Posted on 02/07/2008 8:18:24 PM PST by bshomoic
Bush Signals Support for McCain
By Peter Baker
President Bush plans to give an implicit endorsement of onetime rival John McCain's conservative bona fides tomorrow as the Arizona senator seeks to consolidate the party behind his candidacy.
In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in the morning, Bush plans to say that the nominee of the party will be a strong conservative, according to excerpts released by the White House tonight.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
You are one of the few who got it with the Fred stratgy.
With his laaaate start and snoozing along and quickly dropping out sucked the air , money and support from Conservatives who were already running.
If I were running for President, I don’t think I’d want any Bush’ endorsement.
I had a dream where GWB was announcing Dick Cheney’s
intent to run for a higher office in 08.
I wasn’t wedded to Fred just looking at what was happening. I kept the benefit of the doubt on Mitt too until today. If he really believed in conservatism and the country so passionately he would have never ceded to a skunk like McCain. Even with bad odds he would have stuck it out. With Thompson out and Huckabee’s delegates likely to put Mitt in the lead in a brokered convention he had to get out now and give his support to McCain. Huck probably doesn’t even know he’s a stalking horse. He was just talked into running and given behind the scenes support.
Hi Norm. Regarding your post above, I think it depends on how one defines "conservative." I'm a Constitutional conservative, so, for me, the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is paramount. There are a number of reasons why I loathe John McCain, but I could hold my nose and vote for him despite them. The deal-breaker for me is McCain-Feingold, which was a direct assault on the 1st Amendment. As such, it was a total, blatant abrogation of his sworn oath of office. The terrible thing is, I'm not sure McCain even understands how egregiously he violated his oath of office with that bill. Either that, or he simply doesn't care. Maybe both.
Although many elected officials and judges often find sly, indirect ways to do end-runs around some Constitutional provisions, doing direct assaults against it is rare even in the dirty world of politics.
Yet McCain and Feingold did exactly that. McCain clearly has no regard for his most sacred oath (which most elected officials take with a hand on the Bible). That being the case, how can I possibly trust anything he says? If I can't trust him, how can I possibly vote for him in good conscience?
As compared to many denizens of FR, I'm more center-right. So, for example, although I share the same broad goals on immigration/illegal immigration as most on the right, I have been open to solutions that many harder right conservatives would not entertain. So the irony is that I can't trust McCain, not because he's a "RINO," but because he takes his Constitutional oath so cavalierly.
Too many pundits and talk-radio types think it's only rock-ribbed hard-right and religious conservatives who oppose McCain. I'm an example of a life-long center-right Republican who opposes him. Given that McCain has managed to get only about 30% to 35% of the total Republican primary votes cast this year so far, clearly it isn't just hard-right conservatives who have serious problems with him.
I don't know what I'll do in November. Due to Iraq, the ongoing war against radical Jihadism, and the issue of judges, it would be painful for me to not vote for the Republican nominee. But no amount of "reaching out" on the part of McCain is going to work with me. He hasn't just betrayed FR-type conservatives. He's betrayed life-long genuine Republicans, too. He doesn't deserve the party's nomination.
To me, this is a horrible dilemma, because Clinton and Obama would be drastically bad for the nation. The truth about Hillary Clinton's candidacy is that it's an end-run around the 22nd Amendment -- an attempt to get Bill a 3rd and maybe even 4th term through their sleazy unconstitutional concept of a co-presidency. The bad news about a possible Clinton victory is that we know what we can expect since we've already had 8 years of it. The good news about a possible Clinton victory is that we know what we can expect. As bad as Clinton was/will be, we know we can survive it.
As for Obama, if this nation so lacks any seriousness about its own security and well-being that it would elect George Soros' hand-picked lightweight front man only 7 years after the attacks of 9/11/01 and simultaneous anthrax attacks, then the nation would deserve what it would get. The Dems are perpetrating the ultimate act of racism by seriously considering nominating a man with such a thin resume simply because he's half black and can give black preacher style speeches.
Not only that but he’s on the FOX News payroll now. Good check and a regular platform.
Yikes, Enchi. If Amnesty goes through, under anyone, there will never be another Republican elected. Not even a RINO. 10 million new Dem voters? Then they get to bring in extended family? That really will be it for the Republic. 60 million new Dems, all on the dole, all voting for more dole.
Huck probably doesn’t even know he’s a stalking horse. He was just talked into running and given behind the scenes support.
We could be enforcing the laws, but that is too simple.
As for elections and strategery, we try to know things, puzzle them out here but still there is much we do not know.
Know what I mean?
:)
He only looks like a strong conservative in comparison to Bush.
Too many people wanted to see Fred as the 2nd coming of Reagan -- maybe because he's an actor, thus presumably could be just as good in front of the camera as the Gipper. However, Fred Thompson is, was, and always will be a political nonentity. He's a McCain buddy and is more moderate than many conservatives -- who saw him through misty eyes clouded by dreams of a Reagan resurgence -- could bring themselves to acknowledge. He had to be dragged into running by people who were, themselves, long out of office. His campaign barely raised a heartbeat, and he got out as fast as he could after the initial votes were counted. As a candidate, he was a chimera, nothing more.
As much as I love the man, Ronald Reagan has been out of office for 18 years, he left public life around 13 years ago, and died in June 2004, nearly 4 full years ago. It's long past time we stopped looking at the past and start looking forward. Ronald Reagan will never come again. It's a new century with new challenges. Time to look to the future.
Yes. There is plenty we will never know. But there is plenty that can be reasonably inferred if you keep your eyes and ears open and stay objective.
Indeed. The only part of the past that really counts are the concepts that worked. That is what the Constitution is all about. Well thought out, battled out and tested concepts forged into a compact that could be used as a common reference point for self-governance. Too many are looking for a person or a new idea to bring us something better without even understanding or trying to rely on the Constitution. Every politician and every law and regulation should be weighed against it. If it don’t fit you must flush it.
Bump for tomorrow.
Hey Wolf, just looking for a general basic conservative.
I knew before Fred jumped in he supported Howard Baker over Reagan in 80 and McCain in 2000 over Bush
I supported Hunter. Tancredo, Brownbeck, Huck, & Fred
who all came in after Hunter didn’t help.
And the enemy of real conservatives.
Bush is headed for political immortality. In 2070, when our public schools are at about the same level as the ones in a Guatemalan village, the students will be able to read in Spanish about how Bush got the ball rolling on amnesty, which was later signed into law by the first woman president, Hillary Clinton.
Of course, most kids will drop out before they reach their junior year in high school, where they learn about pre-revolutionary history and how Aztlan was taken back from the gringos. But still, President Juan Ortega-Vargas of the People’s Revolutionary Party might agree to name a food stamp office after Bush, so all the dropouts can ask, “Who is this Bush?” when they go to pick up their monthly stipend.
Um, what Bush really meant is that he is a strong RINO.
Great post, I concur that president Bush is no conservative.
So disappointed in him.
By the way, I was originally from Huntington, you a W. Virginian?
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.