Post-Implosion Politics

Shortly after it became obvious Senator John McCain was going to get the Republican nomination for President of the United States, self-proclaimed "conservatives" and blow-hards like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, and Laura Ingraham began to trash McCain, pronounce he wasn't conservative, and say they wouldn't vote for him. I guess I forgot these people own the term "conservative."

It was a real talent for these people (and many others) to show how short-sighted, narrow-minded, and politically pure they are. What would we do without such hard-nosed bullies in our party? Compromise? Heaven forbid!

Fortunately, most of the rhetoric from anti-McCain forces within the G.O.P. has toned down. Though certainly an Obama or Clinton presidency wouldn't hurt Rush's ratings (or Anne Coulter's next book tour for that matter). Like anything associated with politics, if you want to know the reason for something, just follow the money.

But alas, from the grassroots, there are true ideological conservative purists who find it hard to come out of their shells and admit this is not a perfect world. These are the same people who think there are black helicopters standing-by waiting to infringe on our rights to bear arms, allow women to have drive-through abortions at 7-11, and make our second grade school kids read "Jimmy has two dads." While yes, we should be concerned about the intent underlying the rhetoric of Sens. Clinton and Obama, I don't think Hillary and Barack are going to be commanding any black helicopters to force any of this upon us. We can thank our Founding Fathers and the Constitution for that.

These grassroots conservative purists not only think they own the definition of what a conservative is, they believe John McCain will sound the death knell of the Republican Party.

Read the verbatim e-mail I got from one of my so-called "conservative" friends this week:

Should we support McCain to keep a socialist Obama out of the White House, or should we sit on the sidelines allowing the Republican Party to implode so that new conservative leadership can rebuild for wins in 2012 and beyond? A radical leftist with an America hating wife in the White House is a very scary prospect, but so many of McCain's positions are not one bit better and it would be all the more difficult for the Republican Party to dig out from under his American nation destroying control.

After I read this, I wanted to tell this guy to go pound sand. Does he think for a minute there is any Republican candidate out there with whom he would agree on every issue? I hope not. That's what leads to totalitarian dictators like Adolph Hitler.

As far as "allowing the Republican Party to implode," wake up and smell the coffee - it imploded years ago. The GOP imploded when Tom DeLay and his henchmen took over the House of Representatives. And then we imploded again in the last three special Congressional elections which we lost (all in GOP districts we should have retained). We imploded when we allowed our national debt to exceed $9 trillion dollars last year - and don't get me started on the national deficit. We imploded when our elected officials began talking about their convictions - and they meant criminal convictions not ideological ones. We imploded when we stopped being fiscally responsible and passed the largest entitlement program since LBJ at a cost of nearly a trillion dollars over ten years (not a dime of which we can afford to pay for)! We imploded when we supported and passed the "economic stimulus" package - paid for with Treasury notes bought by the Chinese. Quite simply, our party imploded because we lost our way when we started caring more about pandering than we cared about policy. In time, this practice caught up with us, just like in time, if we go back to a focus on people and policy, we'll win the campaigns. We are right after all.

My "conservative" friend goes on to reference needing new leadership to "Rebuild in 2012 and beyond"? Who are you kidding, fella? A couple of Supreme Court appointments alone are enough reason why conservatives should rally around John McCain. Can you imagine a Clinton or Obama nominee? McCain's Supreme Court nominees ultimately may not be as conservatives as say, Gary Bauer's would be, but they won't be coming out of the liberal 9th Circuit of California (that's San Francisco to you non-court watchers) like the Democrats' might.

Mr. Conservative goes on, "...but so many of McCain's positions are not one bit better [than the Democrats'.]" I guess here he means he's still peeved at McCain for his policy on illegal immigration and campaign finance reform. You know what? I think McCain was wrong, too. But so were the hard-liners.

Let's start with immigration. It is completely unrealistic to think we can round up 14 million people and send them back to wherever they came from. Look how long it took us to find the Unabomber - and that was just one guy. And it is not compassionate to suggest we're going to break up families and send them packing. And it would not be economically sound to send them home -- even if we could find them and didn't care about being compassionate - because if we did, we'd end up paying twelve bucks for a head of lettuce. Trust me here, $12 lettuce isn't out of the question. Name one natural-born American you know who is willing to go out into a hot field and pick vegetables for any less than that!

Ultimately, the 14 million illegal immigrants in this country are here because we (our government and many businesses) wanted them here. Now we (the citizens) are saying enough is enough; let's close the border and make everyone enter legally. Who can argue with that? But for those who are here, we should welcome them, give them 12 months to learn basic English, then legalize them, and make them taxpayers.

As for McCain's support and promotion of campaign finance reform, I think it was the worst piece of legislation to come out of the U.S. Congress in years. All it did was make a bad situation worse. McCain ought to own up to this fact and work to repeal it. But more importantly, the wrath of the so-called conservatives who oppose this Act should be on one George W. Bush. He could have vetoed the bill, and he didn't. That would have required leadership. This president provides very little leadership, and it shows. Bush is a large part of the reason for our party's implosion.

In short, our party is not going to implode because of John McCain. Our party already has imploded because of the likes of Tom DeLay and George W. Bush. Greed, stupidity, self-preservation, ethical challenges, and lack of fiscal restraint led to the downfall of the GOP.

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome." Voters should take note. Electing the same crooks and scoundrels to Congress every year, after year, and expecting a different outcome is insane.

To my conservative friends, I say, give John McCain a chance. He's a good man. He's an American hero. He's got warts and blemishes, but so do you. McCain will work to turn Washington on its head, and that has the power elite running scared. They're misleading you into thinking he's a liberal. He is not. He's a maverick. In a town full of back-scratching, back-room deal brokers, I say we don't need another team player. America needs a maverick to get Washington to focus on doing what is right, not what gets politicians re-elected. America needs John McCain.

- -

Chris Ingram is the president and founder of 411 Communications a corportate and political communications firm, and publisher of Irreverent View. Ingram is a frequent pundit on Fox News and CNN, and has written opinion columns for the Washington Times, UPI, Frontpage Florida, and National Review online. E-mail him at: [e-mail].

Comments

[Openeyes]

Wow, you guys really do live on another planet! Fascinating to look what trees you don't see in your forest. You're silent about the assertion Obama is a "radical leftist socialist" who's wife "hates America" - presumably you agree?

BTW, the Ninth Circuit is a FEDERAL court whose jurisdiction covers most of the western United States, not just California. But since you work for Fox News, I guess I can't really expect you'd know that kind of stuff.

John McCain is not a liberal, nor is he a maverick. Hardly a day passes without his repudiating an earlier view that diverged (slightly) from hard core right wing orthodoxy to move closer to the conservative base. You think he'll focus on what's "right" and not on "getting politicians re-elected?" What,did he just fire the 115 lobbyists running his campaign?

I do agree with you on one point, "greed, stupidity, self-preservation, ethical challenges, and lack of fiscal restraint led to the downfall of the GOP." Unfortunately for you, it doesn't matter who the Republican nonimee for President is, that won't change.

The problem with concentrating all the wealth at the top and corruptly catering to those few with legislation and executive policies is that it leaves so few voters at the bottom to get you reelected. The Republican Party has showered benefits on an increasingly exclusive and smaller club, and they are about to be washed away by a tidal wave of populism, and not a moment too soon.

[IrreverentView]

Openeyes, You are correct about the 9th Circuit. I know that is a federal court, but did not make that clear. I think Obama has made some assertions that are legitimate about his social(ist) agenda and support for America. Things he, his wife, campaign said/did that he needs to further explain. Your claim of a "tidal wave of populism" is nothing but a liberal social agenda which means hand outs to Democrat special interests at the expense of people who work for a living. You made my point about Obama for me. Thanks!

[mbaty]

I disagree strongly that "America needs McCain." Obama is our biggest and best hope of NOT electing the same crooks and criminals to office.

[IrreverentView]

McCain is hardly a crook or ciminal. Thankfully all the crooks in the GOP are now in prison (DeLay, Ney, Cunningham). Now we need to focus on getting the Clintons to join them...

[WaspMan]

Ingram,

You're a centrist. But your party deserted you years ago. Come on over to the good side - plenty of room here - and the people are a lot nicer.

[IrreverentView]

Waspman, Not sure about the people are a lot nicer comment. Have you read some of these posts? But you're right about being deserted.

[TommyMcCarthy]

How refreshing to see a conserative posting here at Huffpo!!

While Sen Obama (or Sen. Clinton, for that matter) might not have been my first choice,......I'm a lifetime Democrat, and I'd very much like to see a Democratic President, with as LARGE a democratic congressional majority as possible next January.

That noted, I'm sure that Mr. Ingram and I could find plenty to "agree to disagree" about, but I find very little to take issue with in this excellent piece.

I most CERTAINLY agree that Delay, Army et. al. signaled the hijacking of the term "conservative" (not to mention the US House of Representatives) by opportunistic charlatans who were anything but.

In terms of the coming election: McCain does in fact represent a weakened, diminished, and somewhat discredited Republican party. (With apologies to Mr. Ingram,....I DO love repeating that phrase.)

My greatest fear is that the Obamites will therefore underestimate McCain's considerable appeal to centrist Democrats and independents. It is no accident that McCain and Huckabee, the two candidates LEAST like an off-the-rack Republican were the top contenders for the GOP nomination.

If I could ask Chris Ingram one question it would be:...... "Isn't it a delicious irony that Hillary Clinton of ALL people would remind the Democrats of the huge number of centrist/c­onservativ­e party members, and Maverick John McCain of ALL people who would be the Repubicans best chace to avert an electoral holocaust?

Stellar post! Keep 'em coming. Regards...­..........­..........­..........­..........­.....tm

[Lemeritus]

With all due respect to my friend Tommy, Mr. Ingram correctly identifies the one prize about which we cannot "agree to disagree" and that is the future of the Supreme Court. I wish conservatives well in reclaiming their party -- I do not happen to agree that John McCain is the answer for them or for the rest of the country. But "A couple of Supreme Court appointments alone are enough reason why conservatives should rally around John McCain. Can you imagine a Clinton or Obama nominee?" -- them's fighting words. What's more, as we liberals struggle to regain our equilibrium, we would all do well to remember a couple of Supreme Court appointments alone are enough reason to rally around the Democratic nominee.

[IrreverentView]

Thanks Tommy! If there were more calm/rational thinking people in both of our parties we would all be a lot better off. Some of these postings are nothing but rants from people with mono-vision.

As for your question, it most certainly is ironic. I have to take issue with it being "delicious."

Thanks for the comments. Will keep 'em coming here. You can also check out IrreverentView.com.

[IrreverentView]

MickyD10, "Maverick" or "C****ker" McCain ought to wear any of those terms with a badge of honor coming from anyone in DC. The whole town is nothing but a bunch of self-serving ego-maniacs who have no one's interest in mind but there own next re-election. You should spend some time in DC and see what I mean. Unless your blind or stupid, it won't take you more than 10 minutes to figure that town out. Just follow the money.

[Lemeritus]

As Lily Tomlin once said: "Life is funny. But sad."

"I don't think Hillary and Barack are going to be commanding any black helicopters to force any of this upon us." It's funny that black helicopters have seeped in the nightmares of so many Americans, but sad only Republicans keep Blackwater on retainer.

And, "As for McCain's support and promotion of campaign finance reform... [a]ll it did was make a bad situation worse." Funny, I couldn't agree more, but sad the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn't seem to concur, nor will this election year's Vets for Freedom.

"A couple of Supreme Court appointments alone are enough reason why conservatives should rally around John McCain." Funny, Democrats are likewise inspired, but sadly we will have years to suffer under the shadows of Roberts, Scalia and Alito.

"I say, give John McCain a chance. He's a good man. He's an American hero." Funny, I felt the same way about John Kerry. But sad.

[lgillooly]

He used to be a maverick and I supported him in 2000,but he has sold his soul to the GOP team to win the election., His recent pandering,flip flopping and attachment to Bush policies makes him just one of the crowd.

[IrreverentView]

lgillooly, I agree he doesn't appear as pure as he did in 2000, but he is his own man. He has a brain (unlike the current occupant), and he will show leadership by taking on unpopular issues and outcomes. It boils down to this: McCain will occasionally give us what we NEED not just what we WANT.

[AOoftheOPALS]

Your premise that McCain is a maverick is as specious as the "conservative" that wrote this PUFF PIECE in the first place. In the last 6-8 months, a man I once respected has repudiated every position that made him respectable. Now he is nothing more than a Hemorrhoid on Bush's ass. Ingram's article is SPIN. What I'm afraid of, is Bushwa like this seems to score with reasonable people. Please, watch the news not the spin of the news that follows.

[IrreverentView]

This is not spin. It is an opinion. If it were spin, it wouldn't say anything negative about McCain or the clown currently in office. The reason it "scores with reasonable people" is it is true.

[noneIn2008]

You hit the core:
"Electing the same crooks and scoundrels to Congress every year, after year, and expecting a different outcome is insane."
But 90% of those incumbent crooks will return every time. Same this year. Some say the Republicans will lose seats, but this is only due to open seats. Still 90% of incumbents running will win. Time for Term Limits.

[IrreverentView]

Time for the American people to start paying attention to who they are electing and what the actually do once in office. Term limits only makes the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, and the Hill staffers more powerful. A test of competence prior to voting is what we need.

[wm1066]

Well, I think he identified what Bush and Delay have done to thier party but still doesn't see the train wreck express speeding there way.
Oh well, pass the popcorn.

[IrreverentView]

You may be right. The GOP party leaders (the establishment, not McCain) remain unfocused, out of touch, undisciplined and greedy.

[MickyD10]

My grandpa was in politics in Illinois many, many years ago. Occasionally he would refer to another politician as a "maverick". I asked him what he meant by using the word maverick once, and he replied:

" Well, son, when I am in a debate with an opposing legislator and things start to get heated I can't call very well him a c*cksucker on the house floor, now can I?"

Pretty much sums up why McCain is called a maverick by some in the Senate, too!!

[TommyMcCarthy]

While I don't necessarily agree with "MickyD10" I just love that little story about his grandpa. I'll certainly be passing THAT one on!! Regards...­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.tm

[zaneblue]

Fascinating, and rather frightening.

[IrreverentView]

Zaneblue, I'm guessing you mean it is frightening that the power-elites in Washington are threatened by McCain? That is what this is all about. McCain will fight (unsuccessfully, but a fight no less) to end pork spending. He might actually do something about the run-away entitlement spending to boot. As long as we keep electing these same idiots to Congress though, we'll never get the reform our country needs -- only the unfulfilled promises we want.