You're right of course.
I heard Bobby Jindal on Hugh Hewitt the other day, whoa, I like him. Let's see what he can do with that cesspool in LA. The interview is on Hewitt's website.
I am resigned to the fact that even if McCain is elected, taxes are going up, there won't be another John Roberts put on the court, unions will increase their power, there won't be any SS reform, there won't be earmark reform, there will be horrible entitlement increases, we will move closer to socialized health care, our borders will still have huge welcome mats on them.
But there will be one thing if McCain is elected and that is he will not cut and run from Iraq. And if some how, some way, the dems in Congress find a way to get our troops out of Iraq, abandoning the Iraqis to a monstrous genocide and wasting all of our effort, lives and treasure, John McCain will make certain to hang that on the dems.
But for that Lem, I would also leave the top spot unvoted.
I tend to agree with Rush Limbaugh that the Democrats will not allow a defeat in Iraq when they would take the blame for it.
After Obama is sworn in he will claim that Bush lied about the situation on the ground and that for humanitarian reasons we can't afford to leave.
After that we will read in the MSM about one victory after another under the visionary leadership of Obama who is proving himself to be the 21st century Hanibal.
welp -- is it time to start enlarging the Constitution Party (or whatever it is called), making it the new conservative base? Are we entering a time, like when the Whig Party declined, when we have a major realignment of parties?
hmm.
Lemuel, Reaganism (like Thatcherism) may be dead and real conservatives will simply have to keep the torch burning in the hope that some first principles will never be forgotten.
Reaganism IS conservativism.
Conservativism is not good because Reagan believed it. Reagan was good because he was conservative.
What is being missed here is the Undue Influence that the New Hampshire primary exerts in the nominating process.
It's bad enough that the national parties both embrace New Hampshire's demand that they ALWAYS vote first.
But it's worse, far worse, that in New Hampshire's primary members of any (or no) political party may vote in either party's primary.
This year, in particular, saw many so-called "independents" and Democrats cross-over and vote in New Hampshire's Republican contest.
The result was John McCain's victory and the resulting momentum. (fundraising, morale, etc.)
Maybe the saddest lesson to be drawn is that in four years this process will repeat itself as No One seems to have the political will needed to end New Hampshire's undue influence over the process.
The Republican Party leadership presently reminds me of a boss I once had. He insisted on doing things a certain way even though the outcome - failure - was known based on experience. When asked by his boss to explain his insistence on doing things the way he did he argued that he was right and eventually everyone in the company would come around to seeing things his way.
Fortunately calmer and saner heads prevailed - when the opportunity presented itself to downsize him he was.
Unfortunately his antics cost a lot of other people their positions with the company.
Thank you for your time.
Commenting by HaloScan
