Posted on 04/04/2008 3:18:05 PM PDT by DIM1
The issues where Sens McCain and Obama differ significantly: a matrix, with commentary
[Introduction to matrix] The attitude of many conservatives towards the candidacy of John McCain might - still - be best summed up by the comments of one recent participant in a conservative forum when he claimed that - "HillObamaCain are all one-in-the-same thing. Open borders, Kyoto-Lite globalists."
But, even though Sen McCain was not at all my own first choice, and - whilst the issue was still in doubt I had written critically of him - I think the statement quoted above is just plain wrong. And, that the fact is that - the areas in which Sen McCain, from a conservative perspective, is weak - amongst which I would include those quoted: open borders, etc - his opponents positions are at least as bad - often worse - than his. And, careful examination of his positions via visa theirs shows that Sen McCain is well ahead of them on a whole slue of issues every bit as important to most conservatives as those in which he falls short.
Even a cursory review of the opposing positions of Sen McCain vs. those of Sen Obama supports the point made above. And, I would be amazed if a similar comparison involving the views of Sen Clinton displayed a result that was - overall - much different.
Note: the following is not a general survey of the candidate's views on selected issues, but, is intended as a means by which the areas in which they differ - in significant ways, either by kind or degree - might be illustrated and brought to the fore.
(Excerpt) Read more at red-state-blue.blogs.com ...
Thank you, David, for taking the time to do this. Level headed people will win this election for Johnny.
True statement!
And, careful examination of his positions via visa theirs also shows that Sen. McCain is well ahead of them on a whole slue of issues every bit as important to most conservatives as those in which he falls short.
Ok Mr. Aronin, here are the subject you covered...
Defense
Crime/Courts
Education
Welfare and Poverty
Social Security
Pro-Life
Taxes
Second Amendment
Commentary
Anybody see what is missing here?
He is in absolute denial and when confronted with the facts he looses it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN3J8bXAcg
MxCain will deliver amnesty and that will be the end of the real Republican party. The U.S. will be a de facto One Party system and will accelerate the advance into administrative government. Representative government will be a thing of the past.
Not only that Mr. Aronin, once the illegals and the chain-migrants start voting, all your little points and subjects will not mean squat. The amnesty-American voter will no more think anything of voting for a Marxist-Leninist that they would care about farting at the park on a breezy day.
The 30 million illegal aliens that get an amnesty will vote democrat and the one hundred million chain migration aliens will get the fast track to citizenship and will follow the voting pattern of their sponsor.
At that point we can kiss it all goodbye. including all of Mr. Aronin "reasons" to vote for little Juan.
That “politics” of course was simple debate on a bill that would change the face of our party and nation forever.
Now people believe John McCain. The gullible really get to me. They want him so much to be a conservative, but a leopard never changes his spots, and after Chuckie Schumer and Ted Kennedy picking McCain's judges they might learn what they have down, all the while Republicans go along with the new Ginsburg or Souter to keep peace in the party.
And that "process can be accurately reconstructed by sneaking up behind someone with a butcher knife in hand.
What really floors me is everyone is debating useless points of order and meaningless krap and not having that slap-to-the-face moment of realization that all three stooges left in the race are supporting amnesty for the illegal aliens. Therefore it does not matter one whit which one of the stooges wins because America has already lost. Once the thirty million illegals get the vote through amnesty we are burnt toast.
McCain’s “conservative” record. My collection.
FR links on McCain's record from Feb. 2000. MrChips collection.
Cinnamon Girl,
Thanks! I - really did - need that :).
Helped to cut the taste of the caster oil too many others want me to swallow.
Best and G-d bless!
DIM1
org.whodat,
Thank you for your reply.
We probably agree as to what is wrong with McCain - but, as an election is a choice between candidates - what is right, or more right - about one candidate or the other is likely just as important as what is not.
That was the basic point of the article.
Any thoughts on that?
Or, the fact that is mostly the fault of all of us - conservatives - that we are faced with these particular choices this cycle?
And, that because of our own failings to gather ‘round a viable conservative candidate, support him or her, and educate the electorate as a whole on our basic - American - traditions, that we now have to pick out the one who will do the least damage while we try and renew our movement?
To think on.
Thank you and G-d bless!
DiM1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywXFhulpVPk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuN57wD-EkM
I thought these two ads had some great footage I hadn’t seen on the other ads. Inspirational.
TLI,
Thank you for your reply.
You brought up some valuable points.
You had quoted the article in regards to the following statement:
“And, careful examination of his positions via visa theirs also shows that Sen. McCain is well ahead of them on a whole slue of issues every bit as important to most conservatives as those in which he falls short.”
But the lead-in line of the article was:
“The issues where Sens McCain and Obama DIFFER significantly...” (emphasis added).
And, as the passage prior to the one you quoted - above - stated that -
“...the areas in which Sen McCain, from a conservative perspective, is weak - amongst which I would include those quoted: open borders, etc - his opponents positions are at least as bad - often worse - than his.”
It is safe then to assume that “amnesty” was not mentioned because it was/is not one of the areas where Sen McCain and his opponents DIFFER.
As for the contention that - amnesty and migrant voters will unfailingly vote for the candidates of the far-left - and their doing so will inevitably undermine the facets of our society - defence, crime, justice, etc. - where Sen McCain’s views are otherwise preferable to those of his opponents - i think that misses the point.
Amnesty is wrong because it creates significant security risks, undermines the rule of law, makes us look weak to enemies, friends and neutrals alike, over-burdens our civic and social infrastructures and - due to a lack of a viable process of Americanization - threatens to dilute the strength of the elements of our culture that rest solidly on Anglo-Saxon foundations. Those are solid and urgent enough reasons to fight hard against it.
But, the elections of 2004 showed that the cultural and economic conservatism of Hispanics is a reality, is deep, and that it does have potential as a source of renewal for the conservative movement. That those who can vote still tip towards the left is mostly due to the fact that they are led by leftists and some conservatives alike to see anti-illegal sentiment to be a guise for anti-Hispanic feelings (a mis-perception that was effectively exploited by the Dems in 2006), that their kids are particularly targeted for brain-washing by the neo-Marxist educational establishment, and that little effort is made to counter-act those tendencies - by intensifying their adherence to our common Judaic-Christian heritage and through educating them into an understanding of the traditions of American Republicanism. None of those baleful tendencies or sins of omission are irreparable. And the project of redemption can be undertaken largely through the focused efforts of a conservative movement committed to doing them (it is hardly necessary to point out that - these are projects that need to be undertaken in any case - that they should not be contingent on the kind of crisis that would ensue from the passage of amnesty legislation).
Responsibility anyone?
Given that perspective, understandable as it is, and a process of the kind outlined above - rather than one based on a blanket dislike and distrust for immigrants - it is unlikely that immigrants - even “amnesty immigrants” - would feel so threatened as to be pushed into the arms of the far left. And - though it would be far better if the idea of amnesty died at inception - or before - rendering this whole line of discussion moot as their would be no amnesty voters to be concerned about - that possibility would be particularly unlikely if - in a case where passage of amnesty was unavoidable - an important element of the Republican Party - the president - was instrumental in establishing that dangerous regimen.
So, bad as it would be in other important ways, amnesty does not need to equate to a massive move to the left by the electorate.
On the other hand - when did conservatives become the ones who need the federal government to make things go as we want them to? Or, as also stated in the article -
“it is we - conservatives - who are supposed to be the ones who don’t reflexively look to the federal government to make things happen the way we want them. But, that if the federal government will just keep off our backs we - citizens - can solve much of our local and national difficulties on our own - state-by-state or city-by-city if necessary (as has been the case with the movement against racial preferences).”
That process of solving things state-by-state, etc, goes for immigration as well, and has been underway for some time now.
It requires that we renew our efforts both at electing anti-illegal candidates locally as well as a sufficient number of Senators to block moves by the feds to imped or halt that process.
All the best and G-d bless!
DIM1
Level headed like this? Or do you mean someone else?
TigersEye,
Good to hear from you!
I tried to make a point of listing positions where Sens McCain and Obama had some track record - of votes and statements, rather than recent quotes from campaign tours.
And, based on such, I think there are solid reasons to believe that Sen McCain’s positions on matters such as: missile defence, modernization of the military, staying the course in Iraq, judges, capital punishment, crime-in-general, the death tax, the marriage penalty, tax increases in general, abortion and second amendment rights, are more in keeping with our American traditions than those put forward by Sen Obama.
If the choice was between Sen McCain and Non-of-the-Above, I’d certainly choose the latter :). Sadly though, that’s not what we’re faced with.
All the best and G-d bless!
DIM1
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.