Conservatives in talk radio and the blogosphere are playing a dangerous game of chicken with John McCain. The Arizona senator has taken positions that legitimately ruffle conservatives feathers and they have rightly called him on that. He doesn't have a sound grasp of the free market, property rights, freedom of speech, or originalist constitutionalism. Many people forget that he most likely only got his appointment to Anapolis because his father and grandfather were Navy admirals, and he promptly graduated last in his class. It's no wonder Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Milton Friedman have yet to sink in on the 71 year old.
But the bottom line is that there is no true conservative in the race. Now is the time for some realpolitik. If true-blue conservatives continue down this path they're pidgeonholing themselves into political irrelevance. If McCain wins over their protests, our hopes for any influence in policy, particularly judicial nominations, is lost. Instead, there needs to be some type of public reconciliation and quid pro quo between the two sides. Conservatives will give their blessing and McCain a rock hard commitment to appoint originalists to the court. No ifs ands or buts. No garbage about difficulties in the senate. If McCain backs out, like Bush did when he nominated Miers, we walk away.
And lets face it. If we must have a knee-jerk moderate in office, lets have one with the personal honor and national security understanding of John McCain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"But the bottom line is that there is no true conservative in the race."
There's Ron Paul, if you count nonmilitarists.
I linked your health care entry at
http://www.christianforcongress.com
/issuesHealthCare.html
Inglis' email address is
Bob@inglisforcongress.com
Ted,
Paul is solid on most domestic issues. As a libertarian leaning person myself, I can't help but spot one giant hole in his platform: foreign policy.
I think he confuses libertarianism with weak government. In my opinion, the two are only partially related. I think the staring point for libertarianism is to ask what is the purpose of government and does a governmental action fall within that purpose. If we agree with Locke and Jefferson that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property then government must protect its citizens from foreign threats. Just because powerful governmental action choking the free market may be illigitimate/unwise, doesn't mean powerful governmental action in foreign policy is too. In other words, I think he is reactionary anti-government and fails to make this qualitative distinction.
Thanks for stopping by and good luck with your race Ted.
Post a Comment