Posted on 08/11/2004 3:15:08 PM PDT by repentant_pundit
2004 GOP Primary Endorsements
U.S. Senate - John McCain sure has a lot of sympathies for liberal and Democrat causes and office holders. He has opposed almost everything conservatives hold dear. This summer alone, he has defended Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and has sided with homosexual activists over those who would defend traditional marriage. Recommendation: NONE
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
9/11 saved him from the recall drive in Az
Any Repub but McCain.
I have been a begrudged McCain supporter but the fact that he dropped his endorsement for Sherrif Joe Arpaio is really a slap in the face of Arizona conservatives.
OUCH!
That's gonna leave a mark! :)
Watch this get blown out of proportion by the liberal media...
Unlikely. McCain is the liberal media's best friend...they will bury the article, just as they will conceal the fact that McCain is campaigning for W.
Arpaio lost my support when he endoresed Napolitano.
ditto
I am afraid that in this election, any Republican will have to do. After all, according to USATODAY, Arnold is not so hot for campaigning for W and at least McCain is doing something for the Prez. I will take any vote for this ticket this time. Any vote. Purity will allow Kerry to win and that would simply be unacceptable at any cost of so called Purity.
Look at his pathetic dim opponent in the general.
I like almost anything the dimrats dislike, so I, too, am glad that McCain is campaigning with W.
Besides the fact that Senator McCain is one of my favorite politicians, he is very useful to the Republican party. In 1996, the Republicans should have won the White House, given everything that happened in 1995. The reason they didn't was because they were successfully painted by Bill Clinton and mainstream liberals as partisan extremists. I love Bob Dole, but the American public could not see him as the face of the country; they merely saw him as the Republican Senate Majority Leader, a face for the party. Bush won in 2000 because he came off as a compassionate conservative. I believe has has, just or unjustly, lost that label in the eyes of the public. The Republican party needs to come off as more progressive, more fiscally conservative, more libertarian on the social issues. Senator McCain is popular with Republican voters (as was seen clearly in 2000) AND with Democratic voters. A man like him, who could seize the Independent vote easily, is a very strong asset to the Republican party. Sure, he may not be the poster boy for Conservatives, but he can help to expand the Republican base. Also, might I remind you, President Bush is not exactly a classic Republican himself. He spends like a maniac, and has overseen an expansion of federal government. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for the guy, and I think he's been a good President, but every politician has their flaws and those are his.
For every vote Senator McCain brings in from the left, he drives one away on the right.
"The Republican party needs to come off as more progressive, more fiscally conservative, more libertarian on the social issues"
When you betray your principals for the sake of popularity, you are essentially selling your soul. You must be aware of what your principals are and act upon them, otherwise you lack the moral clarity to lead.
So it's interesting that you also say the GOP should be "more progressive", and "more libertarian on the social issues". You are suggesting that the GOP should become a fiscally conservative version of the current Democrat party. Given Schwarzenegger, Guiliani, and Blumberg, for example, this appears to already be happening.
It might succeed in pushing the current Democrat party off the map, but true conservatives will simply form another party, becoming as large as the today's GOP, as the conservative alternative to your "new GOP".
A political party can try to represent all positions on opposite sides of every issue in an effort to "include everyone", but it would lack principle. It would be a house divided against itself.
When I say that the GOP should be more libertarian on the social issues, I do not mean they should become LIBERAL on them. I, in fact, do share many of the same beliefs as the GOP when it comes to social issues, however, I do not believe in pushing them on people. I believe that as long as someone's personal decisions do not affect what I or others do, they should be left alone. Would I want my girlfriend or wife to have an abortion? No. But when I think about all the people in society who, let's be frank, really should not be having kids, and are too irresponsible to be parents in the first place, I don't think it's so bad that many of them are having abortions. Now, I think late-term abortion is just horrible, but if laws are passed that restrict people to getting them done early (very early), and a better job is done on educating people on their options if they DO NOT have an abortion, I think you'll see less and less of them. I don't see that as liberal, I see it as merely putting a human face on a typical right-wing social belief. Again, with gay marriage, I don't think a couple of men or women getting married to each other directly affects my future marriage. Let's be honest; straight couples have destroyed the sanctity of marriage so badly, it's hard to imagine anyone else could do worse. If the divorce rate weren't so exceptionally high, wouldn't that give us a better case against gay marriage? So why not do something about divorce, and stay out of people's bedrooms? Again, this does not completely abandon the principle of upholding the sanctity of marriage, but simply puts a human face on the endeavour. My guess is that most other Republicans will tell me, "No! You are abandoning all principle." But the American people do not like people who are too hawkish and too righteous when it comes to how they conduct their personal lives. And I would seriously argue the fact that "for every liberal vote McCain receives, he loses one from the right." Instead, I'd wager to say that for every vote he loses from the right, he gains 3 from the center. Again, if you consider yourself far to the right, you may not care about the swing-voter, that 35% of all Americans (and 41% of young voters) who consider themselves independents, but it's their vote that will put more Republicans or more Democrats into the House and Senate. And although you may not care much for a compassionate/libertarian Republican's lax social views, you will surely want that person's vote on the REAL issues that count in this country. You will want that person to vote on a future bill to propose the end of the IRS (we can dream, can't we?), that future bill to take on countries who pose a threat to us, etc. To heck with Roe v. Wade, that doesn't affect me. Taxes, defense, education, social programs that are doomed to fail but carry a heavy financial burden, THESE affect me. I respect and embrace most of the GOP's views on the social issues, but while their righteousness may win the former Dixiecrats over, it does nothing for plethora of voters who are on their side when it comes to just about EVERY OTHER ISSUE. Anyway, I get kinda long-winded when I write, LOL. Always a pleasure talking to other enlightened voters.
Oh and one other thing! LOL. If anything, wouldn't it be better to push the Democrats off the map and have two versions of the GOP, than one very large GOP and one very large party of Michael Moore liberals? lol.
I did not know that. Any idea why?
Even so, I still like him better then McCain (R-Media). I loathe this lunatic and the way the liberal media obsesses over him and uses him as a club to bash real Republicans. What a tool.
Some use the abortion issue as a test to determine who is a RINO and who is not. I use the tax cut test. If you do not believe in across the board cuts and ever utter the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra, you are a RINO. McCain is one. And if I ever hear another word about how he was "smeared" by the evil Bush campaign in the 2000 South Carolina primary I will scream. This is as much a myth as the reinvention of Max Cleland's loss. Barf. Both are the worst kind of sore losers. They refuse to face the reality that they lost due to their voting records and positions on issues. No they were "smeared" or called "unpatriotic". And the stupid voters fell for it cause they can't give us any credit.
Cleland and McCain belong together. I despise them both.
McCain is a fiscal conservative, who is strong on defense. He also backs our President for re-election and has taken the time to stump for him in NH and FL among other places. So why attack him? I think it just risk creating useless cracks within the party.
Mr. McCain heartily agrees with you - criticism of an incumbent politician like him is simply wrong - that's why he's working so hard to make it illegal. And in regards to cracks within the party, McCain has created more of them than anyone. He has been very complimentary of his friend, John Kerry. And last week, he condemned an anti-Kerry ad created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
This is stupid. McCain has an 84 from the ACU.
Sometimes, conservatives strike me as very irrational.
Not every Republican can be Bill Frist. We need moderates in the party. Case in point, why do you think people like Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg are winning in states like California and New York? Because those are the only types of Republicans who can win in these otherwise liberal states. Arizona is a swing state, and for Bush to have the support of a popular Senator there is great for the campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.