Posted on 02/04/2008 10:53:49 AM PST by TinaJeannes
The prospect of John McCain as the likely Republican presidential nominee has produced a squall of anger on the right. Normally reserved columnists and usually ebullient talk-radio hosts vie to express their disgust with McCain, and their disdain for the Republicans who are about to nominate him. The conservative movement as a whole appears disgruntled and dyspeptic.
Now I have nothing against a certain amount of disgruntlement and dyspepsia. The ways of the world, and the decisions of our fellow Americans, occasionally warrant such a reaction.
But American politics tends to be unkind to movements that dwell in anger and relish their unhappiness. In the era from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, liberals tended to be happy warriors — and that helped their cause. The original civil rights movement succeeded in part because it worked hard to transcend a justifiable bitterness. Liberalism faltered when it became endlessly aggrieved and visibly churlish.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
perhaps I shouldn’t have posted I love all vets. that makes me sound a little loose *L* should say I respect all vets.
I’d rather be dyspeptic than disloyal. Or dysfunctional. John McCain has made a career of insulting and abusing members of his own party while exhibiting character traits that would reasonably recommend most people to an anger management class.
McCain is a Souter guy, not an Alito guy. Read what hes said.
Unlike Hitlery , he can expand on govt control of health care, emission regulations, speech control, open borders, etc. Hes bipartisan, dont you know that ???
He has promised to secure the borders and as far as alternative energy goes I dont have a problem with that. Our country should never have become depend on other countries for our basic needs. NEVER
I have to go company arrived. Nice chatting with you, Have a good evening :)
IOW, they will keep up the old crap. Romney says all the right things now, and it will be easier to keep his feet to the fire, if thats what he ran on
Its not a great place to be, its just better than the others, IMO... (Oh, and a brokred convention will not happen in 2008, sorry.)
Not alternative energy, higher taxes. But what the heck, at least hes polling better in February, right?
Wow. I have had several posters attmpt to correct me, apparently thinking those were my words. I quoted the article so everyone could see the endless errors for themselves.
I agree. McCain will choose whomever the puff-meisters tell him will win the good graces of the DC cocktail crowd.
(Oh, and a brokred convention will not happen in 2008, sorry.)
____________________________
And you know that because it is out of the realm of possibility? Nothing can happen in the next MONTHS that will derail the McCain campaign and leave no candidate with the delegates to win . . .
You’re in the realm of Carnac the Magnificent with your statement and sureness about it. Did you think the Patriots had to win the Super Bowl as well? That Guilianni was a shoe in when he led the national polls?
Voting to try to make a brokered convention happen (which hasnt in over 80 yrs) is like voting present instead of yea or nay. It’s a copout so you don’t have to commit to “something”. You can tell yourself youre still in the game, even though youre most probably not. . Well, whatever floats your boat.
Yeah, I see that now. I just read the first couple of paragraphs of your post and my blood started to boil and I hit the reply button, my mistake. I'm sorry I unloaded on you, next time I'll try to remember to read the entire post before shooting off my mouth. But even though I took out my frustration on the wrong person I still stand by what I said, I just didn't say it to the right person.
BTW I take it that your tagline is meant to show that you take right to life issues seriously, and if it is, that's one thing I can say for sure that we agree on. Being pro-life on abortion and euthanasia issues is the first qualification for any candidate who wants my vote and it's not negotiable.
I share your frustration, and agree that being prolife is a NECESSARY qualification for public office.
If a person thinks it is okay to kill harmless, innocent babies, then that person is a monster, capable of any other horror.
You can tell yourself that Romney is a conservative and your vote for him matters as one in millions; whatever floats your boat!
“I can not believe they would rather see a dem in office who is not in the least conservative and allow that person to pick federal judges who will possibly let more rapists and murderers free !”
Take a look at who appointed Justices Souter and Burger to the Supreme court. Hint: these darlings of the left weren’t nominated by Democratic Presidents. An anti-conservative President running on either party ticket can be expected to appoint anti-conservative judges.
“So you are saying that McCain’s picks would NOT be better than Obama’s or Hillary’s? Obama and Hillary will appoint left wing activists. McCain will not.”
I’ll bite. There will be little meaningful difference in the justices nominated by either of these anti-conservatives, and the justices actually confirmed under a McCain administration may well turn out to be worse. You forget that the Senate confirms all Supreme Court nominees. There would be significant political pressure put on GOP senators to confirm the selections of a GOP President. Regardless of how awful they might be.
How ironic, then.
I don't don't personally attack Freepers.
There would be significant political pressure put on GOP senators to confirm the selections of a GOP President. Regardless of how awful they might be.
______________________________________
As opposed to a straight party line vote for the liberal activists that Hillary or Obama would nominate. Republicans won’t control the Senate next term. There are only 12 or 13 Democratic Senate seats in play. 23 or some such for Republicans and only a few of those are safe. So the Dems will have the Senate and rubber stamp any Clinton nomination. A moderate like Kennedy or O’Connor is a lot better than a Ruth Bader Ginsberg. A LOT better and likely what a McCain will nominate. Those moderates might even be swung right when they reach the court and interact with Robertson, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. And these next Justices are likely to be on the court for 30, 40, and possibly even 50 years if a jurist in their early 40’s is nominated. It’s a critical difference.
Make that...
Ironically enough,
I don't, don't, don't, don't personally attack fellow Freepers.
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.