Meghan McCain on Republican Challenges
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 am by David FarrarMeghan McCain is the bloging daughter of John McCain. She gave a speech to the Log Cabin Republicans recently which I quite liked:
But the experience did reinforce what I learned on the campaign trail in some major ways. I’ll summarize them in three points:
1. Most of our nation wants our nation to succeed;
2. Most people are ready to move on to the future, not live in the past; and
3. Most of the old-school Republicans are scared shitless of that future.
Harsh but with a fair degree of truth.
I think we’re seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party. But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past. I believe most people are ready to move on to that future.
Republicans using Twitter and Facebook isn’t going to miraculously make people think we’re cool again. Breaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don’t divide our nation further WILL.
I know many Republicans. The vast majority of them are not highly religious and care far more about a balanced budget and lower taxes than stem cell research or civil unions. However a small segment of the Republican Party has got to set too much of the agenda.
So tonight, I am proud to join you in challenging the mold and the notions of what being a Republican means. I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.
Not a bad proclamation. For the Republicans to be able to win back the House, Senate and Presidency, more people under40 need to be able to say they are a Republican.
Related posts:
- McCain has momentum
- Are you a Nat and a Republican?
- McCain wins Florida
- McCain now the effective nominee
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Yep people like Glen Beck certainly are not helping the Republican cause with their nutty conspiracy theories. Here is an amusing cartoon that @AG pointed out yesterday on a thread: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mawgxxxxiv/3462888341/
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
So she’s actually a democrat. She just doesn’t understand republicanism.
Making every political party more liberal is not an act of a freedom loving people. You’ll have a choice like we have here, socialism, or socialism adjusted capitalism.
Do liberals understand how uttery condescending they sound to the minority groups they adopt and treat like pets?
Are you implying that for Republicans to win they should become democrats? What else has age got to do with it other than young people readily accept progressive ideology? Alternatively you could be saying that liberals would be more comfortable with a GOP that was similarly liberal. Which is it? And at what stage should liberals become more conservative to move forward? At what stage should christians become more like buddhists? At what stage should the police become more like vigilanties? At what stage should an artist become more like an accountant?
There are many ways to move forward in life and sometimes refering to the past works and sometimes finding new ways works, but at present, the popular liberalisation of everything no more leads to uptopia than would adhereing to outdated modes of social etiquette. Liberalism is after all just an ideal, just like every other political ideal.
Here’s a current NZ example: Last night on close up a group of residents were confronting the street based sex workers in their area after enduring personal abuse and various other digusting acts for years. This is a direct result of the freeing up or liberalisation of prostitution. Where is the utopia for these residents whose neighbourhood has turned into – quite literally in some cases – an open sewer? How has an liberal attitude made life for these people better? Now there is tensions building where violence will soon occur – it’s the natural progression of things. How did applying a liberal view help?
The McCain article linked to dwells on a nube of liberal ideas, mainly the one of same sex marriage which is a big issue there at present. I read about the fallout over a California beauty pageant candidate giving an honest opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, though she understood that there ws a choice and that was fine with her. That was not good enough, apparently. The “liberals” were incensed – how dare someone give an honest opinion when asked? Did she not know to pander to our sensiblities?
These are just the a few social implications. The economic issues will be played out soon enough courtesy of Barack Obama’s administration.
Where is the freedom in this liberal attitude? And how will making it the prevailent attude, enshrining it in legislation, going to assist freedom of speech or thought?
(redbaiter is going to have field day with this topic
)
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
I think the liberal republican view would be that there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage as a contract, i.e. legally recognising a relationship – but that church and the state should remain seperate, therefore the state should not be able to force churches to carry out a marriage ceremony that they do not wish to endorse.
So you have a contract of marraige, as opposed to a sacrament of marriage in front of your imaginary god (which ever one you choose to believe in).
There is nothing inherantly socialist or left wing in this.
(And I see nothing wrong with what the candidate said in that beauty pagent, as I think she had a similar belief, that is no problem with gay marriage, as long as it is not forced upon the churches – at least thats how I interpreted it)
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
The Republicans are now the party that advocates – and defends – torture. There is a schism opening in the party and it is interesting to watch. Rush Limbaugh is the mouthpiece, and nary a (Republican) congressman or senator dares to challenge him. Powerful blogs like Little Green Footballs are warring with powerful tv people like Glen Beck. Ann Coulter continues to spew her hate at everything “liberal”, while people like Meghan McCain try valiantly to get conservatives to realise that if gay people get married it won’t result in the beginning of the apocalypse. All these fiscal conservatives protesting against Obama were nowhere to be seen from 2000 to 2008 when Bush was increasing the deficit. They are selective protesters.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Phhht
Principals are more important than pandering to the latest liberal pet causes whether they be gay marriage or global warming.
Pandering will only get you so far and at the end of the day is equivalent to “appeasement” which as we know led to WW2
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
I didn’t realise LGF was splitting from other right-wing blogs. Interesting stuff.
Some of the story here: http://washingtonindependent.com/39629/civil-war-raging-in-right-wing-blogosphere
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Interesting link, Ryall. It appears Charles Johnson has committed apostasy by revealing himself to be slightly less nutty than fellow right-wing bloggers. As always, there is no war more vicious than a civil war, and “traitors” are reviled far more than the people to whom all are ostensibly opposed.
It is all remarkably similar to the vicious fighting between New Zealand’s Marxists, Socialists, Trotskyites, Neo-Trotskyites, Leninists, Crypto-Stalinist Revisionists, and Knitting Club members. I think in fact there were more factions than people involved.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
“Principals are more important than pandering to the latest liberal pet causes whether they be gay marriage or global warming.”
What principles are being protected by preventing gay marriage (in its contract/common law form c.f. to religious acceptance)?
I can understand being against forcing churches to carry out gay marriage, but no principles are being protected when homosexuals are not allowed to marry under contract. That is, if you agree with the separation of church and state…. do you agree with that Andrei? or do you belive simply that your relgious beliefs shoudl be forced on everyone, including those who think that yoru holy book is nothing more than a fairy tale?
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Are you implying that for Republicans to win they should become democrats? What else has age got to do with it other than young people readily accept progressive ideology? Alternatively you could be saying that liberals would be more comfortable with a GOP that was similarly liberal. Which is it? And at what stage should liberals become more conservative to move forward? At what stage should christians become more like buddhists? At what stage should the police become more like vigilanties? At what stage should an artist become more like an accountant?”
Whats shes really saying is Republicans need to return to being more like the Libertarians (Classic Liberals)… the only ones who DO uphold the values and principles of the founding fathers and the real USA.The trouble is the Republicans have been hijacked by the Religious right whos natural home for so long was the Democrats…..ie the Klan et el.
Preventing Gay marriage is against the constitution which seperates Church and State.No ones rights are violated when Gays marry so it is no business of the State to be inforcing religious based hatred against other Americans.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You Libertarians are on to it alright.
Homosexual marriage.
Its always been the vanguard of every fight for freedom.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
You Libertarians are onto it alright.
Homosexual marriage.
Its a cause that’s always been the vanguard of every historical battle for freedom.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
You Libertarians are onto it alright.
Homosexual marriage.
Its a cause that’s always been the vanguard of every historic battle for freedom.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Very good points goodgod. The thrust of the article appears to be that Republicans should be more like Democrats — socially liberal. The only difference should be that Republicans will continue to embrace the free market, as opposed to the soft socialism of the Democratic party.
But as goodgod is hinting, why is liberalism the only alternative? If the Republican party has another point of difference, rather than just an economic one, it is in its embrace of a socially conservative philosophy. Conservatism has a number of distinct features-
the belief that society is organic, so change in one area can have unexpected consequences in another.
The belief that human nature is not necessarily good, and evil needs to be restrained.
The belief in community and family is also a conservative notion — as opposed to the liberal idea that we are just a bunch of individuals.
Also the belief that there is a transcendent moral order, that some things are right and some things are wrong. This transcendent moral order is greater than the changing whims of one generation.
Therefore conservatism is opposed to radical change — such as gay marriage — because of unintended consequences and the belief that there is a transcendent moral order.
Liberals, like many who have commented above in this blog, appear to believe in individual freedom to almost the exclusion of everything else. I however am convinced that liberalism has gone too far and that rather than society progressing, we are in the process of serious and obvious social and moral decline. For the Republican Party to embrace the hyper liberalism of today in my view would be a great mistake. In the same way that John Key and National would do well to avoid the reckless social policies of the previous New Zealand government .
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
You Libertarians are onto it alright.
Homosexual marriage.
Its a cause that’s always been the vanguard of every historical battle for freedom.
—————————————-
If this message is duplicated, I apologise, but I cannot seem to post tot his thread for some unknown reason.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I believe that. I’m liberal.
That doesn’t sound too different from me, except that my impression is that many conservatives believe not just that human nature is “not necessarily good”, but is innately evil, and that goodness is an uphill battle at every turn.
I believe in community and family, and consider this to be central to my liberal views.
Now, there is where you’ll find some differences, agreed.
The abolition of slavery was a radical change at the time.
But yes, the belief that there is a transcendent moral order, and that a given conservative knows what it is, is pretty central to the differences between conservatives and liberals.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Ryan,
“But yes, the belief that there is a transcendent moral order, and that a given conservative knows what it is, is pretty central to the differences between conservatives and liberals.”
Actually, apparently it’s even simpler than that …
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24370695-30417,00.html
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, though, AG. It could be that whatever causes fearfulness also causes conservatism, or that conservatism causes fearfulness, rather than fearfulness causing conservatism.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
test
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
result
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
You Libertarians are onto it alright.
Homosexual marriage.
Its a cause that’s always been the forefront of every historical battle for freedom.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Funny, one particular post I am unable to make show up here.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
It goes like this-
“You Libertarians are on to it alright.
Homosexual marriage.
Its a cause that’s always been at the vanguard of every historical battle for freedom.”
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Aint that strange? About the fifth time I’ve tried to post that.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Technically, libertarians shouldn’t think that the state has any role in marriage of any kind. That’s more or less my position, though if the state is going to A) exist, and B) recognise marriage, it shouldn’t be restricted to one particular kind of pair of consenting adults.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
That is odd. I wrote a big response to it and that didn’t work.
Trying to insert it here:
Technically, libertarians shouldn’t think that the state has any role in marriage of any kind. That’s more or less my position, though if the state is going to A) exist, and B) recognise marriage, it shouldn’t be restricted to one particular kind of pair of consenting adults.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Trying again:
Technically, libertarians shouldn’t think that the state has any role in marriage of any kind. That’s more or less my position, though if the state is going to A) exist, and B) recognise marriage, it shouldn’t be restricted to one particular kind of pair of consenting adults.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Redbaiter,
Okay, when I try to quote you and respond and enter it into the above comment by editing, I’m told that the comment is marked as spam. Could be our repeated use of the word “libertarian”.
Whoa. And now that post has disappeared.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Trying again:
Technically, libertarians shouldn’t think that the state has any role in marriage of any kind. That’s more or less my position, though if the state is going to A) exist, and B) recognise marriage, it shouldn’t be restricted to one particular kind of pair of consenting adults.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“Technically, libertarians shouldn’t think that the state has any role in marriage of any kind.”
Techinically, Libertarians woudlnt’ know if you were up them with an armful of chairs.
What was it? 1100 votes last election.
Piss poor.
Vote:April 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Meghan McCain, as the yanks would say “she’s an asshat”. LOL
By the way, she’s also a RINO. Her stupid father should just cross the aisle for good, he belongs on the other side.
The conservative wing of the Repubs is huge and seriously pissed off with the RINO’s who’ve captured the GOP leadership. She’s had her 5 minutes of fame courtesy of daddy, she also doesn’t know her own party whose conservative base is still the bulk of the Republicans. The election proved that, no one voted for McCain….they all voted for Palin while the “independents” & large chunks of RINO’s voted for the moooslem. LOL
Vote: