Replies

Impeachment is not "punishment for crimes".
It is removal from office. High crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment, but we all know there have been far worse crimes committed by Presidents than the particular one Clinton was impeached for.

I just think that it lowered the bar and set a bad precident that may come back to haunt Republicans one day.

But regardless, like I said, I personally was and am in favor of the impeachment. Unlike most people though, I try to seperate my personal feelings on matters from what is ultimately best. Perhaps if more people could do that, then we wouldn't even have to have this debate about Arnold.

Now I don't understand why you think I'm probably not a conservative.
I'm not even sure what it means to be one. Some people's idea of a "conservative" is my idea of a religious right-wing ideologue.

I almost always agree with Rush Limbaugh, if that gives you an idea. He doesn't preach about abortion for hours on end, and while he is pro-life, that isn't his core issue. Defeating Democrats is. Where I have differed from him that I can even recall is on his take the 9th Circuit Court ruling on the Pledge (but I seem to differ from EVERYONE willing to opine on that).

So where does that leave me?

Now I would submit to you that taking my pragmatic approach will get Conservatives much further over the next 10 to 20 years than the self-ordained "true conservatives" on this forum with their all-or-nothing approach.

So who is really the "true conservative"?
The one who makes some advancement, or the one who loses ground?

The one who makes some advancement, or the one who loses ground?

In this case, the question is not one of whom can make advancement, but in what direction.

How can you talk about 'advancement' with a straight face when the guy's agenda is so obviously to the left of the Clinton's?

Well, you probably don't have a straight face--you are probably laughing your *ss off that anyone will buy your sophistry.

You wrote:

"So who is really the "true conservative"? The one who makes some advancement, or the one who loses ground?"

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

I probably wouldn't..have much respect for a person who thru away his core beliefs, standards, and values..in order to gain a little ground. I would hope that you wouldn't either.

Fwiw-

Impeachment is not "punishment for crimes". It is removal from office. High crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment, but we all know there have been far worse crimes committed by Presidents than the particular one Clinton was impeached for.

This tells me that you do not understand the fundamental principles of conservatism. No other president was impeached for lying under oath...because no other president was found doing so.

Why is lying under oath to the judiciary so important?
Because it is a catch-all that inoculates the President from any and all crimes he may commit.

"Genocide of millions? I didn't do it."
...and when found to be a lie...gets away with it.

There was far more damage done to the US government by failing to remove him than by impeaching him.

The "bar" wasn't lowered by insisting that the President obey one of the Fundamental Principles necessary for the Rule of Law to survive. If anything, the standards for Presidents was dramatically lowered because the man guilty of the crime walked, and was the single highest level executive in the US.

Here's a shocker for you... ...Agreeing with Rush Limbaugh does not make you a conservative. There are underlying principles that create the obverse situation...one in which Rush Limbaugh agrees with *you*. The man's said as much, but so few people listen.

Offering Arnold as a candidate isn't conservative, doesn't advance conservatism, and fails the test of pragmatism as a result.

Here's another shocker...saying the word "God" are part of a Pledge of Allegiance, or putting it on a public building dosn't establish any religion.

So yes...if you agree with the 9th Circuit court, you're simply wrong.