Just Say NO to Mcbama and Ocain! [thread left up as a pinata, rules suspended-Jim]

Various of my friends and members of my extended family are urging me to vote for Sen. John McCain for President in the rapidly approaching general election. Few of them have much or anything positive to say about McCain himself, but they tell me that the dangers presented by the election of Barack Obama leaves us no alternative but to vote for McCain, thus blocking an Obama presidency. As always, we are told on all fronts that this is the "most important election in history."

For several reasons, I disagree with these friends and family members that our only alternative is to vote for John McCain.

There is not a real difference between the two presidential candidates of the major political parties in philosophy, worldview, or integrity. One is Black, and one is White. One is old, and one is young. I claim that, in spite of the rhetoric, this is where the differences end. In recent sound bites, on the topic of personal liberty and the Constitution, Obama sounds slightly more conservative than McCain. On abortion, McCain sounds a little more conservative than Obama. On foreign policy, McCain sounds slightly more hyper-interventionist than Obama, and neither sound conservative. But when you consider all of the rhetoric, their records, and the practical implications of their stated goals, all the supposed differences melt away, and we are left with another Bush Administration, or another Clinton Administration, with a slightly different flavor, but the same old direction for our nation: rapidly toward more foreign interventionism, more economic interventionism, more suppression of liberty, more complete reliance on government, more tax funding for all manner of evil, including abortion, unjust war, welfare for politically connected multinational corporations, more official corruption, and, eventually, bankruptcy, chaos and/or brutal totalitarianism.

To know how a President McCain would govern in the realm of economics, one only has to remember his actions of a few weeks ago, when he pushed for unprecedented powers for the Secretary of Treasury, and, along with Bush's urging and Obama's help, lead the way for the Senate to pass the infamous bailout bill, which was the exact bill which angry voters had just persuaded the House to reject, only now with over 450 pages of earmarks (pork), tax "extenders," and new powers for the IRS added to it. McCain publicly chided House Republicans for listening to their constituents and stopping the first monstrous bill in the House! Bush and McCain and Obama told us we were all going to suffer financial ruin if we did not pipe down and hand over our children's wallets to the banksters. Now that they have had their way, we have seen dramatic drops in all of the world's stock markets. What better example do we need to see that McCain and Obama are on the same page when it comes to economics?

What about the right to be armed? Surely McCain is better than Obama on that issue? For the answer to that question, I would direct the reader to this web address: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm. It is a compendium put together by Gun Owner's of America, of John McCain's gun-control record.

What about immigration? More than even most Democrats, McCain has been a consistent advocate of uncontrolled immigration. In 2007, he was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy Act, which sought, among other things, to legalize the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country. This was being pushed during the jostling for position in the primary elections, and was a very unpopular bill among the Republican rank-and-file in an election in which opposition to unchecked immigration was expected to play a huge role. Yet, somehow, John McCain managed to win the primary popular vote. Incidentally, none other than Barack Obama was an ardent supporter of this act, and also a co-sponsor.

Free speech? See the McCain-Feingold Act, a famously unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Foreign policy? Both candidates have advocated aggressive interventionism and nation-building. Both support our illogical and immoral policies in the Balkans, and hypocritically support the independence of a Muslim Kosovo, but oppose the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Both want to increase and expand our current quagmire in the Middle East.

Abortion, I am told, is where the important difference lies between John McCain and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is famously tolerant of all abortions, any time, any where. McCain, on the other hand, currently claims to be pro-life, and promises to select judges that are "strict constructionists," implying that he would nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, if given the chance. But John McCain has flip-flopped on this issue, like so many others in his political career, several times. He has made statements in recent years that he does not want to see Roe vs Wade overturned. Also, McCain's role in promoting justice David Souter, the currently important role of Warren Rudman in McCain's campaign, and his voting record for past nominations in the Senate, is an indication of what kind of Supreme Court justices we really would get under a McCain presidency; they are not likely to be justices that would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.

John McCain has repeatedly stated his support for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and has even implied that it should be increased.

McCain shows no tendencies to stop the over $1 billion of Federal funds that go to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America every year, and under a McCain presidency, funding for this and other abortion "services" would likely increase, as it has under the Bush Administration. Until those of us who are pro-life get away from the distraction of the fight for the Supreme Court, and trying to Federalize laws against a certain kind of murder, and instead focus on the right of a state to protect the lives of its citizens without Federal interference, and, more importantly, insist that those politicians who call themselves pro-life do all they can within their sphere to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and pro-abortion propaganda, we will never make any political ground against the Culture of Death. It's easy to call oneself pro-life, but it's another thing to stand for life consistently.

Although conservatives today have chosen to support nearly all wars waged by the Federal government, and believe any and all justifications for these wars, unjust and needless wars are also the taking of innocent lives. In other words, it is state-sponsored mass murder. Why do we rightly speak out against the evil slaughter of millions of babies through abortion, but tolerate and even support the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies in other countries in wars that are based on government falsehoods and flimsy justifications?

Others will admit that there is no essential difference between the politics of McCain and Obama, but that Obama is a man of bad character, and associates with bad eggs, while McCain is a war hero.

While I, too, am very disturbed by Obama's personal and political associations, and do think his character is a relevant and important topic, I am equally disturbed by the associations of John McCain. Disturbingly, there is even some overlap in the nefarious associations of the two men. In the interest of space, I will leave it to the reader to investigate for themselves the following partial list of associations with John McCain: The regime in Libya, the regime in Georgia (the country, not the state), mob boss Joe "Bananas" Bonano, Charles Keating (how can we forget that?), George Soros, and Juan Hernandez (McCain's Director of Hispanic Outreach).

As for the designation of John McCain as a war hero, it is indisputable that he was shot down on a bombing raid, and that he spent over 5 years as a Prisoner of War (POW) in North Vietnam. However, what happened to him as a POW is disputed. Many Vietnam veterans, including some of his fellow POWs, claim that McCain cooperated with his communist captors without undergoing the torture he claims was administered. They claim that he was given special treatment by the North Vietnamese, because of his special status as the son of an Admiral, and because of his willingness to cooperate in producing propaganda with them.

These men who make these claims are also veterans, and were also held captive by the enemy as POWs, so there is no reason to automatically discount their claims, or to say they are less credible than McCain because of McCain's status as a war hero. Two things give credence to their claims, in my view. One is the frequency with which John McCain lies today (he has been caught in too many blatant and public lies to itemize here), proving that the truth is not something he finds to be important. Secondly, John McCain, as a US Senator, has doggedly stonewalled attempted investigations into the fate of the many POWs and MIAs left in Southeast Asia. The surviving loved ones of the many missing US Servicemen have been publicly belittled by McCain, and have been the recipients of displays of his famous violent temper, for simply wanting to know the truth about the fate of their missing family members. Further, McCain stated that no POWs in Vietnam were interrogated by Soviet agents. We now know through evidence and testimony that has since come to public light that this statement is not true, and also that McCain had to have known it was not true, based on his seat in the Senate. The demeanor of McCain toward these surviving family members of POWs and MIAs and their advocates, and his tireless efforts (teaming up with Senator John Kerry) to block their searches for answers, seems incongruous with his claims regarding his years as a POW.

John McCain's military career before being shot down in Vietnam was spotty, at best. He was known as a party animal, and lost five aircraft, including the one shot down over North Vietnam. Only two of these crashes could be considered combat-related, including a fiery explosion on an aircraft carrier that killed 134 sailors.

While I'm writing about character, I will mention the fact that McCain left his first wife after she was in a car wreck that left her confined to a wheelchair, for a younger, much richer woman who has better political connections. He may repudiate the foolishness of his youth, and one need not be perfect to advocate virtue, but the abandonment of his first wife does understandably cast doubt on his character, and does not put him on strong moral ground to advocate family values.

Some argue that I should vote for John McCain because of his running mate, Sarah Palin. They agree that there is no difference in the character or policy views of McCain and Obama, but that McCain is old, and may die in office, and the true conservative Palin will take his place. But leaving aside doubts of the stories about her fighting corruption within the GOP in Alaska, and whether her professed feminism is good or bad for her family and our society, Sarah Palin shows her true colors by even being willing to be the running mate of John McCain, and being willing to promote him and his politics. She has embraced McCain's politics, and has already been willing to compromise her past views. If she is half the woman her supporters think she is, she will be somehow removed by the current corrupt GOP leaders, or she will remove herself.

In conclusion, I believe that a John McCain presidency would be at least as bad for our nation and our families as an Obama presidency, and perhaps even worse, since he would be falsely viewed as the conservative choice of the voters, though he would run the country in no appreciably different way than would Barack Hussein Obama. (I use the phrase "run the country" because thanks to the Congresses and the Administrations of the last 20 years, the President of the United States is for all practical purposes a dictator.) As we have seen with George W Bush, a Republican President gets support from much of the conservative portion of the population when he does things that would incite near riot by the same people if he were a Democrat. Therefore, perhaps it is better for a Democrat to hold that obscenely powerful position for now, with the hope for some popular resistance to his actions, and some unity in the opposition among conservatives.

Each election, conservatives reluctantly vote for someone for President who is more progressive, more socialistic, and less Constitutional than the candidate in the previous election. When will it end? When will we say "no more?"

I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party. I urge all Americans who are tired of the lawlessness, corruption, and increasing totalitarianism of our current government to vote with me for Chuck Baldwin, or to vote for another Third Party, or to write in someone else, or to not vote for President at all. Don't throw away your vote! Why choose between drowning and hanging? Why choose between Benito Mussolini and Vladimir Lenin? This election, let's not give these nihilistic demagogues our consent to govern us. Just say no to Ocain and Mcbama!

We'll never have another Reagan as long as we have Liberals controlling the GOP as we do today. They have enablers called complacent voters who are willing to kick at Lucy's football yet again like a Good Old Charlie Brown Republican is expected to do. Maybe in 2012 Lucy wont yank it away. She'll promise again and Charlie Brown Republicans will kick yet again. Reagan's kind today is much too right wing nutter for their liking or so they are told to say, think, and vote.

I remember guys like Richard Viguere savaging Reagan for not being conservative enough. I can only imagine the outrage if there existed a far right blogosphere in 1985 to monitor the Gipper's negotiations with Tip O'Neill.

It's easy to romanticize the man and the era given twenty eight years of time and forgetfulness.

I was pretty young but I DO remember Reagan saying about the all or nothing purists who decried his dealings with O'Neill: "If I can get 80% of what I want ... well ... that's a pretty good deal."

I think 51% is a good deal. If the alternative is nothing.

By the way - go to the ACU website and check out the ratings of GOP Senators like Hatfield, Chafee, Packwood, Specter, Cohen etc. in the 1980s. You think we have RINOs now???

I really don’t wish to be butchered by Wahabbist murder monkeys anytime soon.

Oh them? No problem you can see them coming. That is the visible enemy you have been taught to look out for, recognize, and react to. You'll do fine keeping them away.

It's the nice comfortable relaxing secure feeling warm water a person has to worry about. Jump out before it's too late. I think you know what I mean.

In case not though. I understand a frog will literally let you boil it to death by slowly increasing the heat as it lays in the water. It keeps adapting itself to the rising temps till it's just too darn late. :>} Much like the incremental Socialism and Marxism becoming prevalent in both parties of today. Both parties voters are far too relaxed with it. They are comfortable in their parties own little pool to worry too much. When they finally realize what is happening to them? Well it will just be too darn late :>{

That is the enemies you should really fear. They dwell amongst us daily in public offices. We see them in the nightly news and in the papers and no one notices them as being the Cookers of the Toads. Knee Deep Knee Deep...

Reagan had an ability that made him what no POTUS since has been which was a true leader of all the nation. Reagan was the second and third POTUS election I voted in. If Reagan believed in something he fought for it. He fought the likes of O'Neil and if Tip didn't see it his way he tried another approach that more often than not worked. He took that issue to the people to pressure congress.

For a man who faced a DEM Majorities he did well. So what is W's excuse? I imagine Reagan would have loved a GOP two house majority. I would say a lot more would have been accomplished on the Conservative end. The GOP has squandered a lifetime of oppertunities after Reagan set the course back to a right path. 1989 Poppy quickly began dismantling the legacy Reagan built. The 1994 elections Conservative wins was soon to be the 1996 NEOCON takeover. Explain Bob Dole winning the primaries after Conservatives won 1994 seats if I'm not right on that. Lott was cutting more bad deals with DEMs than Mr Haney on Green Acres. Dole couldn't resist having two Liberal NEOCONs run the Convention agenda and speeches and for that he lost the election. The Conservative party stayed home. The NEOCON Party lost.

For six years Bill Clinton faced a GOP two house majority and got much of his agenda by them including finsihing the military gutting started by Poppy. Bush JR had what six years majority and was cutting deals with Teddy from day one. For 12 years in what should have been substancial gains the GOP rolled over and played dead. It's amazing. As much as I dislike Ted Kennedy despite the 1994 elections he has remained the functional Senate Majority Leader for as long as I can remember and I was alive when he first became a senator. Next will be Chris Dodd to take his place.

Reagan wasn't perfect but blast it at least Reagan fought the fight. Do you not find it just the least bit odd that hardly any of Reagan's team made it to POPPY's team or Juniors? Understand why? Because Poppy was from the Ford era. Two very opposite sides of the GOP. Ford was more like Jimmy Carter than anything else. Strange enough he and Carter became friends just like Poppy and Slick. Da Bush's have purposely distanced themselves from everything Reagan. Da Bush's was Reagan's worst mistake I'm afraid.

As for the names you listed? Hey what can I say. When the first USSC vacancy came up some in here were actually rooting for Orin Hatch. A fine Conservative LOL.

Don't know. I know I'm usually the only CP voter {my wife also when she can} in my precinct. But I live in a rural area though. But that may change this time. While out and about this spring before the primaries {I live in Conservative East Tennessee BTW} I saw no Thompson yard signs. Who's yard signs did I see the most of? I'm not lying when I say it was Ron Paul signs I saw the most of. Not smaller and cheaper ones either and they were in persons actual yards. Nashville and Memphis it may have been quite different.

People are getting fed up in the heartland areas. So fed up that a DEM governor brought relief when compared to the RINO he replaced. The DEM a Liberal is far more Conservative than our former two term RINO governor {whom Bush said did a fine job with Universal Health Care after getting his endorsement in 2000} who caused a taxpayer revolt. He nearly put the state of Tennessee in bankruptcy and like Bush made the GOP ineffective because of some Republicans warped sense of political loyalties.

As for Barr? Too bad he got re-districted out of office. He didn't move his residence as some claim redistricting put him away from long time supporters. Barr too was a good fighter. Had Fred Thompson and Ted Stevens listened to him we may have been spared two years of Willard. Barr had him and Barr worked his tail off as a House Manager doing so. I may not agree with some of his positions but I certainly respect him. I could vote for him as a second choice.

Vote for one who best holds the largest portion of your beliefs is my way and the way the Founders intended for it to be.

If McCain looses it will be because he and the GOP failed to learn from the mistakes of the past like the 1992, 1996 elections and almost the 2000 and 2004 as well. I think it was Gerald Ford who when referring to Conservatives and the GOP said "Where else can they go" Ford was a looser.

You have a clueless revisionist history. Clinton achieved nothing legislatively but welfare reform and some trade pacts won by the Pubbies. All his "victories" were in abusive regulatory fiat and executive orders.

If you recall, Jim Jeffords jumped party 120 days into W's tenure negating any Congressional GOP majority. He did NOT have a functional GOP Congressional majority for six years as you state. Then, in his eighth month in office, came the little inconvenience we've come to know as 9/11.

If you don't think that attack, and W's sacred obligation to ensure it was not repeated, took primary import for the duration of his tenure then we have nothing more to discuss.

George W. Bush will be judged by history as one of our greatest Presidents. He won most EVERY political battle at which he engaged and kept our asses alive for seven years against a lethal ambush enemy. He essentially re-engineered all of our military and intelligence institutions under duress.

Bush was presented with unsavory political/policy tradeoffs but that's what people tasked with life and death power/obligations have to do. His primary job was being Commander in Chief and he couldn't squander necessary political capital being "Conservative in Chief" when he had to hold the hands of grieving loved ones of all political stripes who lost their child/brother/sister/mother/father in military operations he ordered.

Unlike Bill Clinton I think George W. Bush sleeps at night secure in his duty and obligation.

Please get over your Poppa/Junior grievance. W is not his Dad. His father was a hero and patriot but like Dole he wasn't willing to get down in the gutter with the Clinton thugs. George W is a street fighter who WINS.

W is worse than Poppy. Look. there is but one way to go to war. As Liberal A man as FDR was even he understood what war meant. Bush nor his dad however understood the moral implications of doing such. Was is an absolute act. Is is a punishment upon a nation Period. It is done with extreme prejudice Period. It is not done to reward a people who allowed a tyrant dictator and will now allow far far wore {an Islamic Cleric} to rule them Period. How many men and women will die in the hands of the new technology fully equipped Iraqi military once the Clerics take over? Saddam was a thug. But there were and still are far worse ones. Name me the Iraqi who flew a plane on 9/11. Name me even one Iraqi hijacker. What were the nations again? Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others. We had 100% reason to level Yemen but Mr Global Trade refused.

The war in Iraq become a nation building project before the first shot was fired in in doing so BUSH LIED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES on that very matter. The second Bush/Gore debate is proof of it. He blasted Clinton/Gore for it saying he was not for nation building then months later did the same exact thing.

Bush lost my support on Iraq on about the third day when it was obvious to anyone with two functional brain cells he intended to leave Iraq's infrastructure intact. As a result a war that should have been months will be over a decade. Baghdad Bob made Bush look a fool. It was not cute and it was not funny. Bush wanted a media parade war.

The war in Iraq should have been measured in months namely about 12 and complete and total destruction of Iraq to where it never again would or could be a threat. That is war. Neither Bush had the stomach nor political will to do so. Had they done so Iran would not be testing us.

Remember what I said about Fords Failures? That's just who Junior brought in too. Rummy was one of the most pathetic Sec of Def to serve. I know as I saw his mess under Ford. Rummy was the Father of the Hollow Carter Military. It was running on empty when Carter took over and except for the nomination of SECNAV Hildigo by Carter things did not improve till Reagan took office. Hildigo however did begin the process of restoring our Navy to what it was supposed to be. I know as I was active duty three months under Ford and three years nine months under Carter. I saw both presidents military. I can not speak for other services but the Navy in late 1979 started a change for the better.

You would not like my thoughts on war. You would call me a beast and likely a barbarian. Bush lost the rest of what moral authority he had to be CIC when he sat on his hands while good United States Servicemen were Court Martialed for political correctness reasons for actions under fire against an enemy out of uniform in most cases. You train men to kill then damnit don't scold or punish them for doing so in war. I am 1000% sick of his you are with us or the terrorist B.S. he used to push unrelated policy as well namely FTTA.

I am not anti-war myself but I do not support the policies of war as set forth by Lyndon Baines Johnson and four Republican Presidents have followed. How much more clear can I be on that matter? Bless strong military leaders like Patton, Sherman, McArthur, Forrest. and others who knew what it took to win and yes bless the CIC's with the wisdom to allow them to actually do their jobs.

I have no use for those who yell war and send troops into it then lay down rules for fools conditions to restrict our troops capabilities. Bush needed to be called on the carpet by GOP congressional leadership for his Iraq policy. Where the hell were they? Our troops should be home not on third and fourth deployments. How can you defend what can not be defended? Supporting our troops means giving them the equipment and a military mission not a Bush's Habitat for Humanity field Office.P> If Bush wants Iraq re-built fine. Let him and Jimmy Carter take their own money and hire their own crew. Not on my dime.

BTW Executive Orders can not become law when congress acts. Congress had the authority and duty to stop Clinton.

FDR took us to a World War on two paragraphs declaring such. Bush took us to war on pages of U.N. Resolutions Butt Wipe paper. Understand the difference yet? That alone should show you the depths to which our nation has fallen.

McCain emerged from the GOP Primary as victor. That’s the fact.

Only with Huckabubba's pulling a lot of creepy sh*t. I've never been an accomplice in self-abasement before. I won't do it now. By supporting a man as twisted as McCain (even if he is the "conservative" candidate), who betrayed conservatives always to his benefit, I reenforce this pathological behaviour. When in doubt, always return to first principles; and it's impossible to be politically healthy without acting in a psychologically healthy way first.

Your rational options, in late October 2008, is a scenario with either John McCain or Barak Obama leveraging the power of the most important political office on earth.

The GOP has been playing that same song for too long, for every election since Bush-41 first ran against Michael Dukakis, and yet despite the GOP's promises to reform itself after each election, it continued its leftward slither. IOW, they cried "Wolf!" too many times now.

I have never voted for a socialist of any party. I won't vote for the socialist Obama nor will I vote for the socialist McCain.

Here I stand. I can do no other.

Thanks. I think Bush, Carter, Clinton, and LBJ share a four way tie award of worse POTUS in many years and are most likely among the top worse 5 ever. Each did their own damage either through arrogance, ignorance, or both. They simply are/were too much alike on too many issues including WAR policy. Add to that Ford of whom Da Bush's adapted much of their foreign and military policy after. The same Republican failed policy makers were brought in to run the military.

Da Bush's neither one was ever Conservative yet many in hear helped create the George W Bush is a Conservative myth. A few of them finally woke up. Some woke up but still will not stand up. Bush used the WOT in such a way that if Clinton had done it they would have been screaming Impeach him for his tyranny. Clinton sure as the devil would have been questioned. Another Marxist type rule. Do not question POTUS in time of war. It is UnAmerican not to question.

Ford and Da Bush's LOWERED the standards of what is expected in the GOP. Bush JR ruined many good Conservatives chances for house and senate seats to make way for giving long time friends and thinkalikes political favors. RINO Lamar Alexander is a good example. Two much better choices never stood a chance because before Fred Thompson had barely announced retirement a White House release endorsed Alexander. We lost a chance at having a proved Conservative former House Manager in the senate thanks to that.

Bush split the GOP in half and made it as effective as a one armed man in a double ore row boat. He reminds me of the former GOP Tennessee GOP governor Don Sundquist. The man who nearly destroyed a state by with a blatant liberal agenda. The state GOP leadership was split because of it. The party loyalist in office never stood up to him and Conservatives were left hanging to fight the good fight. If not for a few DEMs who joined the Conservatives, Taxquist would have succeeded.

"I think Bush, Carter, Clinton, and LBJ share a four way tie award of worse POTUS in many years and are most likely among the top worse 5 ever. Each did their own damage either through arrogance, ignorance, or both. They simply are/were too much alike on too many issues including WAR policy. Add to that Ford of whom Da Bush's adapted much of their foreign and military policy after. The same Republican failed policy makers were brought in to run the military."

Definite Top 5 sh*ttiest Presidents in US history. Bush gets Top Marks for bamboozling Republicans and conservatives alike in running a political transvestite campaign - then dressing up his policies and agenda like a Dem, bankrupting the federal Reserve, reducing the Dollar to Monopoly Money, contriving a trillion dollar war in Iraq (WHEN have we become 'Nation Builders'??), NEVER saying "NO" with his VETO pen, backing Ted Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, $15 billion for AIDS Africa, $440 billion allocated in the disastrous Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, Dubai, Harriet Miers, NO border enforcement, jailing Compean and Ramos, assigning Poppy Bush and Bubba Klinton a "special" Ambassadorship...the list goes on and on....

Most obvious is the culmination of the destruction and dismantling of majority GOP seats in the House and Senate, and setting the stage for anti-Christ Hussein 0bama.

LBJ, was a horrendous President and globalist Trojan Horse as well; Carter gives AWAY the Panama Canal among several other utter stupid policies. Clinton destroyed the honor and integrity of the White House, while his corruption and filth is legendary.

"Da Bush's neither one was ever Conservative yet many in hear helped create the George W Bush is a Conservative myth. A few of them finally woke up. Some woke up but still will not stand up. Bush used the WOT in such a way that if Clinton had done it they would have been screaming Impeach him for his tyranny. Clinton sure as the devil would have been questioned. Another Marxist type rule. Do not question POTUS in time of war. It is UnAmerican not to question."

Hear ya. Bush I and II (NO Conservatives at ALL) exploited conservatives' loyalties to the military and its usual noble use of force; Both and their respective puppetmeisters also exploited fake intel and as you claim the "WOT" and the original Iraq war was a joke. How does one fight a 'WOT' as the southern flank at Mexico was a GIANT sieve?? Simply, BOTH wars were contrived.

And finally true - had Bubba been running this series of absurd events in Iraq and implemented 'Homeland Security's' intrusive BS, Klinton would have been hammered BY REPUBLICANS and a call for 'Impeachment' a foregone conclusion. AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A CASE!!

"Ford and Da Bush's LOWERED the standards of what is expected in the GOP. Bush JR ruined many good Conservatives chances for house and senate seats to make way for giving long time friends and thinkalikes political favors. RINO Lamar Alexander is a good example.

THIS is what made them all from Ford to Dubya so transparently globalist country club RINOs Elites with NO intention of EVER promoting conservatism; The lone true conservative as we know was Ronald Reagan. But even he couldn't stop the infiltration of RINO Elite vampires from sucking the blood out of the conservative movenment.

"Bush split the GOP in half and made it as effective as a one armed man in a double ore row boat. He reminds me of the former GOP Tennessee GOP governor Don Sundquist...."

HA! Good analogy. GW Bush took his orders from his NWO Overlords and destroyed the GOP in 4 short years. I amazes me that intelligent people can't see GW Bush as he truly is/was. And for that, the Libs/Left should LOVE him.

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.