John McCain was for ACORN before he was against it. October surprise foiled.


Acorn pushes back, hugs McCain

Bertha Lewis, Acorn's chief organizer, said in a statement that came with the photo, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans."

”We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform," she said.

But really, this is all just a tempest in a teapot. Most of these problems were caught by ACORN and registering to vote is not the same as voting. I could register Matt Stairs to vote, but that doesn't mean he'd be able to actually vote.

Every two years we hear about the evils of ACORN. It's a little old and merely a justification for the GOP's efforts to keep the poor from voting. That's what I'll believe until someone shows me evidence of a serious problem with people actually voting who aren't supposed to vote. I'm not saying there aren't a few, but they are just as likely to be Ann Coulter types with multiple addresses voting in multiple locations.

Oh, and John McCain was for ACORN before he was against it.

This Christopher Buckley stuff is mostly boring, but I thought this was funny given the current context.

It may strike some conservatives today as odd, if not absurd, to see John McCain being subjected to an auto-da-fé conducted by such Torquemadas of the right as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity. The other day, he even endured jeers at a conservative gathering in Washington, by otherwise well-behaved exemplars of conservatism...

In response, let me offer a thoughtful, considered, carefully worded comment: Would you all please just...shut...up? (I’d insert an intensifier, but this is a family newspaper.)

What's funny about Limbaugh and Coulter et al ripping McCain now is if he hadn't bent over to get their support in the first place, he might be winning.

Grotewold wrote:What's funny about Limbaugh and Coulter et al ripping McCain now is if he hadn't bent over to get their support in the first place, he might be winning.

It's funny because one reason Limbaugh et al are unhappy with McCain is that his nomination is evidence of their waning influence over the conservative movement.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Grotewold wrote:What's funny about Limbaugh and Coulter et al ripping McCain now is if he hadn't bent over to get their support in the first place, he might be winning.

It's funny because one reason Limbaugh et al are unhappy with McCain is that his nomination is evidence of their waning influence over the conservative movement.

True. My hunch is they also sense that Obama winning would be the best thing for their own imperiled careers.

Grotewold wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Grotewold wrote:What's funny about Limbaugh and Coulter et al ripping McCain now is if he hadn't bent over to get their support in the first place, he might be winning.

It's funny because one reason Limbaugh et al are unhappy with McCain is that his nomination is evidence of their waning influence over the conservative movement.

True. My hunch is they also sense that Obama winning would be the best thing for their own imperiled careers.

God, I need an imperiled career like this:

Talk was never cheap for Rush Limbaugh, but now it is getting a lot more expensive. The AM radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million-a-year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract.

In 1999, a 30 second ad on the Rush Limbaugh show went for $500. I wonder how much they are now

two souls, three virgins

jerseyhoya wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Grotewold wrote:What's funny about Limbaugh and Coulter et al ripping McCain now is if he hadn't bent over to get their support in the first place, he might be winning.

It's funny because one reason Limbaugh et al are unhappy with McCain is that his nomination is evidence of their waning influence over the conservative movement.

True. My hunch is they also sense that Obama winning would be the best thing for their own imperiled careers.

God, I need an imperiled career like this:

Talk was never cheap for Rush Limbaugh, but now it is getting a lot more expensive. The AM radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million-a-year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract.

Wow. I stand corrected.

Imperiled influence? I mean ... he didn't get his guy nominated this time.

Grotewold wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Grotewold wrote:What's funny about Limbaugh and Coulter et al ripping McCain now is if he hadn't bent over to get their support in the first place, he might be winning.

It's funny because one reason Limbaugh et al are unhappy with McCain is that his nomination is evidence of their waning influence over the conservative movement.

True. My hunch is they also sense that Obama winning would be the best thing for their own imperiled careers.

God, I need an imperiled career like this:

Talk was never cheap for Rush Limbaugh, but now it is getting a lot more expensive. The AM radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million-a-year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract.

Wow. I stand corrected.

Imperiled influence? I mean ... he didn't get his guy nominated this time.

Rush isn't losing listeners. I think his listeners represent a conservative constituency who are spending some time in the political wilderness.

One of the things to consider in politics is whether the leadership of whatever movement you subscribe to gains anything by winning elections. The Arkansas Republican party doesn't seem at troubled by the fact that they couldn't find anyone to challenge the incumbent Democrats in Congress this year. Rush makes more money if McCain loses. So does he care about not getting his guy the Republican nomination? I don't know. I wonder if Limbaugh didn't oppose McCain's candidacy because he thought McCain had the best chance of the all the Republicans to win.

I think the capital-C "Conservative" movement is suffering at least in part from the logical incongruity of being the standard-bearers of "small government" who have now been in power so long that the present government apparatus has largely been constructed around, by, and for them, so their cries of "shrinking government" are confusing people who observe this massive bureaucracy that's been built around them.

There are obviously principled conservatives who see and recognize this, but most of the elected officials and hangers-on have the (understandable) human tendency to want to keep their jobs.

Re: monkeyboy's post

i know "gotcha" stuff is fun, but this looks like a big old red herring. mccain spoke at an event that ACORN was a CO-SPONSOR of. without knowing the event, it's perfectly possible that there were 2 "co-sponsors" or 30. alot of times, being a "co-sponsor" of a forum, which has very little expense associated with it, is sometimes about as meaningful as "producer" credits in Hollywood. it might mean all they did was send out an e-blast and show up.

equating mccain with "historic support" for ACORN is, uh, overstating it a little?

Bakestar wrote:I think the capital-C "Conservative" movement is suffering at least in part from the logical incongruity of being the standard-bearers of "small government" who have now been in power so long that the present government apparatus has largely been constructed around, by, and for them, so their cries of "shrinking government" are confusing people who observe this massive bureaucracy that's been built around them.

There are obviously principled conservatives who see and recognize this, but most of the elected officials and hangers-on have the (understandable) human tendency to want to keep their jobs.

There are a lot of Republicans who (as a group) shifted their focus to a platform based on foreign policy, national security, and social conservatism (running on their concept of moral based governance). They were willing to pay lip service to the small government crowd, but they didn't have to really "do" anything to get their votes. Small government conservatives voted Republican. Talking about national security got them some undecided voters.

I disagree with the bolded, that the small government conservatives have built up the government apparatus around them. This is not the identity of the Republican party anymore. Maybe it was 10 years ago, but it's obvious from the last 2 presidential terms that the Republican party is no longer the flag bearer of reduced spending, personal responsibility, and personal freedoms. They still like tax cuts, but that's only half of the "small government" equation.

By the way - anyone who watches the debate instead of watching the phillies tonight, or anyone who needs to post in this thread during the game, will be banned.

I'm serious, you have no business hanging out on a Phillies messageboard if politics is more interesting to you than game five of the NLCS, I don't care what the score is.

VoxOrion wrote:By the way - anyone who watches the debate instead of watching the phillies tonight, or anyone who needs to post in this thread during the game, will be banned.

I'm serious, you have no business hanging out on a Phillies messageboard if politics is more interesting to you than game five of the NLCS, I don't care what the score is.

What if you flip to the debate between innings? Or have your wife yell at you to watch a particularly lively exchange? What if you set your DVR to record the debate? What if you actually watch the recorded debate?

VoxOrion wrote:By the way - anyone who watches the debate instead of watching the phillies tonight, or anyone who needs to post in this thread during the game, will be banned.

I'm serious, you have no business hanging out on a Phillies messageboard if politics is more interesting to you than game five of the NLCS, I don't care what the score is.

I was thinking of posting something like this... even if the enforcement apparatus needed to monitor transgressions like the one Paul posits would seem to violate your small-government principles.

Anyway, well said and I agree.

Werthless wrote:

Bakestar wrote:I think the capital-C "Conservative" movement is suffering at least in part from the logical incongruity of being the standard-bearers of "small government" who have now been in power so long that the present government apparatus has largely been constructed around, by, and for them, so their cries of "shrinking government" are confusing people who observe this massive bureaucracy that's been built around them.

There are obviously principled conservatives who see and recognize this, but most of the elected officials and hangers-on have the (understandable) human tendency to want to keep their jobs.

There are a lot of Republicans who (as a group) shifted their focus to a platform based on foreign policy, national security, and social conservatism (running on their concept of moral based governance). They were willing to pay lip service to the small government crowd, but they didn't have to really "do" anything to get their votes. Small government conservatives voted Republican. Talking about national security got them some undecided voters.

I disagree with the bolded, that the small government conservatives have built up the government apparatus around them. This is not the identity of the Republican party anymore. Maybe it was 10 years ago, but it's obvious from the last 2 presidential terms that the Republican party is no longer the flag bearer of reduced spending, personal responsibility, and personal freedoms. They still like tax cuts, but that's only half of the "small government" equation.

There are a ton of blogs on Cato.org about this.

One question I have is what we now call small government conservatives used to be called libertarians. Or in any event, we haven't heard the term libertarian very much lately. That is, I think the right is engaged in some kind of purge of libertarians, though if you called yourself a small government conservative you were still allowed to come to the party, even if you were told to keep your mouth shut and sit in the back.

The roots of this go back further. The American conservative movement had its origins in anti-communism, which clearly required a strong military response to Soviet aggression, or as Eisenhower put it, a military industrial complex. So, what I'll call the Strauss (or neo-con) Hayek (or libertarian) debate has been going on a long time. A brilliant politician like Reagan could smooth over the difference, since both sides needed each other and recognized that need. But the demise of communism made maintaining that alliance a lot more difficult.

I'm reading what looks to be a very interesting book by Donald Critchlow call the Conservative Ascendancy on all this.

what if I were to post the score in this thread during the game?

TenuredVulture wrote:One question I have is what we now call small government conservatives used to be called libertarians. Or in any event, we haven't heard the term libertarian very much lately. That is, I think the right is engaged in some kind of purge of libertarians, though if you called yourself a small government conservative you were still allowed to come to the party, even if you were told to keep your mouth shut and sit in the back.

The Ron Paul phenomenon, goofy as it was/is, indicates that this isn't a totally abstract question. But the problem with DeLay-era Republicans and small-l libertarians was that the former group was all about the exercise and perpetuation of power, and the latter was somewhere between ambivalent and scornful about power. Given the certitude, paranoia and groupthink of the DeLay faction, there was no way they could embrace their libertarians, and they only tolerated them insomuch as doing so was necessary for the exercise and perpetuation of power.

(Where this gets interesting is when you consider a guy like Armey, who seemed almost schizophrenic in terms of whether his partisan or libertarian inclinations would prevail on a given day.)

What's sort of unfortunate about this is that we're going to need those principled small-government Republicans to guard against inevitable overreach, excess and ineptitude on the part of a unified Democratic federal government. I actually wonder if this shouldn't be McCain's closing argument: vote for me unless you want the worst of liberal governance. But maybe I only think that because, as a center-left type myself, it's what I worry about for next year.

You are center left?