George explains it all

Prissy elite Northeast Republican George Will tries to convince us that any of the three Republican front runners should be conservative enough for "the base":

[C]onsider today's three leading candidates, starting with McCain, the mere mention of whose name elicited disapproving noises at CPAC. This column holds the Olympic record for sustained dismay about McCain's incorrigible itch to regulate political speech ("campaign-finance reform"). But it is not incongruous that he holds Barry Goldwater's Senate seat.

I guess that it also isn't "incongruous" that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both held the office once held by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan? If you don't understand what Will's point was don't feel bad. I don't think Will really understands it either, but it did give him the chance to tie McCain to Goldwater. Of course we should remember that Goldwater ended his career as a libertarian leaning RINO, not a conservative.

McCain, whose career rating from ACU is 82 (100 being perfect), voted in 2003 against the prescription-drug entitlement because of its cost. He is a strong critic of corporate welfare. And since 2003 he has been insisting that the mission in Iraq requires more troops - even more than will be there during the current "surge."

Mr. Will (who seems of late to be auditioning for the role of the Republican Party's very own faggot - in the John Edwards sense) needs to be reminded that McCain is hated, and I use that word literally, because he has made his career by sticking his ugly mug on left-liberal media outlets and trashing other Republicans. He has willingly assumed the role of trained poodle to Democrat Party operatives (which is all most MSM types are) to the detriment of the Republican Party.

That, plus the fact that McCain is crazy as a shithouse rat, should disqualify him from the office of President.

Madam Will then turns her attention to Mitt Romney:

At CPAC, Romney gave the most polished speech, touching all the conservative movement's erogenous zones, pointedly denouncing the "McCain-Kennedy" immigration bill and promising to seek repeal of the McCain-Feingold law regulating campaign speech.

Many conservatives, however, criticize Romney for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience - on abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?

Give me some evidence that Romney would remain "locked in" to those positions? For a politician to repeatedly flip-flop back and forth between positions which are polar opposites and to look you in the eye while doing it and proclaim that these reverses are heart-felt genuine changes of thinking which would have occurred even if he hadn't been seeking office is not just lying. It is a gross insult to the intelligence of the electorate. How stupid does Romney think Republicans are anyway?

How likely will Romney be to expend political capital to defend positions which he does not really believe in? George H W Bush made a point of proclaiming his support for Second Amendment rights in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention in 1988. Yet when presented with a request (by scumbag "Drug Czar" William Bennett) to ban the importation of certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles he jumped at the chance. Same thing with his "no new taxes" pledge. Politicians are not going to die on hills that they don't want to be standing on in the first place.

Will then talks up the manly virtues of Mrs. Julie Annie.

Giuliani is comprehensively out of step with social conservatives, and likely to remain so. He probably assumes two things.

First, that some of the social issues have gone off the boil because argument about them seems sterile: Democrats have scant interest in federal gun-control legislation; scientific advances may obviate the need for using stem cells; cultural changes will do more than any feasible legislation can do to reduce abortion numbers; the way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make.

Democrats have lost interest in pushing gun control laws because it has been a losing issue for them. They have not given up their belief that gun control is a good thing. Or rather it would be more accurate to say that they have not given up their hatred of gun owners. Gun owners are, after all, far more likely to be self reliant, independent minded individualists and self reliance and individualism are to leftists as crosses and holy water are to vampires.

What would Democrats do with a liberal Republican in the White House who would get behind a renewed effort at gun control and push by citing his success at dramatically lowering crime rates in NYC by using New York's tough gun control laws? It would not matter that gun control had little to do with lowering crime in NYC. What lowered crime in New York was aggressively pursuing criminals and putting them in jail, things which were not done to any great extent by previous administrations. With a Republican president providing cover Democrat gun controllers will come out of the woodwork, or out from under their wet rocks, and have a field day putting the constitution through one of Uday Hussein's giant shredding machines.

As for stem cell research, there is simply no way to silence the cries for embryonic stem cell research. There are many cures or treatments for diseases which have been accomplished by using adult stem cells. There is good evidence that embryonic stem cells will never be useful in developing any cures or treatments. But these facts are irrelevant to the pro embryonic stem cell crowd. To them there is a magnificent golden El Dorado of cures for every ailment known to man always hiding just over the horizon and only needing the magic elixir of pureed human infants to unlock its wonders.

The reason for that is that left-liberalism is a religion as well as a political movement and like all other religions requires a sacrifice. The gods of the left will settle for nothing less than human sacrifice and abortion and the destruction of human embryos are the preferred method of sating their deities demonic bloodlust.

Second, that his deviations from the social conservatives' agenda is more than balanced by his record as mayor of New York. That city was liberalism's laboratory as it went from the glittering metropolis celebrated in the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (1961) to the dystopia of the novel "Bonfire of the Vanities" (1987). Giuliani successfully challenged the culture of complaint that produced the politics of victimhood that resulted in government by grievance groups.

This is a popular argument among Julie Annie's supporters. I will not stoop to using the "N-word" (Nazi) by asking if it would have made any difference if Eichmann had used his time in hiding after WWII to work tirelessly, if anonymously, for Jewish charities but I will say this.

We are told that it is wrong to insist on a candidate who is "perfect". That, we are assured, will only lead to Mr. Hillary Clinton in the White House (as the Democrat's first male president since Truman, I guess). But is having a few basic tests of a candidate's character and ideology really that outrageous?

I expect anyone who wants my vote to not be a rapist, a child molester, an inveterate liar, a member of the Klu Klux Klan, Nation of Islam or any other kind of racial supremacist organization. I expect anyone I vote for to not be an Islamofascist or doctrinaire Marxist (there goes Hillary).

Which of those things should I be willing to give in on if the candidate is for lower taxes and is willing to stand up to the NEA?

The question which I would like to ask Mistress Will is this, is there any position which a Republican candidate could take which you would consider a "poison pill"? That is, a position which would make you refuse to support them no matter what else they believed or who their opponent was? What if an candidate was perfect on every single issue, taxes, the war on terror, law enforcement, school vouchers - everything - except that he believed that "useless eaters" like your Down's Syndrome son should be euthanized? Of course you would reject such a candidate.

Well try to understand that to many of us gun control and abortion and resistance to the radical gay agenda are just that important. I don't expect you to agree with us. You are far too much a part of the elite New York/Washington DC axis to ever understand us. But I would appreciate it if you would at least have enough respect for our intelligence to not piss in our face and tell us that it's raining. We understand that it might very well come down to a choice between one of those RINOs and Hillary or Obama. If that is the case most of us will hold our nose and vote, but do not tell us that we ought to do anything other than tear our clothes and sit on the ash heap afterwards.