McCain is the anti-Reagan.
Brothas and Sistas, it’s good to have you out this morning. “Amen, amen, amen...”
Today I want you to turn with me in the Good Book to John VIII, Chapter 11 Verse 5, and read along with me. “Yes thank you reverend, amen, amen...”
And the lord spoke form on high saying...
They shall tear down your nation... “Amen!”
They shall smite your military... “Amen, amen, amen, amen...”
They shall shut down your radio stations... “Amen, brother, amen, amen...”
They shall opress the people... “Amen, amen, yes lord...”
They shall cause the government to crush the people... “Oh amen bother...”
There will be a great wailing across the land... “Oh yes brother, amen, amen, amen...”
They shall cause great plagues to befall you... “Amen...”
So be sure and vote for me on November 5th. “Wha??????”
That’s not a platform I can support...
This November, just say no (more).
I clicked the link, it is well worth reading.
“Early contemporary conservatism, emphatically not an ideology, was a big-tent affair with room for everyone embracing certain key principles, no matter how wacky some of the consequent views might be. No one dictated acceptable positions on any issue. The effort of some “conservatives” to reject John McCain as a deviationist from their decreed line — to judge him by their litmus tests that (in their minds) he fails — attests to a 20-year ideologization of the Republican Party’s puristic wing.”
He makes it sound like I’ve changed; it wasn’t me that changed, it was the party itself.
McCain, Clinton, Obama - all sitting senators, none in jeopardy of losing his/her seat; only McCain knows that this is his last turn at the Brass Ring, Father Time is not on his side.
If I were a Martian, my money would be on Obama and if I didn’t double my bet this turn, I’d break the Bookie’s bank next go-round.
McCain had taken to proclaiming that the border must first be closed before amnesty may be discussed. That is a position quite different from not only those he has expressed in the past, but more importantly those he has acted upon in the past. One expects a politician's public position to alter somewhat depending on circumstance - he is, after all, supposed to be representing the public - but this particular one strains credulity a little and causes most conservatives to question what he will really do in office - what he has said, or what he has done in the past. They're two very different things.
As far as the "gang of 14" bringing us Alito, this is a neat summation and an entirely fallacious representation of events. I do not find the sort of "bipartisanship" comprised of surrending to the other fellow's loud insistence to be particularly laudable. Once again, the conservative must wonder if there isn't a serious discrepancy between word and deed.
And as far as McCain-Feingold, the fact that it was a failure and a rather silly approach does not ameliorate the fact that it was a serious threat to freedom of speech. That McCain thought this compromise to be acceptable calls into question what else he is willing to negotiate away all in the spirit of undying bipartisan chumship in DC.
These then, are fairly serious matters for anyone contemplating voting for McCain, conservative or otherwise. I do not think marginalizing 30% of his potential vote by claiming that we're unreasonable or ideologues is likely to be a fruitful approach. McCain needs to start proposing definite programs if he's going to convince us that his future deeds will match his present words. And we need to hold him to them.
They got that part correct.
McCain Kennedy,
McCain Lieberman.
McCAin Edwards
Kerry-McCain proposal
Straight talk that Mr McMexico! No Way, NO HOW!
"Here is John McCain, on the night of the South Carolina primary:
"We want government to do its job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep."
This is not a true conservative?"
The Dems are energized. We are disspirited and divided. No way a candidate as divisive as McCain can unify the party. Even if we would all do the nose holding routine at the ballot box again, he’s cooked. I’m not holding my nose for such an awful candidate.
I still remember the GOP telling us that Bob Dole was the most electable candidate in 1996. Dole is going to lok like a steamroller compared to McManiac.
More common-sense quit-whining talk from a conservative columnist:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/who_wants_to_be_a_loser.html
February 10, 2008
Who Wants to be a Loser?
By Debra Saunders
There are elements in the Republican Party who are trying to turn the GOP into the victim party. No matter how much they’ve won, they want to see themselves as losers.
An e-mail I received from a reader summed up the resentment that has been bubbling up all over the GOP. She had liked Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter as GOP hopefuls and didn’t know if she would vote for John McCain.
“I began to rethink my allegiance to the Republican Party last summer with the immigration reform bill after party leaders told the rank and file to screw themselves,” she wrote. “I do not object to Republican leadership having a collegial relationship with Democrats. What I object to is that they always get hosed when they ‘compromise’ in the ‘spirit of bipartisanship.’ Bipartisanship, by definition of the Dems and the media, is doing it the Democrat way. Ronald Reagan, when explaining his departure from the Dem Party, said he didn’t leave the party so much as the party left him.”
I’ve received many e-mails with the same sentiment. It’s odd that those very voters, whose outrage obliterated the immigration bill (which contained amnesty provisions), somehow feel as if they lost that battle.
But they won. They killed the bill. Twice. McCain now promises to secure the borders before proposing a path to citizenship. Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton says that she opposes driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. The Bush administration has beefed up deportation of “immigration fugitives,” (illegal immigrants in violation of deportation orders) and is going after employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Bipartisanship means Democrats win? In 2006, Democrats took over Congress. Yet because President Bush has not backed down on Iraq, the Nancy Pelosi-led House and Harry Reid-led Senate are funding the war — including the troop surge, which Democrats opposed.
Washington has not made the Bush tax cuts permanent, but the cuts are still on the books and in Americans’ wallets. Bush promised to work with Democrats on an economic stimulus package. He wanted tax rebates for taxpayers and tax cuts for businesses. Democrats wanted “rebates” for those who don’t pay income taxes, an extension for unemployment benefits and increased subsidies for heating assistance and food stamps. Last week, Democrats agreed to a package that gave Bush what he wanted. While they won smaller rebates for those who pay no income tax, as well as payments for seniors and disabled veterans, the Dems didn’t get the Christmas tree they wanted.
Congressional Democrats thought they had Bush in a corner when they passed a $35 billion expansion in federal funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Bush vetoed the bill, then vetoed a second bill. He insists that eligibility be limited to children in families that earn no more than 2 1/2 times the poverty level.
Here’s another biggie: After eight years in which President Bill Clinton nominated big-government justices, Bush managed to place two solid conservatives — not conservatives in name only — in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bush is a lame duck whom the left has written off as hopelessly stupid — yet he still manages to command Beltway policy — despite a Democratic majority. Indeed, Democratic leaders, who once thought they were so smart, now look feckless before partisans who were convinced a Democratic Congress would force Bush to pull out U.S. troops from Iraq and show the world an America that cuts and runs when the going gets tough.
Still, some conservatives want to believe that they get no respect, that their side isn’t getting anywhere. Like Democrats, they want to be victims. They can always wait until 2009. Then they just might find out what not getting their way really means.
Right wing extremists
ideologues.
It's amazing how these McCain supporters now classify the conservative movement.
However, the very fact that the article is being written demonstrates the falsity of its contention. By definition, an extremist is a tiny minority (otherwise he or she wouldn't be an extremist). Political parties have never needed or even wanted extremist among them and they have never had any impact on a election. The very fact that so many McCain supporters are trying so hard to split the conservative movement shows that the anti McCain group is quite large and hardly extreme at all.