Posted on 02/11/2008 5:48:13 PM PST by Kaslin
Republicans: George Bush insists John McCain is a true conservative. James Dobson says he's not. Meanwhile, Newsweek predicts "there will be blood" in the GOP. We predict a Republican president. There has to be.
President Bush, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," responded "absolutely" to host Chris Wallace's question of whether John McCain was a "true conservative." McCain is "very strong on national defense," is "tough fiscally," "believes the tax cuts ought to be permanent" and is "pro-life," Bush noted.
For Obama and Hillary, none of the above apply.
Bush did say, "I think that if John is the nominee, he has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative." Indeed he does, as evidenced by Mike Huckabee's win in the Nebraska caucuses over the weekend.
McCain has done well in primaries where independents could vote for him. In caucuses dominated by party activists, he's done poorly. The caucuses of Maine, Minnesota, Alaska, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada and Wyoming were all won by Romney. One might dub McCain the "rebel without a caucus."
Ann Coulter may vote for Hillary Clinton, but we will not. The time for Coulters and the true believers to have rallied behind Mitt Romney was before Super Tuesday. It is by waiting for the next Reagan that they've risked sticking us with the next Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Guess it takes another "real conservative" to know one, uh?
Sitting this one out might be preferable to the alternative.
Watching Warren Rudman to vet Supreme Court candidates and McCain appointing liberal after liberal and telling us they are conservative strict constructionists is not something I look forward to.
Watching John McCain shred the first amendment with more restrictions on freedom of speech and calling it campaign reform is not desirable in my humble opinion. What is next full-throttle fairness doctrines?
Electing John McCain President and having him raise taxes is not something I want. He will justify this by saying the rich deserve their wealth confiscated because they are motivated by profit, not patriotism. I really good do without this class warfare rhetoric and attacks on the free enterprise system.
Claiming to be an advocate for a strong national defense and ramming down an open-borders immigration policy down our throats is a contradiction! Guaranteed amnesty for law breaker and criminals is not in the national defense in my estimation. John McCain has not retreated from this position — evidenced by his continuing support of Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach and immigration policy director.
Placing nuclear weapons and the national security of our country in the hands of a man who is forever seething with hatred and rage and incapable of controlling his white-hot temper does not appear to be a prudent choice in my book.
A man who contemplated joining the Democratic party and running as John Kerry’s VP does not strike me as a true conservative. Also, when we heard him say Hillary Clinton would make a great President there really should not be any doubt about his political pedigree. He is a screaming liberal. Get over it.
Maybe the worst thing is that he has held these views all his political life and now that he is running for President he claims to be a conservative, a Ronald Reagan Republican. This is an outrage of everything sacred we hold as conservatives. Anyone who believes McCain’s hogwash should seek help.
Correct, that's the direction I was trying to go in. We have indeed lost the 'moment' with respect to getting the kind of Presidential nominee we really want. But we still have better vs worse choices, and opportunities to make the best of it. We conservatives can turn this into victory in 2 ways: (1) Make this 'change' argument to be an argument about changing *away from a failed Liberal Democrat Congress, and (2) getting voters to *reject liberalism*. This is important! Let's admit that we are on defense here, and think like a defensive team. Our goal should be to stop the Democrats from scoring a touchdown this year, and turn it around so we can go on offense next election season.
With an Obama victory will come a liberal Democrat Congress coattail effect, it will be a huge win for liberals and a huge setback for our cause. So to stop liberals from gaining, we need to deny them the white house and get more conservatives in Congress. 2008 can be a 'turning point to liberalism' election, or a 'wait-and-see' election, where we collect our stuff and try to get a real conservative leader down the road. I am for making 2008 the latter.
(I'm no longer using 'Republican' or 'Democrat'. The terms are now meaningless w/r political orientation.)
that is completely factually wrong. There is a chasm of difference. Pelosi vs Boehner? Huge. Coburn vs Kennedy? Huge. Explain how they are remotely similar on abortion/life issues, the war in Iraq, and the Bush tax cuts. 100% opposite.
Part of my perspective here is the knowledge that Obama is the MOST LIBERAL senator in the senate. And Clinton is pretty darn close. It's not like we have a race between two centrists. The GOP picked a more centrist candidate, while the Democrats are going left for their candidate. The space is as big as if we picked a conservative and they picked a centrist.
And although you have a point about judicial appointments, if McCain is the next president, we'll have even more liberal legislation than with a Dem.
More liberal legislation with McCain? That is simply wrong and untrue ... McCain will have some bad compromises, like on CO2 regs, but he also will veto multiple Democrat bills that obama is rooting for. Again, McCain is for extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama wants to end them and raise taxes. " The Rs will back McCain (just as they have Bush) no matter how liberal the policies (amnesty, spending). They will oppose a Dem, however, on the exact same policies.
No, I don't see that. I see a much greater danger that Democrat single-party control will mean more advance of these. Remember, there will be a Democrat majority in all likelihood.
A vote for McCain is a 'limit the damage' vote. Just letting him beat Obama is not the real solution. The real solution is to get real conservatives back in the saddle ... but that wont happen if Obama sweeps.
And we will lose so much in an Obama era that we will spend 20-30 years recorvering from it: Mandated socialized medicine, tax hikes, cultural multiculturalism, amnesty for illegal aliens. It will all happen.
Another issue is the long-term affect on the party. This is probably similar to your SC nomination scenario in how it can devastate the country. The GOP has been advancing left for decades.
You might have a point, but let's see who McCain picks for VP. If he picks a conservative VP, it should send a better signal than if he picks a RINO. I would add: (1) We are *still* the party, we are not going away. I am all for voting for McCain on Tuesday and writing him scathing letters on wednesday on how he is not conservative enough. But more importantly (2) we should put country ahead of party. Leave aside what is best for GOP, we have to fight that out over time anyway - Ask, in this time when troops are in harms way and our economy is shaky, who is best to lead in those arenas, an inexperienced uber-liberal or a war hero and "Reagan foot soldier" turned moderate RINO?
With a McCain win, the GOP establishment will consider that that's the correct path and that they don't need conservatives.
I consider that question an open one that we answer every primary we have. On this presidential primary, we should just take our licks and, as I've said, make the best of it. We lost this primary, but there are dozens of senate primaries and House races and state and local races ... In each and every one of them are conservatives running on the GOP ticket. Boost the conservatives and defeat the RINOs every chance we can. That requires (1) *NOT* running away from the GOP or letting the RINOs take the party over, (2) fighting for the most conservative option in every race - which means when you have a RINO vs uber-liberal choice, defeat the liberal. In the end, this teaches a lesson to the Democrats to stop nominating liberals, which helps to at least reduce that risk.
But beyond that, with tens of millions of new Democrat voters (illegals), a leftward shift for decades will be inevitable.
So why complain about an electable RINO? Or are you pointing out the dangers of amnesty and how huge that would be? I agree. If the sole accomplishment of McCain were to be amnesty I too would throw the fight over to Obama. I just see some other issues at play.
And the backlash of a McCain presidency advancing this agenda will drive the WH back into the arms of the Democrats.
How do you know that? Bush got battered on 3 issues: Immigration (because he didnt secure the border); spending; and Iraq. There is also corruption. Notably, of the 4 items that dragged GOP popularity down, McCain is 'bad' on one of them, and could actually turn around GOP brand on the other 3: Finish and win in Iraq; end earmark spending and keep spending in line (he has promised "zero expansion" in entitlments and opposes the socialized medicine ideas of Hillary/Obama). On immigration, he is bad, but he claims he 'gets it' on securing the border. We should trust him not at all on this, but keep his feet to the fire.
Not that it would matter that much, since we'll have 2 liberal parties to 'chose' from. So our choices are pitiful, no matter how you spin it.
Our choices are far from great, but the choices are significant. Three is a significant difference from a prolife pro-Alito McCain and pro-abort anti-Alito Obama/Clinton on Judges. And the parties are more than one man. The GOP lived through this before - Eisenhower was a 'centrist' but the party was more rightwing as a whole than he way. He ended up winning in landslides both times.
And as far as the justices being over 70 - McCain's there himself. If that's too old for an SC justice, it's probably too old for a president. (If the next president is a one-termer, it'll likely be the one after that that appoints more justices. Most wait to quit until they are extremely ill or very, very old.)
The point is simply this: The next president will pick several Justices. It will make a huge difference in our culture and laws.
Anyone who saw my posts on McCain recently would know I’m not a McCain cheerleader. dont put labels on people that dont fit.
Should I call you an ‘obama cheerleader’ for your foolishly hopeful thought that obama will be better and cant do much damage as president, even though he’s in the mold of Ted Kennedy? I will try not to name-call,but how can you be so pollyannish to think the most liberal president ever working with the most liberal Speaker ever and a very liberal Democrat senate equals “gridlock” and not “disaster”?
“Don’t forget the part where the other diners, who have already decided that they’ll chomp down on the RINO burger, get up and start calling you names because you won’t eat the burger, and issue dire warnings about what will happen if you don’t “calm down,” “grow up” and settle for the RINO burger.”
RINO meatloaf or ‘Rat poison.
It’s whats for dinner.
The McCain Mutiny. Ought to come with it’s own line of rattles and diapers.
“I remember, and after Carter’s screw ups, we got Reagan.”
But Reagan was AROUND in 1976, nearly was the nominee.
Tell me, McCain loses and we get Obama for 4 years, the country goes through h*ll, we lose on the terror front, taxes are hiked, stagflation comes back, etc. .... who will be in the GOP to pick up the pieces? Who is this putative next-Reagan who will be so much more inspiring in 2012 than our nominee is today???
she’s been to busy trying to be bombastic rather than just being honest and funny. I think McCain could end up being a very good president if he has a strong vp and hopefully some more conservatives in congress.
I’m not going nuts pushing Obama and trying to get people to vote for him. You are doing that for McCain, posting long posts about why we need to vote for him and threatening what will happen if we don’t. So you are indeed being a ‘McCain cheerleader’ even if that’s not your intent.
Rush has made the case that it would better for a Democrat to be in the White House than McCain.
Why would you do that considering Obama has a much better chance of remaining if office for eight years?
The only red states Willard won are the ones where no other candidate campaigned (where essentially bought the state vote) or those with a large Mormon population.
“I’m not going nuts pushing Obama and trying to get people to vote for him. You are doing that for McCain, posting long posts about why we need to vote for him and threatening what will happen if we don’t”
First, I am not making any threats, I am just talking about the way things are from my viewpoint. We are going to have to make our own decisions based on the facts, but I stepped in to make some points. My post is long because you made a number of points, some I agree with and some I don’t. I wanted to distinguish the two.
One of the key points of disagreement is that you seem to think an Obama presidency would be easily corrected by some future conservative. That’s not what happened after FDR’s New Deal, America was changed permanently. After LBJ’s Great Society, Reagan eventually came around - yet medicare got bigger than ever. And I dont see us unrolling Clinton policies - he took the half-step dont-ask-dont-tell and now gay activists are pushing for the next step. Under Obama, they will get it and it will never be undone once done.
I dont consider myself a McCain cheerleader for making plain facts clear that Obama is an ultra-liberal while McCain is more center-right RINO, and stating there is a difference. I dont agree with McCain on a number of things, but at least there is 60-70% common ground, while with Obama it is more like 5%. Again, its your choice wrt what to do with those facts, but lets not pretend Obama as President wouldnt be much more liberal and in many ways worse than McCain - he would.
“He ‘gets it’ to secure the border FIRST. Then, it’s amnesty. He even said he would sign SB 2611 - McCain-Kennedy.”
You are right on that.
However, We can do to McCain what we did to Bush’s ‘comprehensive’ approach - take out the pitchforks and burn up the Congressional phone lines so bad they are afraid to pass such a bill on the floor. If we hold the line with enough conservatives in Congress, we can do it. If anything 2007 taught the elites a lesson that amnesty was the third rail. As we can see, the Democrats are going to go ‘incremental’ on this.
The way to fail here is to have an Obama landslide. Then he will pass and sign in one fell swoop, and we are truly toast as a country.
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.