► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Progressive Republicans’

Agitated McCain: Don’t call me a maverick

by Mojambo ( 89 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2010, Politics, Republican Party at April 15th, 2010 - 9:00 am

BWWWAAAAHHH – so Juan McAmnesty McCain  is now running away from the term “Maverick” and according to his girlfriend Miss Lindsey Graham it is all cynical politics. Well I hope that Arizona Republicans remember the contempt that he holds them and their  party in. Someone tell me again how exactly that flatlulent old bastard became our standard bearer?

hat tip Weasel Zippers

by  Manu Raju and Jonathan Martin

John McCain — who built his political persona and his 2008 presidential campaign around the claim that he’s a “maverick” — told Newsweek recently: “I never considered myself a maverick.”

When POLITICO asked McCain about the contradiction at the Capitol this week, the Arizona Republican grew visibly irritated and snapped: “I’ve been called a thousand things. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”
He said 48 percent of the homeowners in his state are underwater on their mortgages. He said he’s always “done what’s best for my state and the nation.” Then he said it again, adding, “People can consider me whatever they want.”

And then he darted into the Senate chamber without explaining himself further.

But if McCain won’t say why he’s abandoning the “maverick” title now, some of his closest associates will: It’s politics.

“When you’re running for president, you show the public at large that I’ll put the country ahead of the party,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain’s closest friend in the Senate and the Republican who has played the deal-maker role ceded by the Arizonan. “When you’re in a primary, you’ve got to prove to people you’re a good conservative. That’s the difference in the forms. John has a record of conservatism that’s being highlighted now because he’s in a Republican primary. When you’re running for president, you highlight that part of your record, and it shows you’re willing to govern the country as a whole.”

When he ran for president in 2008, McCain needed to distinguish himself from an unpopular Republican incumbent and a deeply tarnished GOP brand, so he picked an outsider as a running mate and described the duo “a team of mavericks.” Now, as he faces a primary challenge from the right, he needs to pivot back and convince conservatives in the Republican base that he’s a GOP loyalist just like they are.

“John’s got a primary,” said Graham, “and he needs to be focused on his election.”

The view that McCain is rejecting the term as part of a political survival instinct is shared privately by some of his former top aides. But few want to discuss the matter on the record for fear of offending a man they still respect — or of hampering his primary campaign against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
McCain’s current advisers insist the senator is objecting only to the M-word and not to the concept that he’s a man who puts principle over party.

“He’s only talking about the term ‘maverick,’” said Fred Davis, the senator’s adman now and in the 2008 campaign. “He’ll be the first to tell you that he’ll still go against anybody in power, regardless of party, if he thinks what they’re doing is wrong for the country. Some call that a maverick, some that call that being a statesman — there’s lots of terms for it.”

Since losing his presidential bid, McCain hasn’t acted much like a maverick but more like a loyal party man. On big-ticket issues ranging from the stimulus to health care reform, he has been a leading critic of President Barack Obama. And on issues where he once gladly took on his own base, such as immigration reform and climate change, he’s been mum.

But that wasn’t the case after McCain captured the GOP nomination in 2008 and especially after he tapped Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee.

“The original mavericks,” McCain’s campaign team deemed them in one ad.

At rallies, McCain noted with pride that he and his running mate had been called a “team of mavericks.”
And in high-profile settings, McCain gladly embraced the word.

“I’ve been called a maverick,’ he said in his nomination acceptance speech.

In outlining his differences with the Bush administration at his first debate with Obama, McCain described his record as an “independent and a maverick of the Senate.”

And he added: “I’m happy to say that I’ve got a partner that’s a good maverick along with me now.”
The paper trail is so extensive and the identity so firmly cemented that Jon Stewart — no McCain ally but on whose show the senator has gladly appeared — didn’t even bother with his usual clips earlier this month.

“Now, normally, this is obviously where we toss to a montage of John McCain calling himself a maverick, but I don’t even f—ing need to,” Stewart quipped in response to the Newsweek story.

In distancing himself from the “maverick” brand, McCain is not only attempting to downplay what was the GOP ticket’s central theme in 2008 but trying to excise what made him an American household name and defined him for the past decade.

Since running as an insurgent in 2000 — where his preferred analogy was Luke Skywalker flying out of the Death Star — McCain has portrayed himself as the rare elected official who is not afraid to go his own way for what he thinks is right — party or politics be damned.

And even if he didn’t routinely use the word to describe himself until he plucked Palin from Alaska, he also didn’t steer away from it.

An edition of his 2003 book, “Worth the Fighting For,” was subtitled “The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him.”

But truth be told, McCain has always donned the maverick mantle as a convenience.

He was a standard-issue Reagan conservative during his years in the House, to which he was elected in 1982, and in his early Senate career. Aside from campaign finance reform, there were few examples of apostasy as he began his 2000 presidential run.

But with George W. Bush winning much of the party’s establishment support, McCain’s best political bet was to play up his penchant for candor and wisecracks as a refreshing alternative to his opponent’s more conventional approach to the campaign. And after he returned to the Senate in 2001, his voting record began to mirror his rhetoric. He gleefully opposed the Bush administration and the conservative base on a variety of issues and even flirted with switching parties.

But in trying to win the GOP nomination in 2008, McCain played up his conservative stances on issues such as spending and the Iraq war and, on the issue of immigration reform, where he had been a key player, said plainly that he had gotten the message from his party’s base.

Read the rest


Elitist Conservatives declare the death of Conservatism

by Phantom Ace ( 110 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at August 31st, 2009 - 6:56 am

Good morning Blogmocracy Netizens! I hope your Monday morning is off to a good start.

I have come across one of the weirdest interviews ever. Newsweek, which is a radical totalitarian leftist magazine, interviews the the editor of The New York Times Book Review, Sam Tanenhaus. Sam is your typical Beltway loser appeaser Conservative. In this interview he lauds the Progressives and bashes Conservatives. He claims that because the Right opposes Obama’s policies, the Conservative Movement is dying!

The editor of The New York Times Book Review and the paper’s “Week in Review” section, Sam Tanenhaus is the biographer of Whittaker Chambers and is at work on the life of William F. Buckley Jr. In a new, short book, The Death of Conservatism, he argues that the right needs to find its footing for the good of the country. In an e-mail exchange with Jon Meacham, Tanenhaus reflected on the book’s themes. Excerpts:

Meacham: So how bad is it, really? Your title doesn’t quite declare conservatism dead.
Tanenhaus: Quite bad if you prize a mature, responsible conservatism that honors America’s institutions, both governmental and societal. The first great 20th-century Republican president, Theo- dore Roosevelt, supported a strong central government that emphasized the shared values and ideals of the nation’s millions of citizens. He denounced the harm done by “the trusts”—big corporations. He made it his mission to conserve vast tracts of wilderness and forest. The last successful one, Ronald Reagan, liked to remind people (especially the press) he was a lifelong New Dealer who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center. Second: Buckley saw that the civil disturbances of the late 1960s (in particular urban riots and increasingly militant anti-Vietnam protests) posed a challenge to social harmonies preferred by genuine conservatives and genuine liberals alike. When the Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called on liberals to join with conservatives in upholding “the politics of stability,” Buckley replied that he was ready to help. He placed the values of “civil society” (in Burke’s term) above those of his own movement or the GOP.

Read the rest.

Sam Tanenhaus is an inside the beltway “Conservative”. In reality, he is someone on the Right who has become afflicted with the Progressive disease. These types of “Conservatives” associate with Leftists and they are falling for the left’s spin. However, he is not alone in this Republican bashing.

Here is an article by a so called “Reagan Republican”, Bruce Bartlett. He claims he is anti-Republican, because  they are irresponsible and highly partisan. He makes it seem as if the Progressives and Democrats are not partisan. He clearly is being dishonest and spouting Progressive talking points.

I got an e-mail from a prominent Republican asking why I am so anti-Republican these days. Since many of my friends ask the same thing I thought I would share my reply:

I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” How else can you explain things like that insane op-ed Michael Steele had in the Washington Post on Monday?

Read the rest.

Bartlett is really upset that the Conservatives/Libertarians have now adopted the tactics of the Leftist. Republicans like him have Stockholm Syndrome. They loved being abused by Progressives. They love being accepted in the Leftist cocktail crowd in Washington and New York. Right now Progressives are rattled and like Dhimmis they are afraid of their overlords. These so called Conservatives are siding with the Left. The truth is people like Sam Tanenhaus and Bruce Bartlett are entrenched in the elite. They are now Progressives and not on the Right.

Here is a story that will make Bruce and Sam cry like the pampered elitist snobs they are!

After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.

Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance.

Top political analyst Charlie Cook, in a special August 20 update to subscribers, wrote that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats.”

“Many veteran congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats,” he wrote.

Read the rest.

There are Republican elites who are by default members of the Progressive Movement. They undermine Conservatives/Libertarians from within by repeating Progressive talking points. They are our enemies as well and we need to purge our ranks of these leftists moles. I will laugh at the reaction of these Progressive Republicans when the GOP makes major gains in next year’s elections.