Thursday, January 31, 2008

Obama=Most Liberal Senator in Congress

As sort of a follow-up to the last post, this also highlights the importance of putting forth a conservative for the GOP nomination.

I think Allahpundit says it best:
In case you were wondering why his message is 10 parts gassy “change” to every one part specific policy proposals, here's why...How doctrinaire is he? He’s to the left of Russ Feingold. And moving leftward every year relative to his colleagues: He was the 16th-most liberal senator in 2005, 10th-most in 2006, and number one with a bullet now. Election year pandering to outflank Hillary among the base or is he really “evolving” in office, as the left likes to say of politicians who drift this way? Whatever the answer, it ain’t good. In fairness, he’s only very marginally worse than Hillary, the difference coming in her commendable willingness to take a hard-ish line on the Revolutionary Guard.
I've heard some people say they might just vote for Obama out of spite for both Hillary and the GOP, usually citing an argument along the lines of, "Well, if we're going to have a liberal president no matter what, I'd rather it be a Democrat. At least they're predictably liberal and if things go badly, we can blame their party instead of ours. Then we'll blow them out of the water in 2012!"

I heard similar arguments during the 2006 midterm elections, and frankly I think they're absurd. People seem to forget that election years aren't the only times important things have to be dealt with. September 11th wasn't during an election year. The Bush tax cuts weren't. The amnesty bill this past summer wasn't either. The idea is to vote for somebody who you think will do what is best over the course of four years as President, not just who seems interesting right now. If another terrorist attack happens, if the country falls into a recession, if a tax cut (or tax increase, for that matter) passes Congress...who do you want sitting in the Oval Office?

McCain't Get No Satisfaction

What to do about John McCain's surprisingly meteoric rise to GOP front-runner status? Is he really who he says he is?

McCain has cast himself as the stoic "straight-talker" who can help our troops win in the Middle East, stop pork-barrel spending in Congress, and stand up for America on the world stage. Unfortunately, he's also the Democrat-enabling Senator who help construct monstrosities like McCain-Feingold (curbing free speech via "campaign-finance reform"), McCain-Kennedy (the lovely amnesty bill Congress tried to ram down our throats last summer), and most recently, McCain-Lieberman-Obama (his newest effort to wring money from taxpayers to stop global warming). He's the guy who voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. He's the candidate who proudly touted his New York Times endorsement in the face of the conservative base. It seems as though he's thrown his "straight-talk" gimmick out the window, especially after Florida and last night's debate, when he insisted Mitt Romney wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq (despite nearly every single media outlet that investigated the issue calling him on the smear).

There's also this little chart, showing that McCain's lifetime conservatism ranking in Congress is lower than Chuck Hagel's. Granted, he wasn't always so liberal, but the longer McCain stayed in Washington, the less conservative he became. Inconceivable!

The newest charge McCain has to face, obviously, is whether or not he is a flip-flopping RINO--the same charge that has been leveled at Mitt Romney since he announced his candidacy. The difference, it seems, is that while Romney held liberal positions in the past, he now claims he has different views, and is asking America to let him prove his conservative bona fides; McCain, on the other hand, used to be more conservative, but claims to be one now despite his recent liberal voting and legislative record and dodging questions about his principles.

In the end, the question is not about who is or is not a flip-flopper (they are, after all, politicians). The question is this: do Republicans want to nominate a conservative? If the answer is yes, then I can't see how McCain is an acceptable candidate. Military valor and surge-support aside, he not only sponsors liberal legislation, he seems to have no problem spitting on the base whenever they dare question his principles. In my opinion, it's much more important to nominate a candidate you actually would want as president, rather than one you think might stand a better chance against the Democratic nominee. As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

UPDATE: Whatever happened to this guy?

Monday, January 28, 2008

State "Special" Session Looms

With the new edition of The Liberty about to hit newsstands, it’s time to get the blog back up and running. And the upcoming “Special” Session of the legislature is also looming upon us. Later this week the Oregon Supreme Court will review the Constitutionality of the upcoming Session, which could have all been avoided had the Governor simply declared an emergency. You can check out the full story here, as reported by Sen. Larry George, who originally sued to stop the session.

The session will go on, as the leadership will find a way to make it happen. Everyone will show up. A couple Liberty staffers will even be interning. But it is a dangerous road that state government is starting down. God help us if the US Congress is the model that the Oregon Legislature is morphing into.