Archive for campaign 2008

Sending McCain a Message

Posted in Constitution, Elections, politics with tags , on April 26, 2008 by Randy Streu







File under “Ideas I Wish Were Mine”
David Hinz has posted an intriguing idea at RedState; and I am adopting it and inviting you to do the same. 

Though many Conservatives, this one included, are unhappy with McCain as presumptive Republican POTUS nominee, it is what it is.  Ultimately, four to eight years of McCain will be better for the future of this nation than four to eight of either Clinton or Obama. 

However, the problem with McCain, as has been laid out on this site, and many others, is found in his clear proclivity for throwing Conservatives under the bus, while at the same time happily making leftward compromises with Liberals.

One option Conservatives have, though, is to try to send McCain a message.  We can do this by not voting for him, to be sure — but this then puts the nation in the hands of the Democratic nominee.  So, Hinz suggests another option.  One that, if we stand together and all implement it, will send a very strong message to McCain and the Republican Party.

Says Hinz:
“I propose that each and every Conservative demonstrate his or her support for Senator McCain for President by purchasing a “McCain for President,” bumper sticker, or better still, two. Then we should all affix those bumper stickers upside down — as a clear message to the senator. As a former Navy flier, Sen McCain will understand that message only too well. As explained below, displaying an ensign or the American flag upside down is a message of danger. It means, “…a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.””

The message is clear:  America is in danger.  We are in danger of going away from our Founding Principles.  We are in danger of Leftward movement, politically — a movement that pulls us away from liberty and capitalims, and toward more government control.  The message is that we support McCain with much trepidation; not because he is the best man for the job, but because he’s the best of what’s available. 

Incidentally, Hinz also suggests expanding from just bumper stickers:
“Let’s start a movement. Can you see people at rallies holding up McCain signs upside down, and the MSM asking why?”

I can see it.  We have 6 months before this election.  The time to send a message is now.


The Difference Between “Voting For” and “Voting Against”

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul with tags , , , , on January 23, 2008 by Randy Streu

If you take all the remaining GOP candidates and mash together the best qualities of each, I think we’d have the perfect conservative candidate.  Take the fiscal policies of Mitt Romney, the consistent social conservatism of Huck, the foreign policy experience of McCain and the basic knowledge of the Constitution contributed by Ron Paul (but without the crazy), and there’s my perfect candidate.  And you know what?  We had him.

We Conservatives had a candidate whose career and policies reflected nearly perfectly the fundamentals of Reagan/Goldwater conservatism.  And we let him go, because some people believed he “didn’t want it” badly enough.  Forgetting, I suppose, that the mantle of leadership often suits best those who want it least. 

Then, of course, there are those rooting for the death of classic Conservatism — those for whom growth of government, loss of independence and a building national sense of entitlement are not only inevitable, but desirable.  “Moderates.”  Pah!

Fred Thompson’s bid for the Presidency is over.  Hopefully, his message isn’t. 

For me, I was looking forward to, just once, actually voting for a candidate, instead of simply against the other guy.  Of selecting the best, instead of checking on “good enough.”

The end result, I guess, is the same, as far as the individual vote goes.  But there is an excitement, a passion, in having a candidate you believe in.  When a message resonates, when you and your co-supporters find that community that comes from realizing you are like-minded in very important ways.  For Thompson supporters, those ways included a desire to really see a return back to this country’s fundamentals.  A road back to those ideals that made this nation great.  But in Thompson’s case, it wasn’t simply the ideas — it was the candidate himself.

In spite of what the MSM may have told you, Thompson has a way of energizing his supporters — not with a flash, or a soundbite, or that charisma which produces successful car salesmen — but with an honesty, intelligence, thoughtfulness and humility long missing from the hallowed halls of Washington.  With Thompson, you know what you’re getting.  He’s slow to speak; deliberate.  And when he does, you know he understands what he’s talking about and believes in it with every fiber of his being.  Unlike many candidates, Thompson the Candidate was never afraid of telling somebody he “doesn’t know.”  If he didn’t have enough information, he didn’t give an opinion.  He doesn’t fill up the space between facts with endless monologue, so you know when he does speak, you’re getting something well-thought-out and based on as much information as possible. 

That is the candidate I was voting for

Sadly, for too many, the sizzle outweighs the steak.  So now, I’m reduced to voting against.  In the primaries, against a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants (by any name), who created and worked to pass a bill limiting the right to Free Speech; against a candidate who, it appears, will say anything to anyone to get elected, who cut taxes a few times, but begged for tax increases totalling a net increase in taxes for his state, who engages in liberal rhetoric on taxation and redistribution of wealth, who supported the mone of taxpayers going to the children of illegal immigrants; against a candidate vocally pro-abortion, who has talked a good game with the Second Amendment, but in his only executive role practically eliminated it from his city.

I will vote in the Primaries, for the reasons stated above.  I have not yet decided whether I will simply write Thompson in, and so needlessly sacrifice my voice to my principles, or vote for Romney.  I’m against Mitt-care.  I’m nervous about his flipping on the abortion issue.  But I believe he may be sincere in that. 

If I do pull the Romney lever on Super Tuesday, however, it should be known, it is not a vote for Mitt.  It is a vote against the liberalization of the Republican Party.