I know very well what they believe and, while I reject it, I also know that culturally they are decent conservative folks for the most part. |
Posted on 02/02/2008 2:35:16 PM PST by NewJerseyJoe
Back in early December 2007, Mitt Romney (take your pick):
A) was forced
B) felt compelled
to publicly address questions about his Mormonism, to settle any doubts in the minds of voters who might potentially choose him in the primary or general election.
Now, McCain has come out of nowhere to become the ostensible "front runner" -- thanks to the MSM and to a bunch of RINO shills nationwide. McCain keeps calling himself the "conservative" candidate, whereas almost every leading conservative (and almost all of the grassroots) are pointing out that McCain is anything BUT conservative.
Therefore, I sugggest that it's way past time for McCain to do his version of the Romney speech. It's time for McCain to address -- specifically by topic, and directly toward those conservatives whose votes he wants -- how he can call himself a conservative in light of:
1. McCain-Feingold (attack on 1st Amendment)
2. horrible record on gun rights (attack on 2nd Amendment; see http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm)
3. McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill (attack on sovereignty)
4. support of embryonic stem cell research
5. extremely mixed (at best) message of support/non-support of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions"
6. and let's not forget the "Gang of 14"
There are more, but these six should suffice for now. These policy actions and viewpoints are not only against what most conservatives define as "conservative" -- they are against the beliefs that many non-conservatives hold.
No, I'm not holding my breath -- in no way do I expect McCain to come clean about these issues in a public forum. But I'm hoping that some prominent media person will have the guts to confront him one-on-one with these.
If McCain truly wants conservative votes, then he needs to address these, sooner rather than later. Since he has a reckless history of showing nothing but disdain for conservatives, I suspect he will not do so until it is far too late to be of any help to him.
| I know very well what they believe and, while I reject it, I also know that culturally they are decent conservative folks for the most part. |
It is certainly a matter of perspective. I just checked the ACU website; McCain's lifetime rating (82.3, not 86) ranks him at #39 -- right about at the bottom of the GOP barrel. Ranked just below McCain are "all the usual suspects." Not a very good ranking for a so-called conservative.
His lifetime rating is 82.3. His recent history rating (last shown is 2006) is 65. I'm not impressed.
Ill Vote for McCain anyday over Hillary.
Editor: Cliff Kincaid
Associate Editor: Notra Trulock
2003 Report #
15 August 11, 2003
Of all the Hillary Clinton scandals and cover-ups, none is more significant than her attempt to whitewash her own personal transformation from Goldwater girl to Marxist. No mainstream media organization has examined how she is determined in her new book to keep people in the dark about what Hillary biographer, the late Barbara Olson, described as her “roots in Marxism.”
“In her formative years,” explained Olson, “Marxism was a very important part of her ideology...”
Olson’s important 1999 book, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), remains the best account of Hillary’s communist connections and emergence as a “budding Leninist” who “understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost.”
As an example, Hillary’s book gripes that the end to her illegal closed-door health-care task-force meetings, where a socialized medicine scheme was hatched, was the result of her opponents citing an “obscure federal law” in court. Hillary, a lawyer, never wanted the law to get in her way.
Leaving The GOP
Hillary’s book, Living History (Simon & Schuster), does attempt to explain her move from the political right to the left. But it stops far short of explaining her involvement with extreme left-wing groups and individuals in league with America’s enemies.
The book says that Hillary was the daughter of a staunch Republican and that, in high school, she read Senator Barry Goldwater’s book, The Conscience of a Conservative, and wrote a term paper on the American conservative movement. She dedicated it to her parents, “who have always taught me to be an individual.” She was a Goldwater supporter in 1964 and had “strong anti-Communist views,” she says. She also got deeply involved in the United Methodist Church, which “opened my eyes and heart to the needs of others…” Her conservative views persisted, however, into the time that she entered Wellesley College in 1965, where she served as president of the college’s Young Republicans during her freshman year. However, she says that she began having more doubts about the war against communism in Vietnam-doubts fed by a Methodist magazine she was receiving at college, as well as reports in the New York Times.
Defending The Black Panthers
She moved on to Yale Law School in 1969, which was a hotbed of activity on behalf of the violently racist Black Panther organization. She writes that, “The world and its realities came crashing down on Yale in April 1970, when eight Black Panthers, including party leader Bobby Seale, were put on trial for murder in New Haven. Thousands of angry protesters, convinced the Panthers had been set up by the FBI and government prosecutors, swarmed into the city. Demonstrations broke out in and around campus. The campus was bracing for a huge May Day rally to support the Panthers when I learned, late on the night of April 27, that the International Law Library, which was in the basement of the law school, was on fire. Horrified, I rushed to join a bucket brigade of faculty, staff and students to put out the fire and to rescue books damaged by flames and water.”
So Living History portrays Hillary as someone who didn’t participate in the pro-Panther demonstrations but just tried to save some books from a fire.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hcvrillary.htm
Marxists and the like are far from the Service of John McCain, like him or not.
This FredHead looks at it this way. Perhaps as Governor, Romney did what he could do (with his one vote in the liberal legislature) in an extremely liberal state. Folks talk about liberal judges he appointed. What if the pool he had to select from were all liberal, and he picked the least liberal? I just don’t know. I do know one thing. When I compare Romney to McCAin, Romney looks like a REAL conservative!
His stand on immigration is right! No Amnesty!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963769/posts
Cult appologist.
| He has you fooled. If you can look at Romney's record and past satements (also on YouTube btw) and see conservatism then I can only assume that, as far as your guiding principles go, you are lost in the wilderness. |
If you have time, check this link out about McCain.
Great image! LMAO
The American Spectator
Reagan and McCain
By Peter J. Wallison
Published 1/25/2008 12:08:40 AM
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12635
Apparently dissatisfied with their presidential choices, Republicans are asking, “Why don’t we have another Ronald Reagan?” But if we think seriously about what made Ronald Reagan a great leader and a great president, we may find that there’s a reasonable facsimile hiding in plain sight. John McCain, although he has failed to toe the line of conservative orthodoxy, has many of the characteristics that the American people admired in Ronald Reagan, including the key elements that made him a successful president. In fact, given his electability, McCain offers a rare chance for conservatives to recapture the essence of the Reagan revolution.
The similarities between Reagan and McCain begin with their extraordinary attachment to principle. Reagan never altered his views about Communism, the Soviet Union or the importance of shrinking the government, and it was this quality that made him a successful president. Washington is a city where everything is negotiable. In this world, a president with actual principles has a unique attribute — credibility. When Reagan stayed the course on tax cuts, despite high interest rates and a weak economy in 1982, he was relying on his principles. When John McCain said, in supporting the surge in Iraq, he would “rather lose an election than lose a war,” he is demonstrating the same attachment to principle that animated Ronald Reagan. And this firmness will give him the same credibility in Washington that Reagan enjoyed.
A second similarity is their view of the United States and its role in the world. Reagan, as we recall, described America as a shining city on a hill. What he meant by this was that the United States is an exceptional nation — “the last best hope of earth,” in Lincoln’s words. This is the foundation of an aggressive foreign policy, respectful of other nations but ultimately doing what is necessary to defeat the enemies of peace and freedom. Thus, Reagan’s foreign policy — much to the chagrin of our European allies — was the opposite of the accommodationist approach followed by his predecessors in dealing with the Soviet Union; as he summarized it: “We win; they lose.” McCain sees the United States in the same way, having served in its armed forces, borne years of torture in its behalf, fought for a stronger military, and promised to follow Osama bin Laden to “the gates of hell.” He wants to defeat our next great enemy, Islamofascism, not live with it, just as Reagan refused to accept the Soviet Union as a permanent fixture on the international scene.
Reagan and McCain also share the essential characteristic of leaders — both set their own course without reference to polls or political pressures. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, he made a powerful statement about the rule of law, although customary Washington politics would have dictated compromise. When he said in his first inaugural address that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem,” he was putting himself in opposition to a half-century of growth in the government and its role in the economy. When McCain told a questioner at a New Hampshire town meeting that if he wants to limit free trade “I am not your candidate,” or told Iowans that ethanol is not the solution to the nation’s energy problems, he, like Reagan, was signaling that he will set his own course and not pander to the politics of the moment.
Finally, Reagan built a new coalition to secure his election, attracting voters across the political spectrum with his vision of smaller government and more personal freedom. Many conservatives fail to understand that Reagan’s tax cuts had two objectives — to promote economic recovery, of course, but also to “starve the beast,” by reducing the funds available for government growth. Although Reagan did in fact successfully cut domestic discretionary spending, later Republican presidents and congressional majorities spoiled the brand that Reagan had created for his party. They did it, however, over the strong objections of John McCain, who has been the most consistent advocate in Congress for Reagan’s original vision of a smaller and less intrusive government.
The Reagan coalition is still out there, a majority of Americans — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — who believe that the size of government and its role in the economy should be reduced. Through the aggressive use of the veto pen, McCain has promised restore this essential element of Reagan’s vision. Why should disaffected conservatives believe this? Because John McCain is like Ronald Reagan in the most significant respect of all: he is an authentic person, not a confection designed by consultants. Reagan, as his diary shows (as if we needed further proof), wanted to be president for a purpose — as a real person would — not simply to hold the office. He had a consistent and firmly held set of views that he intended to pursue as president. McCain’s straight talk is popular because it’s the way real people talk to one another, not the coddling way today’s politicians present themselves to us. So when John McCain said, after his victory in South Carolina, that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and is running for president “not to be something, but to do something” he was making clear that on a range of issues — from defending the nation to reducing the size of government — he would bring a new vitality to the Reagan revolution.
>>>>>3. McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill (attack on sovereignty)
People need to read the news more carefully.
It was briefly reported about two weeks ago that in South Carolina McCrazy was proudly back on the stump supporting Amnesty for illegals, despite his absolute refusal to discuss the issue in a wider public forum (e.g., last week’s debate).
If you don’t like the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency, support Romney before it’s too late.
Reagan and McCain
By Peter J. Wallison
Published 1/25/2008 12:08:40 AM
Apparently dissatisfied with their presidential choices, Republicans are asking, “Why don’t we have another Ronald Reagan?” But if we think seriously about what made Ronald Reagan a great leader and a great president, we may find that there’s a reasonable facsimile hiding in plain sight. John McCain, although he has failed to toe the line of conservative orthodoxy, has many of the characteristics that the American people admired in Ronald Reagan, including the key elements that made him a successful president. In fact, given his electability, McCain offers a rare chance for conservatives to recapture the essence of the Reagan revolution.
The similarities between Reagan and McCain begin with their extraordinary attachment to principle. Reagan never altered his views about Communism, the Soviet Union or the importance of shrinking the government, and it was this quality that made him a successful president. Washington is a city where everything is negotiable. In this world, a president with actual principles has a unique attribute — credibility. When Reagan stayed the course on tax cuts, despite high interest rates and a weak economy in 1982, he was relying on his principles. When John McCain said, in supporting the surge in Iraq, he would “rather lose an election than lose a war,” he is demonstrating the same attachment to principle that animated Ronald Reagan. And this firmness will give him the same credibility in Washington that Reagan enjoyed.
A second similarity is their view of the United States and its role in the world. Reagan, as we recall, described America as a shining city on a hill. What he meant by this was that the United States is an exceptional nation — “the last best hope of earth,” in Lincoln’s words. This is the foundation of an aggressive foreign policy, respectful of other nations but ultimately doing what is necessary to defeat the enemies of peace and freedom. Thus, Reagan’s foreign policy — much to the chagrin of our European allies — was the opposite of the accommodationist approach followed by his predecessors in dealing with the Soviet Union; as he summarized it: “We win; they lose.” McCain sees the United States in the same way, having served in its armed forces, borne years of torture in its behalf, fought for a stronger military, and promised to follow Osama bin Laden to “the gates of hell.” He wants to defeat our next great enemy, Islamofascism, not live with it, just as Reagan refused to accept the Soviet Union as a permanent fixture on the international scene.
Reagan and McCain also share the essential characteristic of leaders — both set their own course without reference to polls or political pressures. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, he made a powerful statement about the rule of law, although customary Washington politics would have dictated compromise. When he said in his first inaugural address that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem,” he was putting himself in opposition to a half-century of growth in the government and its role in the economy. When McCain told a questioner at a New Hampshire town meeting that if he wants to limit free trade “I am not your candidate,” or told Iowans that ethanol is not the solution to the nation’s energy problems, he, like Reagan, was signaling that he will set his own course and not pander to the politics of the moment.
Finally, Reagan built a new coalition to secure his election, attracting voters across the political spectrum with his vision of smaller government and more personal freedom. Many conservatives fail to understand that Reagan’s tax cuts had two objectives — to promote economic recovery, of course, but also to “starve the beast,” by reducing the funds available for government growth. Although Reagan did in fact successfully cut domestic discretionary spending, later Republican presidents and congressional majorities spoiled the brand that Reagan had created for his party. They did it, however, over the strong objections of John McCain, who has been the most consistent advocate in Congress for Reagan’s original vision of a smaller and less intrusive government.
The Reagan coalition is still out there, a majority of Americans — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — who believe that the size of government and its role in the economy should be reduced. Through the aggressive use of the veto pen, McCain has promised restore this essential element of Reagan’s vision. Why should disaffected conservatives believe this? Because John McCain is like Ronald Reagan in the most significant respect of all: he is an authentic person, not a confection designed by consultants. Reagan, as his diary shows (as if we needed further proof), wanted to be president for a purpose — as a real person would — not simply to hold the office. He had a consistent and firmly held set of views that he intended to pursue as president. McCain’s straight talk is popular because it’s the way real people talk to one another, not the coddling way today’s politicians present themselves to us. So when John McCain said, after his victory in South Carolina, that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and is running for president “not to be something, but to do something” he was making clear that on a range of issues — from defending the nation to reducing the size of government — he would bring a new vitality to the Reagan revolution.
Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency (Westview, 2002).
>>>>Not gonna happen. He has open contempt for conservatives.
Correct. His “timetables” argument with Romney in last week’s debate was remarkable because it also shows that he has open contempt for the facts and for the truth.
He was clearly and obviously shown to be wrong (the press moderator helped by reading the exact quote proving Mitt to be in the clear), and McCrazy just sneered and snickered and said “Well, I’m going to talk about it anyway.”
He is mentally ill.
RETIRED ADMIRALS AND GENERALS SUPPORTING JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT
Rear Admiral John W. Adams, USN (Ret.)
Major General Albert B. Akers, USA (Ret.)
Major General John Blatsos, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry Blot, USMC (Ret.)
Major General John L. Borling, USAF (Ret.), POW
Vice Admiral Mike Bowman, III, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Roger Box, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Bruce Bremner, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas Brown, III, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Tom Bruner, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Lyle Bull, USN (Ret.)
Major General George Cates, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jack Christiansen, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward Clexton, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General John B. Conaway, USAF (Ret.), Former Chief of the National Guard Bureau
Lieutenant General Matthew T. “Terry” Cooper, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Dastin, USAF (Ret.)
General James B. Davis, USAF (Ret.), Classmate of Senator McCain’s at the U.S. Naval Academy, Former Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (NATO)
Vice Admiral Walter J. Davis, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Major General Hollis Davison, USMC (Ret.)
Colonel George “Bud” Day, USAF (Ret.), POW, Medal of Honor
Rear Admiral Jerry Denton, USN (Ret.), POW, Former U.S. Senator
Vice Admiral Robert F. Dunn, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Russ Eggers, USAF (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Paul Engel, USN (Ret.)
Major General Bill Eshelman, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Merrill Evans, USA (Ret.)
Admiral S. Robert Foley, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Rear Admiral Skip Furlong, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Barton Gilbert, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Andrew Giordano, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Russell W. Gorman, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Ronald J. Hays, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPAC and CINCUSNAVEUR
Rear Admiral Robert P. Hickey, USN (Ret.)
Major General Don Hilbert, USA (Ret.)
Major General Kent Hillhouse, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral A. Byron Holderby, USN (Ret.)
Admiral James L. Holloway, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
Lieutenant General Jefferson D. Howell, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Evan Hultman, USA (Ret.)
Major General Charles Ingram, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Bobby Inman, USN (Ret.), Former Director, NSA
Major General Harry Jenkins, USMC (Ret.)
Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.), Former Vice Chief of Naval Operations
Rear Admiral J. Michael “Carlos” Johnson, USN (Ret.)
General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, USMC
Admiral Robert J. “Barney” Kelly, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Admiral Frank Kelso, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
Major General Phillip G. Killey, USAF (Ret.)
Admiral George “Gus” Kinnear, USN (Ret.), Former COMAIRLANT
Admiral Charles R. “Chuck” Larson, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPAC
Vice Admiral Tony Less, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Frederick L. Lewis, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.), Former CINCUSNAVEUR
Rear Admiral Thomas C. Lynch, USN (Ret.)
Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Vice Admiral Michael D. Malone, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Daniel P. March, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward H. Martin, USN (Ret.), POW
Vice Admiral John J. Mazach, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William “Scot” McCauley, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Denny McGinn, USN (Ret.)
Major General Ed Mechanbier, USAFR (Ret.), POW
Rear Admiral George Meinig, USN (Ret.)
Major General Robert L. Menist, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Paul David Miller, USN (Ret.), Former CINCLANT
Vice Admiral Joseph Mobley, USN (Ret.), POW
Rear Admiral Patrick D. Moneymaker, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Benjamin Montoya, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Douglas Moore, Jr., USN (Ret.)
General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, USMC
Rear Admiral Jack Natter, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Warren “Bud” Nelson, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Eddie Newman, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert S. “Rupe” Owens, USN (Ret.)
Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF (Ret.)
Major General John Peppers, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Maurice Phillips, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Polatty, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William E. Ramsey, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jon A. Reynolds, USAF (Ret.), POW
Vice Admiral David B. Robinson, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Wayne Rosenthal, USAF (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John R. Ryan, USN (Ret.)
Major General Michael D. Ryan, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dennis Schulstad, USAF (Ret.)
Vice Admiral James E. Service, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Edward D. “Ted” Sheafer, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Robert F. “Dutch” Shultz, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. Shumaker, USN (Ret.), POW
Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former CINCUSNAVEUR, CINCSOUTH, Commander IFOR
Lieutenant General Norman Smith, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Stanhope S. Spears, USA, Adjutant General of South Carolina
Lieutenant General Hank Stackpole, USMC (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Howie Thorsen, USN (Ret.)
Colonel Leo Thorsness, USAF (Ret.), POW, Medal of Honor
Rear Admiral Ernest E. Tissot, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John B. Totushek, USN (Ret.)
Major General Alfred A. Valenzuela, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Lloyd “Joe” Vasey, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General W.L. “Bill” Wallace, USA (Ret.)
Major General Gary Wattnern, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald Weatherson, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hugh Webster, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General James A. Williams, USA (Ret.), Former Director, DIA
Brigadier General Mitchell M. Willoughby, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Dennis Wisely, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Ronald J. Zlatoper, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
>>>Quite honestly, I’d rather have Hilary — as a clear opposition target to fight against — than someone who keeps saying he’s “on our side” as he twists the knife in our backs.
Seems like Ann Coulter’s whacky proposition of this week is gaining momentum.
And I’m beginning to see the wisdom in it.
McCrazy is completely unacceptable.
I’m funny about some things, I guess. For example, if you stab me in the back, I might think it was an accident the first time, but after a few more times, I might begin to think you’re a backstabber. It’s just the way I am.
I’m funny about some things, I guess. For example, if you stab me in the back, I might think it was an accident the first time, but after a few more times, I might begin to think you’re a backstabber. It’s just the way I am.
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.