The Axis of Idiocy

Glenn Reynolds pointed to a piece written at Classical Values yesterday. But it's not the piece that grabbed my attention so much as the comment that Glenn came across that makes a point to the "anybody but McCain" crowd. Hopefully, they'll get it before the election. The comment comes from Bill Whittle: (emphasis mine)

After seven years of watching and fighting against Americans who wish to see the country suffer so that they can get at George Bush, the last thing I wanted or expected to see was conservatives saying they would rather see the country suffer than support John McCain over Clinton or Obama, so that they can "get the blame."

A retreat before victory is assured in Iraq cannot be undone in 2012. And mandatory, single-payer, universal health care, once established, will not EVER go away either.

I am not impugning anyone's motives. I believe I have a reasonable understanding of principled behavior. But if your goal is to see the country punished because---

You can stop right there. If your goal is to see America punished, and her people open to attack and/or ruined financially in order to prove a point for any reason, then you do not deserve politial power nor are you likely to achieve it. A party is a compact. It is, essentially, a pledge of mutual support. As a matter of fact, it's nothing more or less than a promise.

A political party is a series of personal compromises in order to achieve a goal unattainable by the perfect political party: one's own self. If McCain is the legal and lawfully selected nominee, and Republicans decide to walk away from their party in droves, what makes them think they will be able to count on those who, you know, actually went out and voted Republican either joyfully or through clenched teeth, in order to prevent The Deluge?

If your idea of any political party is one that means unlimited support for your personal values if your candidate is ascendant, while you in turn owe none to those you dislike or even disdain, you might be in for a surprise in future elections.

Speaking as a FredHead myself, I am bitterly disappointed that I did not even have the chance to vote for a man I admired, and am more distraught still to find myself in the position I now occupy. I see many, many worrisome things about John McCain, but being tough on terror and spending are not among them. We could do worse. Two names come to mind immediately.

Much is said about principles, and since I am not able elect anyone BY MYSELF I have entered into this pact with the group of people who I feel most comfortable with in terms of values. If they, as a body, choose a candidate who is not my first, second, third or fourth choice, then I can look to the Democrats. There I find views so antithetical to everything I believe that I realize there is indeed something to this idea of party loyalty.

And I cannot help but think that such a kind and practical man as Ronald Reagan would be amazed that his name was being invoked so frequently in order to insure that the most liberal, socialist, power-hungry statist in my living memory is elected. I'm glad he's not here to see this because if he knew the consequences of what was being done in his name, I believe it would kill the man.

You are probablky asking why I bothered posting that. The truth, folks, is that I'm about sick of the Republicans that throw hissy fits worse than Democrats. I know quite a few Republicans (here on the 'Net in our chatroom, readers to the site, and in the real world) that play the "if-I-don't-get-my-way-I'm-taking-my-bat-and-ball-and-going-home" game. Honestly, what do you think you can accomplish with a Democrat int he White House, and a Democrat-controlled Congress? I'll tell you what you're going to do.

You'll moan.

You'll complain.

You might even whine.

And the sick, sad truth is that you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. It'll be your choice to stay home, and not fight to keep the White House out of the Democrat's hands. Mr. Whittle is very correct in pointing out that if the next president is a Democrat, they will wreck the economy with their health care plan (please recall that Hillary would garnish our wages should we opt out of coverage), and they'd retreat on the war. I'd also like to remind readers (as I did in the previous post; scroll down) that there are six Supreme Court justices over 65; four over 70. There will be, at the very least, three vacancies coming up in the next four to eight years.

Look, Marcie and I don't like McCain any better now than we did when he pulled off the Gang of 14 deal, or McCain/Kennedy, or McCain/Feingold, or everytime he lashed out at the conservative base. That animosity and distrust will never leave unless Captain Queeg does a 180, and grows some smarts. But that isn't happening anytime soon, so we're stuck with what we've got. It ain't pretty or sexy, but it's better than the two dwarfs on the Democrat side.

And for those that think that the "blame game" is going to work, think again. You remember how long the Democrats had control of Congress before 1994? FORTY YEARS. The blame game didn't work to unseat them. It took the largest tax hike in the history of the nation, and some serious thinking by the GOP to come up with a strategy to unseat enough Democrats in the House to win a majority. As was observed on that election night in 1994 "America had a tantrum." Yes we did, and that tantrum lead to a balanced budget, and more fiscal responsibility in Congress. And by moving to the center, to a more moderate position, and embracing President Bush's "compassionate conservatism," the GOP squandered it's majority. We, the party, have no one to blame but ourselves for not keeping a tighter leash on our elected officials.

Now, we have members of our party that threaten, once again, to cut off their nose to spite their face. This is such an illogical position to take. Yiou will NEVER completely agree with anyone running for office. If I ran for office, I'd have a lot of conservatives that wouldn't be too happy with more than one position I'd take. (That doesn't mean I'm not conservative. Some people differ on what's important to them, and that's fine.) When you have absolute consensus, you don't have a free nation any longer. Comity is nice, but it'll never happen, especially in politics. We will always disagree. But our side used to be the ones that could "agree to disagree" on certain things. Now, a few are doing the "my way or the highway" schtick, and it's really getting irritating.

You want to stay home and sit out the election, fine. Do so. Sit their in protest and pout that you didn't get your way. But remember that when you see our troops coming home in withdrawal and retreat, and you are getting raped in the wallet by higher taxes and a national health care plan, you have no one to blame but yourselves. We're going to do what needs doing to make sure that the Democrats don't win the day this November.

Will it be hard? You bet. Can we win? We have a shot. What will a McCain presidency look like? Don't know, but it sure looks better than a Hillary or Obama presidency, and we can keep him in line by applying pressure to Congress. (We did do that before, or are memories that short that you forgot is was the people applying the proper pressure to Congress that killed McCain/Kennedy?)

I don't mean to be rude or mean-spirited to my fellow Republicans, but this schism crap has got to stop. Only a united, determined party will make a difference for the good of the nation. If we keep tearing ourselves apart because a few people have tantrums, then the prospect of us ever having power in Congress, or keeping the White House, is slim and none.

Publius II