[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoon
Title: Speed dating for world leaders (click to view)
Date: September 27, 2008
Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin was given an awkwardly swift crash-course in foreign affairs this week, meeting with nine prominent world leaders / influence peddlers in three days. The thinking is that if the Governor is photographed standing beside enough important people it might help quell rumours that she is insufficiently familiar with foreign affairs to sit another bout of skin cancer away from the presidency.

[travior]

good one

[Voyager]

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do to pad my resume!

Oh wait, that was their candidate for president, wasn't it?

[Psudo]

To me, this election seems like the able corrupt verses the incompetent idealist. Would I rather see effective implementation of views I despise, or failure to implement views I revere? Decisions, decisions.

[fire_i]

Psudo wrote:

Would I rather see effective implementation of views I despise, or failure to implement views I revere? Decisions, decisions.

Haha, I can picture your disappointment, but still this makes me snicker. Nice call.

[Voyager]

Honestly, I suspect both parties are in for that this election cycle.

Obama get a lot of good press, but about the only thing he's ever led was that school improvment program in Chicago that performed so badly they sealed the records, and I wouldn't expect much out of a Pelodi-Reid congress, even with veto and filibuster proof majoreties. Look as the bail-out vote; if you're going to shoot your mouth off at somebody, do it after you've got their vote. Yes, I know; it shouldn't matter, but it's still stupid. There's always time for the groin-punch in after the vote is done, and you don't look like an idiot in the process.

On the up side, at least we'll get to see who's right: the people who said this would lead to a catastrophic recession with lots of layoffs, or the ones who say it'll be a minor blip with a bugs of bank mergers.

Isn't life grand?

[Kjorteo]

Psudo wrote:

To me, this election seems like the able corrupt verses the incompetent idealist. Would I rather see effective implementation of views I despise, or failure to implement views I revere? Decisions, decisions.

Since I have quite liberal leanings, the choice is significantly easier for me. I actually hadn't considered the other side of that...you have my condolences.

Not making the matters any easier, I'm sure, is that (correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that) an "incompetent idealist" with a "failure to implement views [you] revere" is more or less what's been happening for the past eight years now.

[Psudo]

Even Bush is closer to my views than McCain. Palin might be closer than Bush, but 1) I'm not sure yet, 2) she has a long campaign to go before she risks holding federal office, and 3) even if she becomes Vice President, that office doesn't hold much power. (Unless she's the reincarnation of Nixon.)

Bush, at least, upheld my views on taxes and Iraq. I wish he was better about spending, immigration, and energy.

[Psudo]

I feel the need to amend my above comments: Bush is closer to my view than McCain in that he gets a C instead of a D. Romney would have been a B. I don't remember the last A-list candidate; Ronald Reagan, perhaps.

I'm sufficiently fed up with the 'lesser of two evils' rationale that I may not vote for any Presidential candidate this time around. Maybe 4 years of Obama will teach the Republicans to pick a conservative for once instead of a "maverick", a "compassionate conservative", or the Vice President of a conservative.

By the way, "compassionate conservative" means "I want conservatives to vote for me, but I wouldn't want to sound like I actually believe that crap."

[Pseudonym]

Psudo wrote:

I feel the need to amend my above comments: Bush is closer to my view than McCain in that he gets a C instead of a D. Romney would have been a B. I don't remember the last A-list candidate; Ronald Reagan, perhaps.

I'm sufficiently fed up with the 'lesser of two evils' rationale that I may not vote for any Presidential candidate this time around. Maybe 4 years of Obama will teach the Republicans to pick a conservative for once instead of a "maverick", a "compassionate conservative", or the Vice President of a conservative.

By the way, "compassionate conservative" means "I want conservatives to vote for me, but I wouldn't want to sound like I actually believe that crap."

And this, my friends, is why I think the Republicans are in for a rough time this election. They have beaten and abused their own for too long, and we're tired of it.

[Kjorteo]

It seems like there's a larger and larger schism growing in the Republican party between the few remaining Eisenhower-like responsible conservatives and the fanatical religious right. If Obama wins this election, I anticipate a huge blame-throwing war between McCain's and Palin's supporters over which half of the ticket messed it up.

I'm very liberal, of course, so I can't speak for which conservative faction best speaks to me because none of them do. However, from a strategic standpoint, I think someone like Mike Huckabee would have the best chance of reuniting the warring factions at this point (assuming that's what the party as a whole actually wants to do, instead of telling one side or the other to get bent and trying to rebuild and refocus where their coalition is coming from.) He's enough of a fundamentalist to bring that side in, and he's just so darn likeable that the blow to liberals and independents from how fundamentalist he is is softened. Hell, if he didn't believe that homosexuality is a sin and the Earth is 6,000 years old, I'd want to vote for him.

At the very least, a McCain/Huckabee ticket would have been a lot more credible team that could have much more easily pulled an actual victory out of this election than the McCain/Palin train wreck seems to be, and if Obama wins and nothing personality- or perception-wise changes (the latter is a big if--McCain was seen as a pure and noble hero and nemesis to the Bush wing in 2000 before evidently selling his soul for a Presidential bid in 2008, after all,) I envision Huckabee being a serious threat in 2012.

[Pseudonym]

I do agree that Huckabee had a very strong appeal, but I see a rather different style of schism in the Republican Party myself. The general conservative base, with its various religious leanings, desires for lower taxes, and hatred of overspending, is tired of putting up with the Republican leadership. The immigration issue, corruption scandals, and a general perception of weakness is plaguing the Republican party. People are angry with Congress and generally dis-satisfied. Religious nutjobs are not the main problem right now.

[Psudo]

I'm curious, Kjorteo, which conservative faction do you see me in?

The moderation away from religious values is fine by me; in fact, as a Mormon, it's a benefit to me if Huckabee-types cease to be quite so exclusionary. My favorite US Presidents - Lincoln, Washington, and Reagan - were all eccentric in their own religious beliefs and tolerantly inclusive to others', a perfect policy in my view.

And yet I harshly oppose compromise in the direction of the more authoritarian Democrat policies and the betrayal of conservative economics by the Washington Republicans (including McCain and Bush). So I'm certainly not a moderate.

From my perspective, the Republican schism is between people who strive toward a religiously tolerant and morally conservative heritage and an economically responsible treatment of finances and economy on the one hand, and various bad compromises to other ideologies on the other. Bush seems to have compromised everything except tax cuts and Iraq. McCain, in my view, compromised our sacrosanct free speech under the title Campaign Finance Reform.

I do have views on abortion and gay rights that are commonly held by religious types, but they're hardly my top priorities and I have no interest in gaining any political goal by an appeal to religion; neither by mine specifically nor by Christianity generally nor by denouncing atheists and the non-religious. The non-religious and religious eccentrics built the country I love; that's the heritage I adhere to.

None of my views are rare within conservative circles (except perhaps my Mormon religious views). I am convinced I stand in the conservative mainstream, and yet I'm similarly convinced I reflect neither of the battling factions you describe. I think you've fallen for a common misconception, perhaps one proliferated by the utter failure of federal-level Republicans to step up and lead the Republican constituency's cause.

-- On further thought, perhaps your schism theory does accurately reflect the elected officials at the national level. But it most certainly does NOT reflect the constituency.

----
In other news, I don't see Huckabee's appeal at all. I oppose him on policy as much or more than I do Joe Lieberman or Ron Paul, and see him personally as a slick talker with few reasoning skills; the Republican Bill Clinton, so to speak.

[Kjorteo]

To be honest, Psudo, I always viewed you as simply being above the schism I described. Just like the general election has reactionary types who fill out one of the straight-party tickets and are done with their ballot in under a minute vs. people who are cautious and open-minded enough to consider each race individually (for example, I just voted for the Republican candidate for district attorney, Democrat for pretty much everything else, but that was after a significant deal of research,) party factioning has some types that are simply more blind adherents to their faction and are more heated about it than others, and I viewed you as simply being too intelligent to get caught up in all of that.

Really, I don't think you and I would get along as well as we do despite being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on most things if you were more worked up about the factioning. People like that tend to be offended when presented with opposing views, after all, but you've been nothing but kind and level-headed even when our opinions are as night and day.

I suppose, if I absolutely had to place you on one side or the other, I would have viewed you on the side of the old-school Eisenhower-era conservatives, back when the Republican party meant fiscal responsibility as opposed to fundamentalist insanity. I base that on the fact that you've spoken out against the out-of-control spending and recent policies from the George W. Bush-style Republicans. Obviously, there's very little that could be described as fiscally conservative about the Bush administration, and the Eisenhower faction seems to be the one that actually notices that.

Of course, I'm as liberal as they come, so I'm by no means an expert on the inner workings of the conservative constituency at large. It's very possible that I'm falling for a common misconception perpetuated by hearing the arguments against George W. Bush from parts of his own party. If that's the case, then I would love to hear your take on the whole thing. It's always fascinating to learn about political matters, which is why JJ's Guide to Canada sucked me into this site in the first place.

As for Huckabee, he is genuinely charming. Hearing him speak when he's a guest on anything (especially things like The Daily Show, though) is always a treat, because he has a great sense of humor and comes off as quite affable. Of course, I wouldn't know what kind of substance the man has beneath his friendly exterior, because I pretty much automatically disagree with everything he says because he has such fundamentalist views. I honestly wouldn't know how conservatives dissect his positions; I never got past the part where my entire way of life is sinful.

[Psudo]

How conservatives dissect Huckabee's positions? Ann Coulter (once you filter out the 'jokes'), had these criticisms of him back when he was a serious contender for the Republican nomination:
1) He upheld the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court Decision, thus making him either hypocritical or weak on traditional morality, especially to the prudish.
2) He opposed school vouchers and was endorsed by the New Hampshire NEA for it. The teacher's union is considered radically liberal (or at least incompetent) by most conservatives.
3) He supported the public school access for the children of illegal immigrants with the argument "The children shouldn't be punished for the sins of the parents." This was spun as opposing school choice for American kids but supporting it for Mexican kids.
4) Huckabee has said illegal immigration gives Americans a chance to make up for slavery. If the sins of the parents do not fall on the children, why is it necessary for the modern generation to make up for slavery so many generations ago?
5) Huckabee denounced a Republican-backed bill requiring proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate or green card) in order to vote. This was seen as enabling non-citizens to vote illegally.
6) He supported a nationwide smoking ban anyplace where people work.

None of these are particularly critical issues, but none of them say much for his ability to express reasons for his positions that stay consistent across all his positions. Further, by my count, four of these points would increase government spending if Huckabee got his way.

More important to me was his record on crime and taxes: the crime and tax rates both increased in Arkansas during his Governorship. These failures in Republican mainstay issues is discrediting.

My positions may superficially parallel his claimed positions at times, but he either doesn't really believe those views or is incapable of implementing them. And I can't convince myself he believes those views out of research and rational consideration; if that were the case, he would understand them intellectually, which I see no evidence of.

Personal charisma doesn't make you a better person. It just makes those around you more charitable in their treatment of you. But even so, I got the oily lawyer vibe from him rather than an impression of charisma. The only thing that I really enjoyed from him was the Chuck Norris campaign ad: it's just so amusingly surreal.

As for the layout of conservatism, here are some revealing points:
1) Sean Hannity calls his Presidential campaign coverage "The Stop-The-Radical Express". He spends his time vilifying Obama because he has so little good to say about McCain. Of all right-wing radio I know of, his is the friendliest toward the McCain campaign.
2) One of the leading Republican blogs these days is called "Get Drunk And Vote 4 McCain". (I am not a fan.)
These are not signs of people proud of their candidate. These are signs of people trying to limit impending devastation. And I still get the feeling that I'm less interested in supporting McCain than most.

Beyond election news, I think the Republican Party is divided along basically the same lines it has been since the 50s: the party loyalty majority, cheering for a home team that no longer deserves it, while the reasoned ideology of conservativism drifts by as a casual undercurrent, neither being influenced nor being greatly influential. Before Reagan, conservatives realized we were a minority and pushed powerfully and tirelessly to form the persuasive, reasoned arguments that would bring people around to our thinking. Since Reagan, this rah-rah Republican cheerleader section has arisen, the Fox News/Bush/Huckabee mileau, that cares more about choosing a side and being part of the team than actually improving government. People think they're helping the Republican cause in the Reagan tradition, so they think the war is won. Why fight anymore?

Success has bred complacency, and now we're drifting back into obscurity. Which, from a historical standpoint, is only boring. But from my ideological point of view - We are right! - it's supremely disheartening.

There's a book called "The Rise of The Right" that talks about the intellectual movement that established the conservative ideology, starting around the Taft administration up to his profound victory in the election of Ronald Reagan. Amazon doesn't have much on it, but it knows more of the development of conservative ideology than I could ever coherently relate.
---

After all this ranting about my views, I have a quesiton for you, Kjorteo: What does the word 'sinful' mean to you, as you used it above? How is it you think these "insane fundamentalists" see you? And how is it different than how I see you?