Ted West: The Naked Conservative

Romney, Clearly

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:35:02 -0800

Mitt Romney was in fine form again tonight (the other time was after Michigan), and I felt nothing but sad because he seems to be the best of the bunch - personable, articulate, confident, experienced...

A short time later, he was followed by the utterly detestable beast who claimed she wanted to win and take back "your White House." No, not from us, from the "special interests."

What a contrast. And yet this hideous woman, it seems, has the inside track to the Filthy Party's nomination, and Romney is about to be on the outside looking in. Why has he failed? My guess is that people don't see his experience as the right kind... in the right place. The same goes for his religious beliefs. And he, hasn't helped himself a bit. I can't tell you what he stands for. I mean I'm sure it's all the right things, but I can't say for sure because I still don't know Romney.

I know McCain. And I know Huckabee, and I know them well enough to say unequivocally that they aren't as good a choice as Romney.

Kidding!

I don't know that at all. Because what I want Romney to be is how I imagine him to be if he's all I hoped he'd be. How can you vote for someone on that basis? The businessman hasn't sold the sizzle or the steak, and we're worse off because of that. I really want someone Romney-like to be the Republican nominee, maybe just not Romney himself... then again, maybe not....

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Is Limbaugh Trying To Elect McCain?

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:06:58 -0800

I made a point of tuning in Rush today because of the Dole Letter, and at first, I was surprised at what I was hearing. I didn't think the letter would cause Limbaugh to do an about-face, but I didn't expect him to step up hostilities.

Lambasting McCain for most of the first hour, Limbaugh brought up everything including the kitchen sink to use against the Senator, and I'm happy to report that the majority of it was accurate... which is to say, much of what Limbaugh was accusing McCain of was either not accurate or not the whole story.

It seems to me that a lot of conservatives can only see things from their perspective. They can't fathom that something may appear one way and be another. For example, Dole said in his letter that John McCain has supported conservative issues on every important vote. I've heard that flatly denied by Hannity and Limbaugh The problem is, they didn't hear what Dole was writing. Either that or they didn't read what Dole was saying.

For example, and this is something everyone can understand, McCain is accused of not supporting the Bush tax cuts, which he didn't. But what's overlooked is his support wasn't critical. So Bush got his cuts, and McCain bolstered his reputation as fiscally responsible. But conservatives only see McCain as a traitor. Dole was saying that he remembered McCain as being supporting of Republicans whenever his vote was critical.

Now it's the second hour and Limbaugh is still droning on. Does Rush know how off-putting he is if you're not a blind conservative? And how well it plays to moderates, independents and even some liberals as far as setting McCain apart from those horrible Republicans?

So while it's hard to listen to Rush, much less the idiot callers (which, thankfully, he hasn't had yet today) I hope he keeps it up. If it's real and McCain wins, he will not be beholden to many conservatives, and certainly not to any of the big yappers. And if it's all a ploy to increase McCain's viability with the middle-left, then it's brilliant.

But as I was looking to wrap this up, Limbaugh went off again on McCain and amnesty saying that McCain would still sign McCain-Kennedy if he were President. That, of course ignores two very important facts:

1) If McCain-Kennedy had actually passed, you couldn't contain George Bush's delight at signing it, and...

B) If McCain were President, it would ever so slightly reduce the chance of seeing McCain-Kennedy II.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Coulter Actually Did Say It!

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:18:04 -0800

I think someone said here or somewhere on Vox that Ann Coulter didn't say she'd vote for Hillary if McCain was the Republican nominee.

Yes, she did.

Bill O'Reilly ran the clip from Hannity and The Other Guy at the start of the show in which Hannity says to Ann that he can't believe she'd vote for Hillary if McCain was the other option:

"Yes... I'd CAMPAIGN for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination," Coulter said with emphasis as noted. That's irresponsible.

But then Coulter added, "Hillary would be stronger in the war on terror than McCain." That's insane. She's clearly the poster girl for McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Now I want McCain to be the nominee just to see what happens.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

To Scio, With Love

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:01:28 -0800

This is a LULU!

You had asked to see something that might convince you John McCain is a candidate worthy of your vote. Well, it's as if Jeff Jacoby has heard your prayer. All that's missing from his quintessential defense of McCain is a dedication to your fine self...

I was going to post excerpts, but the column demands to be read in its entirety. I found it to be more than reassuring; I found it to be positively uplifting. Even if you don't experience the same reaction, I sincerely hope and believe Mr. Jacoby will have been able to assuage much of your anxiety.

Here's hoping you have a great Monday, and a Super Tuesday!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Coulter & Co... Leading The Lemmings?

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:37:11 -0800

Coulter & Co... Leading The Lemmings

Is John McCain beyond the age of reason? Some people barely beyond the age of consent seem to think so. And they are being influenced by people whose outlandish statements are beyond words and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that older is not necessarily wiser.

I mean, it's perfectly legitimate to press one's case against John McCain, but is it too much to ask that you be rational? Am I being too demanding to expect that? None of the candidates still standing on either side are without serious flaws, but only one is being scrutinized at the molecular level and vilified by his party, and it's not even the one who should be.

That one is Mitt Romney.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Romney to be the nominee, but first he has a lot of explaining to do, and he has to be able to show that he can not only answer charges but level them. So far he's an abject failure. I don't expect Super Tuesday to be a disaster for Mitt, and it could even have a good outcome, but it doesn't matter if the candidate himself is fatally flawed.

McCain isn't. That's why conservatives are abandoning reason and resorting to T & D - threats and decibels. And they should be blaming the very guy they want - Romney. He could have had the nomination in a cakewalk. Instead, he's doing what he's done to keep himself from getting it - Not much. Did you see his add in which he takes on Hillary. Did you ask yourself why? Can the guy do anything right?

I read a travesty of a column this morning in which the writer literally threw reason out the window, and that column appeared in a highly regarded conservative publication. I'm used to seeing such things come from the left, but when it comes from the right it's shocking.

I've already said many times that you can't criticize McCain if you overlook Bush's failings in the same areas. yet conservatives still shamelessly do it, and nothing McCain has done is as bad as what conservatives make it out to be - or more importantly, what Bush has done, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than because of the relative powers of the two offices.

But it gets worse when you bring Romney into the mix. For example, is Romney a better conservative than McCain? At best, anyone being honest can only say, "Probably." And Romney hasn't even spent many years in office where a record might be better determined.

Now I don't like to be defending McCain, and I would much prefer the Republicans had a good, strong, charismatic conservative. unfortunately, they don't. There's not even one on the horizon.

So you know the admonishment; when you're in a hole, stop digging? Well, conservatives are digging furiously - mindlessly. After nominating Reagan and Dole, some conservatives are actually advancing the idea that McCain is too old - and blaming it on his POW ordeal. Incredible.

Here's what makes that even more absurd, outrageous, astounding, shocking, preposterous - they don't even understand what things were like when the constitution was written. A President has to be at least 35 years of age. Would anyone elect a thirty-five-year-old today? God, I hope not!

But the problem is, while we might regard that as absurdly young and inexperienced, do you know what the average lifespan was in 1787 - 15. You hit puberty, they gave you a wife, you had a kid, then you both celebrated by dying... and the grandparents raised it... and they were already dead for years. Without indoor plumbing, you didn't want to live any longer anyway, and people used to sit on their front porches and wonder when the toilet would be invented.

At night, they could only dream of microwaves, and when comedians used to say, "You're goin' to the moon, Alice," no one would laugh because they needed a refrigerator before Tang. At least war finally brought us something useful - M & Ms.

OK, anyway, maybe it was like 26, but the fact is, 35 was an advanced age back then. I'm sure if the average person had lived to be 78, the founders would have set the minimum age for a President at 60 so they could get the midlife crises out of the way first.

I keep hearing about all the damage John McCain has done in the Senate. The fact is, he did very little, although maybe not for having tried? But doesn't that only make the case for getting him out of the Senate and into the Presidency where he won't be signing bills he introduced the way Bush did? And isn't it a worst case scenario if McCain is still in the Senate and Billary or Barama is President?

So if you want your teenager to be going on field trips to gay bathhouses, vote for Hillary. Although I can see where voting for Obama and having your children learn how to be slumlords might be OK, but all I ask is that conservatives demand meticulously reasoned argument - you know, like mine. And if you're not sure about what you're reading and believing, ask me. I'm always happy to help... unless you think I'm too old?!?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Ann, Please Put Your Mitt Away, The Game's Over

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:05:10 -0800

Have you seen Ann Coulter lately. she looks like I've never seen her - frazzled and frantic, and her voice seems to have risen several octaves.

As John McCain closes in on the Republican nomination and polls say he's the only one who's competitive with Clinton and Obama, the most prominent conservative to actively oppose the Senator is becoming more and more strident.

Today, Ann said she'd vote for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain. That's not the sort of comment one can backtrack on very easily, and it's as outrageous as it is impractical.

We understand, Ann, that you really hate McCain, but there are far more important issues than the ones you and other conservatives cite in denouncing him, and even if they were equally as important as security and spending, why haven't you been demanding that the President get tough on immigration and spending?

What we're now seeing is a prime example of why I say I don't like conservatives much better than Democrats. McCain is not an ideal candidate. He's just the best of those who've run. I know you think Romney is far better, Ann, but he's had plenty of time to demonstrate that... and he hasn't.

So I hope you read that column in the Wall Street Journal today. If you had already, you wouldn't have said what you did about voting for Hillary. Either that or you're blinded by hate and thus merely typical of many conservatives.

McCain is The Man. He's the only choice for Republicans and the country, and if you were not to support him, you would do your country a disservice for which I would never forgive you if it came to pas that McCain lost and Hillary won.

By the way, would you vote for Obama over McCain?

John McCain is a known entity. You can predict where he'll be unpredictable. Romney is an unknown entity, one in which it's impossible to predict where he will fail you. Or do you think he won't?

If so, did you think Bush wouldn't either? Because I don't know about you, but I expected George Bush to become more conservative, not less, once he took office if for no other reason than simply because he'd be grateful for the support conservatives had shown him.

So I'd advise you to be very careful, Ann. You've already turned me off, and it's time to prove you're not a blind ideologue - something I'd never thought you were. if you can't find a reason to endorse McCain, then at least take a cue from Al Sharpton's suggestion for Bill Clinton and shut up.

Because if you continue, you're not going to bury John McCain, you'll only be marginalizing yourself, and I'd hate to see that happen. You've taken your best shot, you lost, move on... before you start to sound like that group of the same name.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Republicans' White Elephant

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:32:26 -0800

What's the biggest problem Republicans face?

You want it in a nutshell? The problem Republicans face is; they have no face.

We're all familiar with the "Reagan Republican:" Does anyone reading this regard him or her self as a Romney Republican? If so, would you kindly describe than animal?

I've been characterizing Romney with words like: mechanical, rehearsed, robotic, stiff, mannequin-like, and probably a few others that aren't as flattering, but there's a fellow named Green (sorry I didn't get the first name) who was talking about the "heated" exchange between McCain and Romney in last night's debate when McCain accused Romney of backing a timetable for Iraq - the irritated Romney, Green says, "spoke in the same tone he'd use when ordering fine wine in a restaurant."

So there it is, would Reagan even order fine wine? A Martini with a jelly bean, maybe.

Republicans haven't embraced McCain, but they haven't embraced Romney either. And he hasn't embraced them. In fact, I dare say John McCain has made more overtures to the base than Romney has, and with time growing short for Mitt to turn things around, he still doesn't seem to understand what he needs to project. He's actually more like Fred Thompson than Ronald Reagan.

I keep hoping Romney will take that spark he showed after his Michigan win and turn it into a wildfire, but as Charles Krauthammer put it, he hasn't up to now, so there's no reason to think things will change.

What's even more interesting is how right-side commentators have responded to the McCain surge. I didn't hear anyone savage the Senator the way they did in 2000 except, well, Savage himself, which could only mean that for whatever reason, pundits felt they needed to keep their options open.

And now that John McCain is the clear frontrunner, those options have narrowed considerably. Rush Limbaugh has been more tempered than I've ever heard him. Sean Hannity still doesn't accept McCain, but he's sure not mounting a counter-offensive. Only Ann Coulter got tougher, and her column yesterday was one of the worst she's ever written, utterly devoid of humor and as shrill as a Hillary stump speech.

So Republicans had better not just resign themselves to McCain if he's still on top after Super Tuesday, they'd do well to swallow hard and embrace him in the hope that he'll embrace them.

Why? because they'll need him more than he needs them. Some people have said they won't vote for McCain, that they'll just stay home. What a great way to render yourselves irrelevant. McCain hasn't needed you much to win what he already has, why would he need you at all if he wins the election?

I like to talk about the conservatives who are being driven mad by McCain's success, but when I do, I'm really referring to one in particular. She's an otherwise lovely young woman who quite literally becomes insane when talking about John McCain.

We parted company two years ago when Missy labeled McCain a traitor, not to conservatives, but to the country. I felt badly because one has to be crazy to say what she said, but I didn't want to entertain that kind of talk, much less indulge her on it.

So here we sit with no perfect candidate. The Dems think they have two - but that's another liberal illusion. The fact is that John McCain simply cannot be worse than George Bush, and 70 percent of Republicans still think the President is just fine which makes the case that Missy may have been merely the most visible crazy conservative.

Let's get some things straight once and for all, since I'm just as tired of right-wing nonsense as I am left-wing nonsense. John McCain's name is on the title of McCain-Feingold, but the name that appears where it really counts is that of George Bush. McCain introduced a bill. That bill had input and agreement from a majority of the Congress, and they are every bit as responsible as McCain is. But again, in the end, the sole responsibility lies with Jorge Whatsaveto Bush who signed it - and every other bill that came across his desk save one rather insignificant bone he tossed to conservatives.

And regarding McCain's lack of support of the Bush tax cut, what part of McCain's "Hey, where's the spending cuts" question don't you self-described conservatives understand? Especially because seven years later, your President still hasn't seen an expenditure he didn't like? And why aren't you outraged that Bush now threatens to veto spending when he never did it even once before?

The bottom line is that if John McCain is the nominee, if you don't get behind him at least as much as you did and continue to do for George Bush, McCain isn't the traitor, you are... and you can add "hypocrite' to that.

I know that's tough, but it's about time you heard some straight talk.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

So Much For That Bright Idea?

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:56:50 -0800

Is anything going to happen as expected this election year?

That's a rhetorical question because my positively brilliant idea for a McCain-Giuliani ticket couldn't be described as "long anticipated," especially since Rudy was supposed to get the nomination and McCain should have been a distant third or even fourth at this point.

Now with the exact opposite having great potential for becoming a reality as early as next week, it seemed like a absolutely fabulous to have Giuliani become John McCain's running mate... as it turns out, to maybe everyone but Rudy. He said Wednesday that he is not seeking the veep spot.

Yeah, well, if he likes and respects John McCain as much as he says he does, could His Honor turn down the offer?

Actually, knowing Rudy as well as I do, and we go way back, he certainly could. Besides, it's being said that he would be -the- candidate for Attorney General. That, of course, begs the question, "Is he crazy?" Why would Mr. G. take a job that might require actual work?

So I'm still holding out hope - just like I still have hope that Romney will find a way out of his straightjacket before SuDuTue.

And if Rudy does absolutely rule out any possibility of becoming Vice President, who will I come up with next? Stay tuned... I resort, you deride.

Meanwhile, will The Terminator become The Coronator?

Why it's all so tasty, it makes you want to lick it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Now That's An Endorsement!

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:56:28 -0800

I think Rudy Giuliani leapt to #1 on the Top Ten Endorsements List today, and he made me proud, demonstrating why I felt he was the best man for the Presidency. In announcing he was dropping out of the race, he appeared warm, confident and strong... almost exuberant... a genuine hero like the man standing next to him. And Giuliani was more eloquent than I've ever heard him as he turned to give a heartfelt endorsement to his long time friend, John McCain.

As the two stood together, you could see that they would be a most formidable team against any Democrat

Rudy and John also would make anyone proud to be a Republican, so it's ironic that these men are the least Republican-like in my lifetime and perhaps ever, and it could signal a huge shift in the mentality if not the composition of the party. I doubt the heartwarming scene will result in true conservatives suddenly embracing McCain, but it will be an indelible image for those who are interested in anyone but Hillary.

I personally don't care about McCain's stand on the Bush tax cuts. Nor do I hold McCain-Feingold against him. That's all Bush's responsibility. But I am very concerned with McCain's desire to give amnesty to illegals. He says that what he advocates isn't anything of the kind, and we're probably going to find out if he's right. I'm equally concerned about his stance on "global warming" - he believes the nonsense, and that's about as scary (and potentially costly) as being inundated with illegal aliens.

I'm also not happy with McCain's stand on "torture," but I can live with that for two reasons:

1) I believe he'll modify his position as circumstances require, and...

2) Just by winning, he'll be torturing many more people than he could ever imagine.

So overall, I can't say I'm pleased that John McCain appears to be on the verge of clinching the nomination, but that's countered by the realization that Mitt Romney can't win in November if he remains the man we've been seeing up to now, and he almost certainly will. Thus, as a result of Florida's quiet mayhem, it would not be hard to cast my vote for a McCain-Giuliani ticket. The more sobering realization is that it now might be easier to do that than vote for Romney-????.

But let's see how Mitzi does from now to next Tuesday, and be sure to let me know if you come up with an electrifying VP candidate for him.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Presidential Name Game

nobody@vox.com(TedWest) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:03:43 -0800

There was never going to be a President Huckabee, even if his name didn't have the past tense of "hick" already embedded in it. I mean, I like redneck common sense as much as the next guy... but I don't like all the other accoutrements, such as fried squirrel, that go along with it.

But even if Huck's name conveyed all the best qualities that America represents, he couldn't be President because we don't allow our Presidents to have weird sounding names.

That's why Rudy also had an uphill battle from the start despite what any polls may have said in the beginning. Our strangest Presidential names were Fillmore and Eisenhower, and they're a far cry from a Huckabee or a Giuliani... or an Obama.

I'd like to think it's just that people want Presidents whose names convey a certain amount of strength, but it could be more than that. Names that don't ring Presidential may remind Americans that the individual in question is too closely aligned with a minority, and they want a President to be in touch with all of America... or none of it as is the case with George Bush.

So McCain, Romney, and Clinton are well suited name-wise if not credential and criminality-wise. And of the three, Romney seems the most regal. I just wish he'd stop acting like it, because as Washington said, "America isn't down with kings" (you know how strangely they talked back then).

And if McCain or Clinton gets elected, I suspect we'll come to regard the Bush years with great fondness, and that might even include liberals.

If you don't like what I've said here, I'm sorry, but I've boarded the Straight Talk Express... whoo, whoo...

Read and post comments | Send to a friend