- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 10, 2008
Now that the election is over, Democrats have decided to exact their revenge on Joe Lieberman as a result of his support for John McCain. As a result, Lieberman is talking with the GOP to see what he can get:
The Associated Press reports that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is talking to the independent senator from Connecticut caucusing with the GOP.
Lieberman's future in the Senate is in doubt. The Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 angered Democrats by openly supporting Republican John McCain for president.
On Thursday, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and both the AP and CNN are reporting that Reid is considering yanking Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as punishment.
Now, I don’t mind Lieberman caucusing with the GOP. That’s not that big a deal. But for those in our party who think that they should try to get Lieberman or other Democrats to switch, I have just one thing to say:
GO AWAY! YOU’VE DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE!
I don’t mean to be unkind, but the GOP is not a “big tent” and in fact, it’s not a tent at all. It’s a political party. All of this metaphorical bullplop does is dilute who we are. The GOP is not America. Neither is the Democratic party. America is the big tent.
If it’s one thing that we don’t need, it’s more people who aren’t conservative identifying themselves with us, the party of conservatives. If you want to agree with us half of the time and with them half of the time, that’s ok. Be an independent. Or be a Democrat. They can pretend to like you when they’re using you for power.
But don’t try to say you’re “one of us” because “us” is conservatives. You aren’t. This means you, Arlen Specter. You too, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And Yes, John McCain, you can go there as well.
We know what this will mean. It means we will be an even smaller minority in the congress. I’m prepared for that. You guys have done enough already and have hurt our party for too long.
You RINO’s are to Republicans what the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco are to homosexuals. People who don’t know any better see a guy in nipple-clamps and ass-chaps and say, “That’s what homosexuals are like”. You wishy-washy RINO’s get people to think that you’re not only representative of the GOP at large, but that you’re conservative.
And what’s the result? You RINO’s have muddled the message and have bent over backwards to appease liberals at every turn. And now you have the unmitigated gall to blame it on conservatives when you were the ones who betrayed not only the party but America as a whole. You’ve taken what used to be a heads or tails choice and turned it into the “wheel of liberal fortunes”.
For 20 years we’ve listened to “where are they going to go?” and “who else will they vote for?” and now we’ve got Barack Obama because of it.
Well, here’s your answer. We’re not going anywhere. You are. You’ve turned our party into a soulless shadow of itself and where you haven’t capitulated to the left outright, you’ve insulted the very base that brought you into power.
So go away. We don’t want you. You aren’t conservative and we won’t let you define us anymore!
Lieberman looking for a political home - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
I’m a conservative, a real one. Not a John McCain conservative. A “John McCain” conservative is like a “Rosie O’Donnell Diet Plan”. They just can’t exist in the same space without causing the universe to collapse on itself.
I’m not a “Bush Conservative”. There’s no such thing as that either, be it George W. or George H.W. Bush. Neither one were conservative except on a certain few issues.
I’m not even a Newt Gingrich conservative who tries every day to continue to be relevant, even though he never will be again. He was a great Speaker, but he needs to ride into the sunset.
I’m just me. I’m Christopher Estep and I’m a conservative. I have strong principles (tempered by pragmatic reality) and I stand by those principles both in my life and how I vote.
Saxby Chambliss will not be getting my vote as a matter of principle, and unless something changes in the next few years, neither will Johnny Isakson.
I realize that they both are generally conservative, but they are part of the huge problem in the Republican party and that problem is that they don’t know the difference between “bipartisan” and “give them what they want so we can look ‘reasonable’”.
When Chambliss proposed and then defended this “Gang of 10” deal that would allow a token space to drill oil offshore in return for massive tax increases on the same people, I had enough. He championed the 3/4 Trillion bailout.
I want a conservative in the senate like Inhofe who will tell people like it is and then stand by it. I’m tired of the same old porkers like Saxby Chambliss who think that the two things you need most to be a good senator is to look like you’re bipartisan and to bring “home” as much taxpayer money as you can, even if it’s not in the National Interest.
So, I won’t be voting for Saxby, even though the Democrat attempts to unseat him and their tactics have really ticked me off.
But before all you Commucrats get excited, I’m not voting for Martin, either. I just refuse to be responsible for sending another porker like Saxby Chambliss back to Washington. We need new blood and we need genuine conservatives, not these wimps like Chambliss, Bush, and McCain who have tainted the very label of conservative by telling people that they are one and then acting like a democrat.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on September 19, 2008
The best quote I’ve heard all day:
Hope is just an excuse for not doing anything.
Rush Limbaugh
- Posted by Christopher Estep on August 28, 2008
As far as Romney being qualified and capable to be President of the United States (POTUS), I think he's the most qualified and capable of any of the candidates of either party, including my own first choice of Fred Thompson. The only other candidates that come close as far as qualifications are Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson, with Richardson's qualifications being the best (even better than Romney). I'm not saying I'd ever want either one in the oval office, just that both are qualified.
Having said that, I sincerely hope that McCain doesn't choose Romney as his veep choice. I think that would be a mistake on a variety of levels. It's an unfortunate reality that "ready to be President" is so easily overshadowed by political considerations. In order to BE vice-president, you have to get elected vice-president, and Romney is unelectable.
Boring White Guy
I realize that any white guy that is selected by McCain will fit the "boring white guy" mold. It's just that Romney is the poster-child for "boring white guy".
Class Warfare
The democrats have already started the "out-of-touch rich guy" theme and Romney would only add to that perception. It's more than a little ironic that it is the fact that he's a rich guy that makes Romney a good candidate and at the same time a bad candidate. The democrats and their media puppets are good at painting republicans as out-of-touch and let's get real here. Middle America really isn't going to easily relate to the rich white Mormon from Boston.
Mormonism
Romney's religion is the elephant in the room that people wish they could ignore. Being a
Latter-day Saint (
Mormon) myself, I understand better than most that it is BECAUSE of his faith that he would be a good POTUS. Mormons are raised being taught the value of serving your fellow man and have been loyal patriotic Americans for over 150 years. Likewise we are taught to respect diversity of opinion, even if some in Utah and elsewhere forget that from time-to-time. As a bishop and a stake president, Romney has worked with people from all stations and walks of life it triumph and tragedy and on a very personal and individual level. So make no mistake, Romney's religion helps his qualifications even though many don't see it. However...there's always a however...
Mormonism is still widely misunderstood and maligned by others who think they do understand it. Without turning this into a list of reasons why people oppose us, it's sufficient to say that these misunderstanding lead to us being called racist, cultist, polygamist, anti-christian, brainwashed, and so forth. Whether these characterizations are accurate or not (they are not), is wholly irrelevant.
Whether we like it or not (that is, Mormons or Romney supporters), the perception is there and the controversy is there. In the land of politics, truth amounts to a retraction on page 5 of section C while the damage of the front page headline has already done it's work. Every rumor, slur, accusation or wrongdoing that has ever been alleged against the LDS Church or a leader will be thrown out. There are religious bigots in the conservative movement, too. Some are just misinformed, others are wilfully bigotted. Regardless, the numbers are not inconsequential. We, as a party, cannot afford to have a candidate who will drive
away parts of its base, any more than it already has.
My Recommendation
As odd as this may seem, I think the most sensible choice for a VP would be Mike Huckabee. Huckabee may not be conservative enough for many, but he's more conservative than McCain and he's definitely pro-life and pro-second amendment. He also isn't rich, which takes away one more reason to criticize the ticket. He's a "typical white guy" but Huckabee has something that a lot of politicians don't have and that's an easy rapport with average people. Huckabee also has a quick mind and a great sense of humor. Yes, it gets him in trouble at times (like at CPAC) but as a VP candidate that can be brushed off.
Huckabee can do something that no other potential prospect can do and that's bring religious conservatives on board. He's an excellent speaker and I think can really help at the grassroots level. While he may not be the fundraiser that Romney is, he can excite people.
It won't happen, but that's my take.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 28, 2008
Homomo group Affirmation wants the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints to just forget about its own doctrine, particularly the Proclamation on the Family forget about fighting same sex marriage in California, where the LDS Church is the second largest church in the state.
In a statement Wednesday, leaders of the gay group Affirmation are asking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to meddle in politics that harms gay families.
Instead, the group wants Mormon leaders to help people who are hurt by the church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin.
And here is the problem and why "Affirmation" groups will never "get it". You can't expect a church to pretend its doctrine doesn't exist, without revelation to the contrary (which there obviously has not been).
They say:
"the church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin."
but the Church, any church who has this same doctrine would have to rephrase it:
"the sin of the practice of homosexuality."
When will people realize that you can't change religious beliefs by pretending that those who believe them do not see them from God? The LDS Church does not have "a teaching that homosexuality is a sin" but Affirmation will never see it as anything more than that. From the LDS perspective, they (we) are teaching that the Lord declares through his prophets that the practice of homosexuality, like any other sex outside of a marriage between a husband and wife is a sin.
This means that premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, or any other sexual activity outside of what is set above, is sin.
Further, it is not the teaching that hurts people. A teaching cannot hurt people! This is America, remember? If you don't believe something, don't practice it. If you don't believe that homosexual practice is a sin, it is perfectly legal to do so.
But don't expect Brokeback Mormon any time soon.
Deseret News | Gay Mormons to church: Don't fight California court ruling
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 28, 2008
The buzz around the blogs is that Conservatives are warming up to Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana.
"Bobby Jindal is a great American," Grover Norquist, president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), told Cybercast News Service. "He is great on guns, great on taxes, a Roman Catholic, a Southerner and an Indian-American. Bobby Jindal would be great for the GOP and perfect for McCain."
There are a number of compelling reasons to select Jindal and only a few to not select him. The biggest issues would be age and experience, but he has more experience than Obamessiah so that's not as bad after all.
I personally think that Jindal is the only viable veep candidate that can get conservatives excited across the board. Governor Jindal has impeccable conservative credentials and he's young. The whole "Indian-American" thing is a wash, either way. I don't care if he's of Indian descent and I don't think most will either.
Unfortunately, this would be something that conservatives would like, so there's little chance that McCain would pick him. Jindal has said he just wants to be governor, but yeah whatever. They all say that.
Knowing McCain though, I put 5:1 odds that he'll select his old buddy George Hamilton IV, I mean Charlie Crist.
Conservatives Give Jindal Thumbs up as McCain's VP -- 05/28/2008
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 23, 2008
My weekend goal is to get all of the stickers I've made this past year up for sale. I'll announce when they're ready and how to get them.
McCain may well find himself having a very hard time getting elected, harder than he imagines. He thinks that conservatives are going to head to the polls to vote against Obama since we have nowhere to turn, but that's not going to be the case. We'll stay home first or just not vote for the President.
McCain has dismissed us, belittled us, and generally treated us like dirt. He only "came around" when he thought it was prudent to try to "heal" the damage he's been doing to the GOP. Now that he's got the nomination, he thinks we're in the bag because we won't vote for Obama. He needs to remember 1992. Conservatives and others told Bush 41 to take a hike and we took over both houses of Congress later. Does he really think that we're that afraid of Obama that we'll help him set conservatism back 40 years? Hardly.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 20, 2008
I've been reading comments on weblogs all over and whenever someone has an opinion about Kennedy's illness similar to my own, they are decried with, "we should be above that" and "we are conservatives and Christians so we shouldn't do that".
I respectfully disagree and gave my opinions over on Michelle Malkin's blog and reproduce that comment here, because I think it is very illustrative of what makes us different from liberals at a very basic level:
We are conservatives, yes. And many of us are indeed Christians, yes. It is because we are conservatives and many are Christians that we do react to this news different than those who are not jumping on the “..I would never wish this on anyone…” bandwagon.
I am a conservative, so I’m not a hypocrite. I don’t pretend I think one thing and then say another.
I am a conservative, so I believe in moral absolutes. A bad man is still a bad man, even if he gets a disease. Bad things happening to bad men is good.
I am a conservative, so I don’t eulogize criminals. It’s another assault on their victims.
I am a Christian, so I know that God is also not warm and fuzzy all of the time. If you believe He is, you should read about Ninevah, Sodom & Gomorrah, Jericho, and Noah & the Flood.
So please, stop with the self-righteous “we should be better than this” talk.
I would feel bad for Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and even Jimmy Carter.
I am a conservative, so I will not feel bad for Ted Kennedy simply because he’s a politician when I wouldn’t feel bad for Sirhan Sirhan. Their crimes are different, but their victims are still just as dead.
I am a conservative, so I believe all should be held to the same standard. Period.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 15, 2008
How cool is that? Now if we can just get Chuck Norris to shut up.
Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That’s what I’ve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that’s what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine.
I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles -- smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.
I’m glad to be back here in familiar territory, and we’ll be talking to you soon.
Townhall.com::Blog
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 15, 2008
The activist courts strike again. Twice voters have said that they don't want it legal and each time the court tries to move California toward a judicial dictatorship.
One only wonders how they will try to override a state constitutional amendment. Here's my prediction: No matter how many signatures or what the text of the ballot says, the CA SC will try to invalidate the ballot initiative when it becomes obvious that the amendment will pass.
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when it takes effect in 30 days.
Michelle Malkin » Court watch: California gay marriage ruling…Upholds SF licensing scheme, 4-3 decision