I guess that Glenn doesn't realize that if Bill's wife or B.H. Obama is elected...the SCOTUS will go left for the next few decades...or maybe that's not important to him...
Yeah, well, I also heard him promoting Barack Osama as the next POTUS, too a while back.
Rush, Glenn and Ann had better watch their collective a$$e$ if Hillary gets in, as had we FReepers. The smart money is that she’ll find a way to re-impose the un-Fairness Doctrine to shut all of us down.
The RINO’S have gone south on us way back, it is irrelevant we will be strengthened and here just as Rush will.
Is there any way we could agree to a moratorium on the use of the expression “jump the shark?”
It has become a talisman of stupidity.
If that’s what Beck said, his conclusion is the same as mine. The country, and the GOP, apparently need another wake-up call about liberalism. It’s better to have an identified enemy like Hillary than one in sheep’s clothing whom Mel Martinez is labelling a “conservative” for campaign purposes. I want the inevitable failure and misery from nanny state philosophy to fall on the Dem’s shoulders, not ours.
If that’s what Beck said, his conclusion is the same as mine. The country, and the GOP, apparently need another wake-up call about liberalism. It’s better to have an identified enemy like Hillary than one in sheep’s clothing whom Mel Martinez is labelling a “conservative” for campaign purposes. I want the inevitable failure and misery from nanny state philosophy to fall on the Dem’s shoulders, not ours.
Hmmm . . . I always tell people to vote for the best alternative possible. Ina I always make the assumtion that third partiy candidates are not an option.
McCain is very bad on many issues, I have huge concerns about his character, and in some ways I do believe that having a Democrat win would result in congressional Republicans being much, much more vigilant in opposing the president. (Yes, hoping for backbone is usually a losing opposition, but it will be easier to oppose a Democrat’s lunacy than a fellow Republican’s lunacy.) Much damage can be done between now and 2012, but if McCain has been president how on Earth can the Republicans succeed by telling Americans to “vote for our guy for the fourth time in a row, since we finally got it right?” (I believe Bush has generally done a good job, with some huge exceptions - immigration - but I’m talking about the public perception.) There’s also something to be said for letting the Democrats take the hit.
That’s the “what’s best in the long run” argument. The chief countervailing concern I have is that I would hate to pet our troops down by allowing a “retreat and defeat, at any cost” candidate win. I have my worries about McCain’s preoccupation about terrorists’ rights as well, so again I feel like I’m choosing between one-tenth of a loaf (rather than half a loaf) and no loaf at all.
I’m demoralized, so I know where you’re coming from. Coulter’s comment about campaigning for Clinton is way out of line, but it got a point across.
I don’t know what will happen in November. I’m in a very blue state anyway.
The problem with what some of the “conservative leaders” seem to be saying is this: it seems premised on the assumption that a Hillary or Obama presidency will energize the GOP conservatives in congress to stand up to her or him more than they would if McCain were president.
I don’t think that’s a safe assumption. The “conservatives” in congress had no problem spending like drunken sailors on pork and social programs in the past. If anything, the problem wasn’t the GOP congress ceding to Bush, it was Bush ceding to the GOP congress.
Furthermore, unlike the last six years of the Bill Clinton presidency, there is unlikely to be a GOP-controlled congress for the bulk of a Hillary or Obama presidency. So, even if the “conservatives” in Congress try to oppose the ‘rat programs, they are unlikely to get very far.
(And, when it comes to the Clintons, Rush is possibly the worst predictor of what will happen. I love the man, he’s a hero of mine, but I’ve been a listener since about 1991, and I still remember Rush , over the years, insisting that Clinton would [a] lose to Bush; [b] never get re-elected; [c] be driven from office, etc. Accordingly, I really can’t trust Rush’s predictions when it comes to what a Hillary presidency would do to the country or the GOP)
Does this mean that we should all vote for McCain today? No. I’m not saying that. I’m simply noting that Rush, Beck, et al, may be placing way too much faith in the congress and/or rationalizing in case Hillary takes the White House.
If you mean the members in general, they will do as they always have done: Act like a particularly fractious herd of cats.
I guess that Glenn doesn't realize that if Bill's wife or B.H. Obama is elected...the SCOTUS will go left for the next few decades...or maybe that's not important to him...
The trouble is, if it’s McCain v. either demonRAT, we’re going to have a leftist president: don’t forget McCain doesn’t understand the Laffer curve; thinks terrorists apprehended in circumstances in which the Geneva Convention would allow their execution as spies and saboteurs should be given civilian criminal trials; tried to gut the 1st Amendment’s original intent of protecting political speech (at least for 30 days before an election); and thinks we should adopt an Al Gore-style rationing system to solve the non-problem of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The only question if McCain get the nomination is whether America will have two socialist parities. Opposing him, even at the cost of four years of Hillary or Obama, might get the GOP to wake up to the fact that ‘us too, but slower, leftism’ isn’t the way to win elections, and turn the GOP back into the party Reagan built, instead of the one he inherited from Rockerfeller, et al. We need closed primaries, not the current system that lets people with no loyalty to either conservative principle or to the party have too much say over our nominee.
The reasons they would rather have a Hillary or Obama win is that would coalesce the GOP under a true conservative banner again.
Remember, we had to have a Carter to get a Reagan, and the world was better for it. It's what we might have to pay to get what we really need.
NONE of the candidates we have left now are acceptable to true conservatives, social or fiscal.
Sorry, but your statement is internally inconsistent and therefor logically flawed.
If indeed “hillary would be better” as a simple statement of fact, then that would have to be logical statement.
This is not the GOP dot com webite, and if it is so that any number of left leaning republicans are farther to the left than say, hilllay, then it is up to this Conservative site to identify that fact and to work to promote conservative values.
Again sorry, but it is the GOP that is leaving us, and we are not going to follow it like lemmings off of that cliff, we are not going to be complicit in their rush to the left, and we will show them the power of true conservative, i.e, American values by not staying on any plantation.
Sorry, but your statement is internally inconsistent and therefor logically flawed.
If indeed “hillary would be better” as a simple statement of fact, then that would have to be logical statement.
This is not the GOP dot com webite, and if it is so that any number of left leaning republicans are farther to the left than say, hilllay, then it is up to this Conservative site to identify that fact and to work to promote conservative values.
Again sorry, but it is the GOP that is leaving us, and we are not going to follow it like lemmings off of that cliff, we are not going to be complicit in their rush to the left, and we will show them the power of true conservative, i.e, American values by not staying on any plantation.
Sorry, but your statement is internally inconsistent and therefor logically flawed.
If indeed “hillary would be better” as a simple statement of fact, then that would have to be logical statement.
This is not the GOP dot com webite, and if it is so that any number of left leaning republicans are farther to the left than say, hilllay, then it is up to this Conservative site to identify that fact and to work to promote conservative values.
Again sorry, but it is the GOP that is leaving us, and we are not going to follow it like lemmings off of that cliff, we are not going to be complicit in their rush to the left, and we will show them the power of true conservative, i.e, American values by not staying on any plantation.
Sorry, but your statement is internally inconsistent and therefor logically flawed.
If indeed “hillary would be better” as a simple statement of fact, then that would have to be logical statement.
This is not the GOP dot com website, and if it is so that any number of left leaning republicans are farther to the left than say, hilllay, then it is up to this Conservative site to identify that fact and to work to promote conservative values.
Again sorry, but it is the GOP that is leaving us, and we are not going to follow it like lemmings off of that cliff, we are not going to be complicit in their rush to the left, and we will show them the power of true conservative, i.e, American values by not staying on any plantation.
PS This has been a very rough campaign, to be sure. I guess the issue we’ve all been dealing with is: how far will FReepers (and other conservatives) go to support the lesser of the evils? What if Rudy had somehow been the nominee? There’s a point beyond which some people will not go. I agree that supporting Democrats is not the answer, and from my post above I have noted McCains’ apparently more reliable support of the war as possibly a deciding factor, but again for many there’s a limit.
Sorry, I'm DONE hear me ? DONE.
McCain is a Liberal - flat out.
I don't give a damn how many "R"'s gets tacked behind his name.
In fact, that he's a so called "Republican" makes him even more destructive.
I will under no circumstances vote for him<period>
Perhaps freepers should promise to run naked through Manhattan if their man doesn’t get the nomination. With Ann coulter.
