savage him have it all wrong: he is one of them. All the Republicans did in six years of congressional control with a Republican president is vindicate my decision after the 1996 elections to throw them under the bus. I saw this coming then in faint outline when the Republicans did not have the guts to follow through when Clinton called them on their bluff about the government shut down and when they achieved virtually nothing they solemnly pledged to do with the Contract With America except welfare reform and (eventually) a balanced budget. And the final straw for me was when the establishment stacked the deck to give the nomination to Dole in a year where probably any of the other candidates in a general election would have beaten Clinton. As Limbaugh and others pretended otherwise, I saw problems with the Republicans in congress then and in the establishment. But unlike them, I was not and have not felt any obligation to support them.

I supported W in 2000 partly because the thought of Gore as president was disturbing but also because he appeared to be an an energetic executive and I knew that such would be needed. This nation always needs an energetic executive as the federalists like Hamilton, Morris, Washington, Adams, and others (including Madison initially and then later on as president) realized and supported. W in that role has been horrible. I am not about to publicly bash him though as it is unbecoming to do so in the final year of a lame duck presidency but that does not means I will not say this in private to you and others -or say so publicly in a benign manner and leave it at that without explanation.{2} This is akin to the way I did not bash the pre-surge approach even though I thought it was short sighted and a failure (something I admitted on the blog only in mid 2007 after the surge was so obviously working) I am not going to give any additional ammunition to those who want to hang on the Republican nominee the W Bush record. But the reason is more tactical than any special affinity I have for W.

To wit: the war. All of McCain's newly found conservative sycophants are talking about how much of a hawk on the war Johnny Mac is. Let's see, he wants to close Gitmo, which means bringing terrorists here to the U.S. which would afford them constitutional rights. He also has been Shea-like on the torture issue sponsoring what Rush Limbaugh rightly calls the "al Qaeda bill of rights. He also uses Kerryequse global test lingo, lamenting about how the appeasement-loving "rest of the world" would view us if we used heavy handed interrogation techniques, even in ticking time bomb scenario question. I think Tom Tancredo had a great line in response to that when he said, "Worry about waterboarding? I'm looking for Jack Bauer." After all, effective interrogation and intelligence gathering (and yes, if that necessitates torture, which by the way is not intrinsically evil, in and of itself, despite how hard Mark Shea and Steve Dillard want to spin it, then so be it!) is essential to any war effort. And McCain has worked hard to undermine our ability to do just that. If McCain is a hawk, give me a dove, please!

This is a subject that McCain has firsthand knowledge about unlike you and me. I place very little stock in military advice asserted dogmatically by those who do not understand the environment involved. You certainly served in the military but to my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong) you cannot claim any expertise in this area -and even if you could I would assess your statements in the same manner I do anyone else's.

My stance on the whole "torture" subject has been firm and unequivocal -both in what I have written for this weblog on the subject in particular{3} and also in my support for Steve Dillard's enterprise contra Rudy Guiliani despite certain points on which we were not in agreement with him.{4} Certain refinements in his presentation were obtained by us to secure and sustain our support{5} and in other areas we made our divergences known in expository format.{6} That having been said, there is a degree of politics involved when you have elections and politicians running for office.

All candidates have to try and come across as to some extent diplomatic on various "hot point" issues -even if the degree of nuance and carefully chosen words for doing that can bother those who consider themselves the "real deal." We both think highly of President Reagan and he did this too -albeit not to the extent of most who run for office. Do not forget this: the last conservative candidate who bluntly told people what was what was Barry Goldwater and we know what happened to him when he ran for president. We had Duncan Hunter this time saying what was what and he got nowhere. Fred Thompson understood the issues better than the candidates running ahead of him and yet he could not catch traction either.

You also need to remember what I said previously about how different offices come with different functions and the like. Senator McCain as a senator has a different role than he would as president and the difference of the office means a difference in how you go about doing things. To use a religious example, Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Pope John Paul II's CDF prefect approached issues one way and as Pope Benedict XVI his approach has been strikingly different. The difference is the positions: as CDF prefect, his role was preserving doctrine. As pope his role is guardian of the common unity and as the largest voice of Christian conscience in the world. We are seeing things from Benedict as pope that we did not see from Ratzinger the prefect and this is analogous to what a president does and what a senator does...not a perfect analogy but one that to some extent should be taken into consideration on this matter.

About McCain's allegedly seeking the VP spot on the John "F-ing" Kerry ticket. His denial wasn't all that passionate. I mean, if that wasn't true don't you think McCain would be screaming "HELL NO"?

Not necessarily. This is politics and those who scream and rant are quickly painted as lunatics. Furthermore, this is not the senate or house floor where tirades could go mostly unreported -this is a candidate running for president and anything of this sort would be a major media point of focus. McCain is not that stupid whatever else you may want to say about him.

I mean, any conservative in their right mind would, especially someone like Johnny Mac who can go ballastic with the best of them, would do at least that.

Depends on the situation and the place XXXXXXX. Going ballistic is not usually a good approach to take unless one does so sparingly. To succeed in politics you have to be Machiavellian: smile and pretend all is well for the cameras (maybe be a touch snappy but not too much) and save the stack blowing for private.

Besides, McCain actually did publicly state he would consider it if asked. And he also considered bolting the GOP but Jumpin' Jim jumped first first (say that real fast ten times) stealing his thunder.

What I do not understand is this: you are angry because we have McCain as a Republican nominee and have talked about throwing this to the Democrats in 2008 so that the establishment finally realizes that pretending that conservatives can be completely ignored is a policy that means certain defeat. But then in the past you have said that my voting for Perot was stupid because it essentially gave the election to Clinton as a lot of people approached this as I did. Now you seem to functionally advocate now what I advocated then.

What I am surprised by is that you did not realize this until now or (if you did) you did a good job of hiding it. There is a reason I am not a Republican anymore XXXXXXX -a reason why twelve years ago I told the Republicans to blow it out their pieholes. I was sick of this crap back then and over time my view has not changed. Welcome to the realization I had back then: that the establishment usually wins because they stack the deck against those who are outsiders.

Since George H. W. Bush repudiated the Reagan legacy and by that cost himself the election in 1992, this has been what we have had to deal with. Gingrich's congresses promised a lot and delivered very little and the six years we had of a Republican congress and president were shameful in their fiscal lack of discipline.

Can it be said that McCain has acted, in his political career, in manner "worthy of his suffering"? I think not.

His record is mixed but that is not uncommon for politicians of twenty years standing in DC.

He considered running alonside the unrepentant John Kerry, whose, 1971 testimony was played repeatedly in the Hanoi Hilton, according the POW's who supported the SBVFT in 2004.

Again, we have John Kerry's word on this and if you want to trust Kerry on this than you are being amazingly selective in what you will accept from him.

He panders to the media, many of whom who show more sympathy with his captors than they do the POW's.

This is "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" kind of stuff XXXXXXX.

This has always bothered the hell out of me about McCain.

Whether we like it or not XXXXXXX, the media is a necessary evil in a lot of this. Without them, it is hard to nearly impossible to get your message to a broader audience and with them, you have to deal with the fact that they have an agenda. (We have alternatives now that we did not have in years past but McCain is pretty old school in this regard to some extent.) Whatever prudence or lack thereof that you want to ascribe to Senator McCain in this area, it would be wise to view the situation for what it is.

Before you use the "President Reagan went over the heads of the media to the people" line, remember that as president there is a bully pulpit of sorts that senators and house representatives do not have. Unlike the president who can call press conferences by virtue of his position -and thus has a platform for making their views known apart from media spin- senators and representatives cannot do that unless they at least implicitly do something that appears to support the media weltanschauung. And a Republican who does not toe the Republican party line fits that in a way that a Democrat who does not toe the Democratic party line does not.

This is not to defend or excuse McCain mind you but instead to remind you of what he is up against. As president he would not be so constrained.

This is a mere synopsis of the problems I have with John McCain. His nomination perplexes me greatly.

He was not even in my top four of candidates. In order, my candidate choices ideally were 1) Duncan Hunter 2) Fred Thompson 3) Sam Brownback 4) Mitt Romney 5) John McCain 6) Rudy Guiliani. I would vote for a Democrat before I would vote for either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul so I need not mention them. I only want you to realize in my saying this that I am not enthralled by McCain being the nominee either but we have what we have.

On one hand, a good case can be made that he is better than both Shrillary and [Obama]. It's one I would, under normal circumstances, instinctively embrace. But Rush Limbaugh makes the point that if we are going suffer in the next four years it is better that it be a Democrap holding the bag for it than a republican.

Limbaugh is not going to fail to support McCain. I remember in 1992 he said a lot of the same things about Bush's papa and then went out and supported Bush Sr. He will do the same thing this time -guaranteed.

Now, I'm not sure if I would embrace that view, but it can't be dismissed out of hand given what a McCain Administration would bring in the unlikely event he wins in November.

I remind you that a year is a long time in politics...McCain has lower unfavourable ratings than Clinton (and that is not going to change) and Obama is still quite unknown. The more Obama is drawn out, the less attractive he will be.

I think these are things we conservatives have to think long and hard about in the next nine months.

As a former Republican you have my sympathies. But you wonder why I have in various ways endorsed a third option in politics for a long time. But for all your talk about how that throws things to the Democrats, now you appear to be willing to do the same thing but directly instead of potentially indirectly. At least the indirect approach sets the table for something possibly coming out of it other than establishment retrenching. But then again, you seem to not recall just how Reagan was really perceived by the establishment: he was as distrusted by the "far right" as he was the "far left."

Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan.{7} TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.

Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.

And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.)

Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on???

The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.{8}

For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.

David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flopflop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area

P.S. You may have heard of Rick Roberts. He fills in for Michael Weiner (aka Michael Savage. Weiner is his real name).

I am familiar with both Rick Roberts and also Michael Savage's real name. It is Dr. Michael Weiner Ph.D. by the way...Savage likes to remind people of his degrees to the point to where it is as annoying as listening to Rush carry water for the Republicans used to be. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} In accordance with our long time usage of private correspondence in particular circumstances which was expounded upon with some detail over two years ago on our miscellaneous weblog.

{2} I decided by the nature of what we are dealing with here -as well as a lack of time to revise this thread to be more benign- to simply reproduce with minor at best revisions what I originally wrote in response to this emailer. However, having said what I have, do not expect much else along these lines from this writer during the election year for reasons noted in the text above.

{3} To note some key examples briefly from the archives:

Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea on Torture (circa July 17, 2006)

On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics--Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

On Torture and General Norms Revisited -A Response to Dr. Scott Carson (circa October 25, 2006)

More on Torture and the Problems With Trying To Discount the Historical Record Explicitly or Otherwise (circa November 1, 2006)

On Torture, the Limitations of Dignitatis Humanae, Logic, Etc.--A Response to Dr. Michael Liccione (circa November 14, 2006)

Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will (circa November 18, 2006)

{4} On the Catholics Against Rudy Website (circa July 12, 2007)

{5} Miscellaneous Notes (circa August 14, 2007)

{6} Clarifying a Previous Endorsement of Catholics Against Rudy (circa August 29, 2007)

{7} The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.

{8} I wrote a bit on this subject long before this email was received but it was in draft form until earlier this month when it was blogged. The subjects covered were the historical background of presidential front runners as well as presidential underdogs and can be read HERE for those who are interested.