Posted on 02/15/2008 9:59:22 AM PST by meandog
With Tsunami Tuesday now history, where do things stand in the Republican nomination race?
At this point we can’t know the winner absolutely but — far more than in the Democratic race — we can see clearly the shape of things to come. The Republican nominee is going to be John McCain.
I can’t vote for him. He’s just so, you know,liberal.
Liberal? In this party?
James Dobson can’t stand him. Sean Hannity wants Romney. Huckabee is solid. Strict libertarian Reason mag has run an article headlined: "Be afraid of President McCain: The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick." Ann Coulter says if McCain wins the nomination she’ll campaign for Hillary. Rush —
How odd that, far less than it accepts Reagan disciple McCain, the hard right accepts the conservatism of Romney, who came to many of his most adamant positions along about yesterday. It’s impossible to know Romney’s true principles and convictions on any major issue. On health care and judicial appointments, his records as governor of Massachusetts waft somewhere between marginal and dubious.
And Huckabee, though frequently sound, holds statist positions to match the ones the ideologues think they perceive in McCain. Moreover, Huckabee clearly is a regional candidate who has carried not a single Republican primary (his Iowa win was in caucuses) outside the South.
(Excerpt) Read more at caglepost.com ...
He is a panderer. Also, this former chair of the Commerce committee, is bought and paid for by corporate interests. Follow the money.
I know: "McCain, the arrogant pr*ck..." I counted you out back in 2000, remember.
Thanks for your comments. I think that I misread your other post. I thought that you were defending McCain.
Ancient history, meandog. He's currently the 3rd most liberal Republican in the Senate.
If you would be happy voting for Lincoln Chaffee, then you should be happy having John McCain... Are you happy, Dog ?! Does it make you go bow wow!?!
Maybe he's the lesser of 2 evils, maybe Hitlery would be easier to manage and control. Who knows?
That all depends on which cities. (just kidding) I will probably begrudgingly vote for McCain but I'm not putting up much of a fight for him to win unless he's up against Hillary. If he's up against Obama the conservative return on investment is not there.
I ask that, because I do not believe that one could even manage more than 3-to-5 states as the moderate independents and conservative democrats (basically the major part of the electorate) would run the other way screaming; and I believe the proof is borne out in the numbers of people just voting for democrats in the current primary.
Well, I will that the lesser of the THREE evils (McCain, Obama, Hillary) over the EVIL (Hillary and Obama) of the three lessers any day of the week.
It stops when you get a hard Left tyrant-wannabee who's not afraid to use power to stay in power.
>Liberal? In this party?
Yes. In this party. Get over it. Liberal with a big “L.”
As in Snow, Chaffee and
McCain/Kennedy.
Liberal.
Its a straw man argument. McCain will lose big time to hillary.
You want the conservatives to vote for him?
Some will, many will not.
Moderate GOP?
Whatever that is, maybe he has them.
Liberals and independents?
Split. Not enough difference to sway.
Anti Clinton crowd?
Many will do that. Some will not.
Broken glass Republicans? Forget it.
All out, knock down support and 24/7 GOTV effort and $$$ until it hurts?
Forget about it.
With all of the above, and better trends in some states, we barely won in 04.
Such cognitive dissonance about Romney is only a result of an inability or stubborn refusal to accept and support the candidacy of American Conservative Union 91% lifetime, four-time 100%-rated Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
How much longer before there is no reason to hold your nose because there is no difference?
And he champions amnesty and Social Security benefits for foreign invaders now. McCain has clearly wandered off into the bramble of liberalism.
McCain was executing the platform of the GOP, as led by President Bush. Damn him if you will, but damn the entire party, too...
Yes, stick to your PRINCIPLES and provide de-facto support to Hillary! or Obama on their way to the Oval Office.
Perhaps you should reflect on the words of President Ronald W. Reagan:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
Since when has compromise become a dirty word? Compromise IS politics.
The most conservative mainstream GOP politician of the last 100 years, Barry Goldwater, was right when he said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
In this case, your extremism - "My way or the highway" - WILL lead to great reductions in your liberty because you're essentially supporting Hillary! or Obama on their way to the presidency. It IS vice at that point.
If I had to choose between marrying a cheating woman or marrying a cheating man, I'll take the woman thank you.
McCain is not an ideal Republican, but at least he hews more to the conservative side of things than the alternatives.
Like your analogy - I'd rather spend time in marriage and in bed with a woman than with a man.
Not that there's anything wrong with that! - Jerry Seinfeld.
Then what’s your solution? Third party? Stay home?
Seriously, it’d be interesting to discuss your opinions.
Bingo!
No one likes to compromise, but I’d rather get more of what I want by compromising a bit than get nothing because I was standing on principle.
The “standing on principle” crowd is akin to the person crossing the road properly, who refuses to move out of the way because the oncoming car is speeding and went through a red light. Somehow or other, I don’t see having “I had the right of way” on my tombstone as the smartest thing.
In order for that premise to hold water, you have to believe that you would get more than nothing by compromising.
How did Arnold work out out in California? All the red ink gone? Better business climate? No?
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.