Posted on 02/22/2008 5:48:40 AM PST by Kaslin
Updated: 9:46 PM 02/21/08 Obama Scores, Clinton Flops on Copy Cat Spat Updated: 9:16 PM 02/21/08 Notes on Obama's Immigration Debate Talk Updated: 8:40 PM 02/21/08 <a href="http://ads.townhall.com/accipiter/adclick/CID=00014ba3d8d6daef00000000/site=TOWNHALL/area=TownHall.Web.Columnists.DouglasMacKinnon/POSITION=TOWN_SKY/AAMGEOIP=68.112.78.1"> <img src="http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/creative/MortgageMinuteAdSkycalcsky.swf" alt="" width="160" height="600" border="0"> </a> GOP to Conservatives: Drop Dead By Douglas MacKinnon Friday, February 22, 2008
As with small children, many of the entrenched, beholden, or power-hungry hierarchy of the Republican party, simply wish conservatives could be seen, but never heard.
In a very telling headline, The Washington Times recently reported, “McCain Refuses to Pander.” In the first paragraph of the article, the paper said, “John McCain's campaign manager yesterday said the candidate will not pander for conservative support…” Yeah, we know. Message received.
For those conservatives or talk radio hosts who still don’t get it, or who are still not prepared to compromise their principles for the party, then some elder statesmen have some names they’d like to call you. Chase Untermeyer, the former high level official for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the current president, said in a recent column, “At both the national and local levels, there are those who declare that certain Republican elected officials are insufficiently conservative and must be purged. Senator John McCain is getting the worst of these blasts right now, with some self-appointed tribunes of Reagan’s legacy saying they might even prefer Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – scarcely followers of the Gipper – to McCain.”
For those conservatives who admire President Reagan but would dare question the record of McCain, Mr. Untermeyer, labeled each a “SQUIRREL.” As in “Snarky Quibbler who Undermines and Ignores Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Legacy.”
“Snarky.” I guess if you went to Harvard, called yourself “Chase” instead of Charles, and mingled with the elites of the world, then “Snarky” is a name you might assign to conservatives who have an honest disagreement with John McCain. If you’re someone like me, who grew up in poverty, barely got an education, and never met an Ivory Tower elite worth a warm bucket of spit, then you might substitute the word “ethical” for snarky.
When I first came to Washington, I had the honor to work in the White House as a low-level writer for Ronald Reagan. While certainly lacking the pedigree of Mr. Untermeyer, I did share one or two special moments with that President. In a conversation that Peggy Noonan was kind enough to chronicle in her bestselling book entitled “When Character Was King,” President Reagan and I spoke in the Oval Office about the alcoholism of our fathers, poverty, and the cruelty of life. It was actually because of Ronald Reagan’s wisdom, kindness, and suggestion, that I was able to reach out to my estranged father.
Understanding that, I’m more than proud to plead guilty to using Ronald Reagan as the template for true conservatism. As such, I just don’t think there is any way that anyone can accurately equate Reagan’s conservative legacy with McCain’s moderate voting record. Does saying that make me a bad person? Am I now an Untermeyer “Squirrel?”
The thought of voting for Clinton or Obama makes me nauseous. We are a nation at war with Islamists who mean to exterminate us. To vote for Clinton or Obama is to vote for the authority to wave the flag of appeasement or surrender. I have no intention of voting for the next Neville Chamberlain.
John McCain is a good person. I do believe he has the best interests of our nation at heart. That said, as an American, it’s my right to disagree with him on substance. John McCain heroically fought and sacrificed to give me that right, and for that, I am forever grateful. On issues such as immigration, taxes, judges, global warming, drilling in Anwar, and the detention and prosecution of enemy combatants, I take issue with some of his past comments, votes, or current positions.
Unfortunately, the message I’m getting from the Republican establishment is that conservatives should bite their tongues, do their duty, and await the crumbs that may come their way in a McCain administration. Is that what it’s come to? Party loyalty before principle?
In endorsing McCain the other day, former President George H.W. Bush said, “…no one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain.” Really? No one? Does this incredibly decent former president truly believe that McCain is better prepared to lead this nation than say, his own son, Jeb? Or Mitt Romney?
In his endorsement, the former president also said, “…I believe now is the time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad-based coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall.”
“Conservative values.” That’s all this election is about for millions of Americans who choose to put country before party. As such, they are entitled to have McCain further define or clarify his “conservative values.” He needs to earn their vote.
Like Untermeyer, former President Bush questioned those on the right who question McCain. He called such criticism “grossly unfair” and an “unfair attack.”
If some in the party succeed in quashing the conservative voice, then they will have silenced the conscience of America. Surely, John McCain will stand shoulder to shoulder with conservatives to prevent such an outcome.
Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming novel, The Apocalypse Directive.
Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. GOP to Conservatives: Drop Dead By Douglas MacKinnon Friday, February 22, 2008 Send an email to Douglas MacKinnon Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (27) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
As with small children, many of the entrenched, beholden, or power-hungry hierarchy of the Republican party, simply wish conservatives could be seen, but never heard.
In a very telling headline, The Washington Times recently reported, “McCain Refuses to Pander.” In the first paragraph of the article, the paper said, “John McCain's campaign manager yesterday said the candidate will not pander for conservative support…” Yeah, we know. Message received.
For those conservatives or talk radio hosts who still don’t get it, or who are still not prepared to compromise their principles for the party, then some elder statesmen have some names they’d like to call you. Chase Untermeyer, the former high level official for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the current president, said in a recent column, “At both the national and local levels, there are those who declare that certain Republican elected officials are insufficiently conservative and must be purged. Senator John McCain is getting the worst of these blasts right now, with some self-appointed tribunes of Reagan’s legacy saying they might even prefer Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – scarcely followers of the Gipper – to McCain.”
For those conservatives who admire President Reagan but would dare question the record of McCain, Mr. Untermeyer, labeled each a “SQUIRREL.” As in “Snarky Quibbler who Undermines and Ignores Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Legacy.”
“Snarky.” I guess if you went to Harvard, called yourself “Chase” instead of Charles, and mingled with the elites of the world, then “Snarky” is a name you might assign to conservatives who have an honest disagreement with John McCain. If you’re someone like me, who grew up in poverty, barely got an education, and never met an Ivory Tower elite worth a warm bucket of spit, then you might substitute the word “ethical” for snarky.
When I first came to Washington, I had the honor to work in the White House as a low-level writer for Ronald Reagan. While certainly lacking the pedigree of Mr. Untermeyer, I did share one or two special moments with that President. In a conversation that Peggy Noonan was kind enough to chronicle in her bestselling book entitled “When Character Was King,” President Reagan and I spoke in the Oval Office about the alcoholism of our fathers, poverty, and the cruelty of life. It was actually because of Ronald Reagan’s wisdom, kindness, and suggestion, that I was able to reach out to my estranged father.
Understanding that, I’m more than proud to plead guilty to using Ronald Reagan as the template for true conservatism. As such, I just don’t think there is any way that anyone can accurately equate Reagan’s conservative legacy with McCain’s moderate voting record. Does saying that make me a bad person? Am I now an Untermeyer “Squirrel?”
The thought of voting for Clinton or Obama makes me nauseous. We are a nation at war with Islamists who mean to exterminate us. To vote for Clinton or Obama is to vote for the authority to wave the flag of appeasement or surrender. I have no intention of voting for the next Neville Chamberlain.
ohn McCain is a good person. I do believe he has the best interests of our nation at heart. That said, as an American, it’s my right to disagree with him on substance. John McCain heroically fought and sacrificed to give me that right, and for that, I am forever grateful. On issues such as immigration, taxes, judges, global warming, drilling in Anwar, and the detention and prosecution of enemy combatants, I take issue with some of his past comments, votes, or current positions.
Unfortunately, the message I’m getting from the Republican establishment is that conservatives should bite their tongues, do their duty, and await the crumbs that may come their way in a McCain administration. Is that what it’s come to? Party loyalty before principle?
In endorsing McCain the other day, former President George H.W. Bush said, “…no one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain.” Really? No one? Does this incredibly decent former president truly believe that McCain is better prepared to lead this nation than say, his own son, Jeb? Or Mitt Romney?
In his endorsement, the former president also said, “…I believe now is the time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad-based coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall.”
“Conservative values.” That’s all this election is about for millions of Americans who choose to put country before party. As such, they are entitled to have McCain further define or clarify his “conservative values.” He needs to earn their vote.
Like Untermeyer, former President Bush questioned those on the right who question McCain. He called such criticism “grossly unfair” and an “unfair attack.”
If some in the party succeed in quashing the conservative voice, then they will have silenced the conscience of America. Surely, John McCain will stand shoulder to shoulder with conservatives to prevent such an outcome.
Only a coward refuses to face the fact that McCain is barely getting half the votes Hillary is losing with. But go ahead and BELIIIIEVE like a DUmmie.
So who is throwing the hissyfit? Those of us who accept reality or those who think they can will a win out of McQueeg.
“This is exactly what a troll would say to discourage and divide the republicans.
“This is exactly what an empty headed party hack would say to discourage conservatives from thier principals so his socialist can win the POTUS”
What principals’ (sic) are you claiming to represent and what do you desire in the next President? What are the things he ought to do?
The principled conservative position would be: Vote for the more conservative candidate. It’s wrong to call that a ‘party hack’ position when in fact its based on conservative POV.
Also, McCain is not a socialist. Look at single digit ACU rating folks like Obama and Clinton for real socialists. There is no point in abusing the term into meaninglessness.
We have gotten a lot from the conservative Republican elected officials, on taxes, regulation, life, judges, national security and other areas. The Democrats in Congress have been wrong in all areas. Name a conservative principle and I can name dozens, if not a majority of Republican office-holders who will sign up for that.
So the claim that we’ve gotten nothing is just false. And even where parts of the GOP are really wrong (eg Bush and McCain on immigration) *most* of the party officials and officeholders are with us.
So why the whining and complaining? It’s an attempt to reassert control over the parties future thats at risk to RINO control. But is whining a conservative principle? I never got that out of my readings of William F Buckley, Russell Kirk, Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich. maybe one can find a cite.
I think we should be a movement based on winning not whining. The first step to winning is NOT TO LOSE. we can reassert control of the GOP no by whining or sulking or sitting out november but by positive forward-thinking positive action.
If Obama wins, it is a huge loss and body blow to conservatives; we go to the back of the bus. As liberal blogger willis put it - the conservative movement is set back by 10 years. If MCCain wins, it may not be a win, but it wont be a loss; we regroup and regain GOP influence and push agenda forward.
The difference is that if Obama wins, the entire federal govt 2 main branches is ‘enemy territory’ and we are 100% locked out of influence for 4-8 years.
Conservatives need to examine all of their positions and see if there might be any sort of a rational cause for it.
Well stated!
Maybe, because the forum breaks news to the masses faster than network and cable can keep up? Perhaps THAT'S why 'we' have an inflated sense of power and importance as a voting bloc?
I consider myself Conservative. I'll gladly support John McCain with all his warts...under the current circumstances we face in the world today.
For that level of conservative that can't say, "Okay, I'll vote for you, but you owe us BIG TIME"....you must seriously consider they have a mental illness and need intervention.
But, let's just keep that between us, okay? ;^)
Reagan’s Legacy is Kaput if Obama wins.
Obama seeks to destroy everything Reagan believes in.
Ergo, we must defeat Obama to preserve our freedom.
It wouldnt matter who is running on GOP. It could be a wet dishrag for all I care. That would be much less dangerous for USA than Obama.
“I “may” end up puking and voting for macnasty... but his ACU rating is 65% NOT 85%.”
The 65% is his 2007 number. The 83.2% is McCain’s lifetime ACU number.
This debate is like arguing about how bad the food is on the night the Titanic hit the iceberg. Three is a far more serious, life-threatening event about to take place - the most left-wing President in American history about to be elected.
Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8% (86th place).
See:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html
The truly amazing thing is, I’ll bet you read the King James version just like I do. Of course so did Jim Jones before he passed out the Poison Kool-Aid...
The minute they get control of all three branches of govt, they are going to fix the process so that they never lose power.
Absolutely right! They will exploit the illegal immigrant to their advantage...to be adored as their savior.
For example, I could see a bill that grants amnesty to a young male and his immediate family, should they enlist in the military. That could be marketed in such a way, you'd need a kleenex to dry your eyes. [/s]
That's a helleva big voting bloc. Anyway, I'm hoping that John McCain can beat them to the punch. Hispanics can be very comfortable in the GOP.
“Not to minimize the horrors of partial birth abortion, but just today someone tossed a live fetus into a hospital garbage can and it died. No President can stop this kind of horror with laws.”
We cannot stop rape, burglary or fraud with laws, but it takes great malfeasance as a legislator to suggest we legalize such behavior!!!
In that incident above, Obama proposes keeping it legal. he voted against the born-alive protection act. Obama favors legal infanticide.
What he wants to make illegal are handguns (supports DC gun ban). and he wants to end the lower taxes we have had under bush. No protect for life, no protection for liberty, no protection for pursuit of happiness. Go figure.
“We need to think big picture - the damage either of these men will do to our country would be enormous. The difference, with Obama at least there will be some opposition.” So if obama does X, we’ll oppose but not if mccain do - I call BS on this as we did oppose bush/mccain and others on immigration last year.
ON the contrary I see the opposite. On issue after issue after issue, Obama is distinctly worse than McCain, but nobody here (including you in that post) is pointing that out and calling it out. And of course the *media* wont oppose it. When Obama wheels out amnesty, it wont help to call our GOP senators - we needed to have Democrat senators to help us, and they did - but in 2009, if obama wins, those 8 or so Democrats will get squeezed and for the ‘good of the party’ (Dems) will foist amnesty on us.
Result: Obama gets a free ride to move the entire country far left. No conservative stops him because we are too busy trying to be the big fish in an ever shrinking GOP pond.
You make a mistake in thinking that I am a Republican or that I really care about the GOP or regaining control of it, as if Conservatives ever had anything more than just a seat at the table.
The media has practiced successful devide-and-conquer tactics on us for years now.
In 2006, a decent conservative santorum was trashed by 'conservatives' for the crime of endorsing the incumbent Republican colleague of his. I spent (wasted?) time on dozens of threads defending this good conservative from freepers like "BadRay" who bashed Santorum constantly ... I only found out checking just now that BadRay now has - "This account has been banned or suspended."
in 2006, people on FR, instead of seeing the media-bash-fest as an attack on US, joined in the 'fun' of bashing good conservative George Allen, blaming him for his troubles. MeanDog and others joined in the fun, thinking Jim Webb would be swell (yeah, swell enough to make defeat-monger Harry Reid majority leader).
That cost us an excellent conservative Republican in a close race.
In 2007, I saw in Mitt Romney an extremely accomplished man, a good class-act, smart guy, running on Reaganesque themes. what did he get for his trouble? People bashing his religion, his character, using hyperbole and irrelevent cr*p to drag him down. It would be one thing if there was a super duper conservative alternative besides him but - the cupboard was bare. Fred got no zoom, no help from media, etc.
That cost us the best Republican nominee we could have fielded this year, a man who could go toe to toe with Obama in any debate and slam-dunk beat him.
Each step of the way to this disaster, conservatives had a choice - focus on UNIFYING and WINNING or focus on division, harping and negativity, fed by a media and liberals driving these divisions. What did too many pick? The divisions, the negativity, the bashing of Republicans for being imperfect while not keeping in perspective the real alternatives. I am sick and tired of 'suicide conservatives' playing into the media hands!
And now we have this ... "The party is likely to field its weakest candidate in memory, John McCain. If Obama turns out to be the Democratic nominee, it will be hard to motivate people to the extent they would be motivated against Hillary, whom even many Democrats loathe." ... I'm sorry but I am sick and tired of the defeatism and negativity and bashing and downright basic LACK IF DESIRE TO WIN.
Freepers, why are you/we here? Why do you even give a cr*p about politics? Do you want to lose so it can give you a right to complain? I doubt it. then why? I bet if you reached down inside and asked yourself you'd realize you care out of patriotism, you have strong opinions about what is right, and you want to see the right things to happen.
Well, I feel that way too. I believe in America, in freedom, and in limited Government and I want our govt to reflect that. I don't want socialism or the rot of multi-culti moral relativism, etc. Well ... we have a stark choice here.
One choice is mostly-okay (life, GWOT, judges, spending) with some bad spots (immigration) - McCain.
The other choice is outright dangerous on all levels - Obama.
What is the media's agenda, as of last week? TEAR MCCAIN DOWN! That's what the NYTimes piece is all about - a signal that 'open season' will begin. Something embargoed while the liberal media worked to get the more conservative candidates out of the way - and suicide conservatives helped them do that. ... and what will suicide conservatives do now? Help the media?
I hope not. we need to keep our eye on the prize - the left-liberals want the white house and we need to keep it out of their hands for a while so we as conservatives can move the political ground back out way.
"If the allegations about Obama engaging in drug use and sodomy in 1999 are as groundless they are dont even go there as those claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist in the early 2000s, and there is little other dirt out there, he will be hard to beat."
we will defeat Obama on one basic issues - HE IS TOO EXTREME . HE IS A LIBERAL EXTREMIST WITH NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR AMERICA. The most liberal senator, with absolutely NO record of accomplishment at a time when Bush is lowest in the polls, is still under 50% versus McCain.
CONSERVATIVES WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE! Either we rally to McCain or the far-left will have the biggest victory in American history. Never before has a Ted Kennedy-type liberal won a presidential race so openly.
I believe Obama is a Marxist and would withdraw U.S. forces unless under a UN or NATO banner, but he will not show his true colors until January 21, 2009.
The leftist agenda of Obama has been shown but only to discerning voters. It will be up to us to expose this and spread this or, yes, Obama will win.
The Obama v McCain choice is not much different from the choices in the past - Ford v Carter, GHWBush v Dukakis, Dole v Clinton, GWBush v Kerry.
Only this time, the least experienced and most liberal candidate in history is the pick of the Democrats. In this year, the most dangerous man, due in part to his cult-like following and his rhetorical pull on young voters, is their nominee. He is a bad dangerous choice for America, but will make leftism more popular than ever.
If we don't oppose him, a Tsunami of left-liberalism will wash over America in the coming decade. We wont recognize the country by the time he's done.
I do not base my support on any one, two, or three issues. My beliefs are built around the Conservative ideology. If you have to ask, you aren’t one. I want ALL political decisions measured against these tried and true Conservative principles. Whenever a politician studies a problem or event and looks for government to become involved, I want those decisions to fit into and be a part of the Conservative ideology. If a decision runs counter to these principles, then it is the wrong decision.
I am tired of politicians taking the easy way out or doing things the liberal way because of PC or personal gain. What do I want from my President? I want a true Conservative... no more and no less. Anything less will continue the slow march to rino-socialism that we have been on for far too long.
I am pro-Life... pro Second Amendment... pro Law Enforcement... pro Border Security... pro Immigration Law Enforcement... pro Military... pro use of the Military against all enemies (foreign and domestic if it comes to that)... I am for shrinking the enormous monster that is the Fed... I am for TAX CUTS... I am for spending reductions... I am for building up our Military... I am for helping those amongst us that need our help... but not the one’s that scam because they are lazy or think that the cut of their jib defines their special needs. I am for term limits... I am for strong Constructionist Justices... I am for tearing down and rebuilding of the CIA from the ground up... I am for the cleaning out and disinfecting of Foggy Bottom... and I am for the total destruction of islamic radicals... and I want iran to pay a price so large that any future islamo-satanist will cower at the thought of our anger... ALL that I ask of my representatives is to measure any plans and decisions against sound Conservative Principles and ideology... if it fits, do it... if it does not fit, change the plan or decision until it does fit.
LLS
The 65% figure is the John mcnasty that is running for OFFICE today... not years ago. 65% is where he is today and he will go lower if elected as President.
Here is an analogy for you...
Arguing whether a turd from a poodle tastes better than a turd from a Bulldog does not change the reality that both taste like ****!
LLS
“McCain has zero chance against Obama” False - it aint over until its over.
There are a lot of encouraging polls in ‘blue states’ that indicate McCain is competitive there. Obama looks more ‘electable’ only because he is being judged on his moderate-sounding and positive rhetoric and not his extreme liberal record. If and when that is drawn out, McCain will win states like Iowa and Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania(Franklin and Marshall, pdf)
McCain 46 - Clinton 46
McCain 44 - Obama 43
Iowa (Rasmussen)
McCain 47 - Clinton 37
Obama 44 - McCain 41
Virginia (Rasmussen)
McCain 51 - Clinton 41
McCain 49 - Obama 44
Kansas (SurveyUSA)
McCain 59 - Clinton 35
McCain 50 - Obama 44
New York (SurveyUSA)
Clinton 52 - McCain 41
Obama 57 - McCain 36
OBAMA IS LIKE A BUBBLE STOCK - WE CAN ONLY HOPE THE CRASH HAPPENS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,536232,00.html
“She’s half right. The apologists for both parties are very similar in their worldview when it comes right down to it.”
Not really.
Democrat ideologues don’t think anything like conservatives like me. And if you are a conservative they dont think like you.
Defending the proposition that “Democrats do really bad stuff so I oppose them and fear them gaining power” is *NOT* fearmongering on behalf of a party.
It is simply fearing bite of tyranny that nibble away at our freedom.
The whole anti’fear’ thing is a pure hype/marketing tool on behalf of Obama. you see, he is selling change. That change is bunch of awful socialist dreck that has been tried and failed before.
But it is so artfully packaged and shined up it looks new. So what does a cult-leader tell the cultist flock to keep them locked into the hype?
“Dont listen to outsiders.” - this is a classic cult-programming tool. Now, how do you get followers to tune it out? You have to get them to automatically reject any views/contrary data as flawed. So you tie it to a bad emotion ... “Hey, that’s fearmongering” “that’s the politics of fear.”
A *rational* response is to ask.
“Well, is the fear *real* or not?”
After all, in the 1930s Churchill was a fear-monger, who warned Britian of the danger of Nazi Germany and their plans for domination and war. His fearmongering was ignored - yet it was on target!
Let me fearmonger a second: Obama’s plans to end Bush’s tax cuts will cause $1 trillion in tax hikes over the next 5 years. They will almost certainly put the economy into a severe tailspin and cause and/or worsen a recession.
Valid? I submit to you the results of 1990 tax hike, which caused the 1990-1991 recession to be more severe.
One cannot simply call someone a member of the ‘fear party’ simply because they expose flaws in bad ideas. Obama is the killer of good ideas and the promoter of bad ideas.
Thanks for the help. I was starting to think it was me against the world.
We conservatives are on defense right now. So, think like a defensive team. When you stop the other side from scoring a huge touchdown that will move their agenda hugely forward you've done some good. Obama winning in 2008 is like the Liberals winning the superbowl.
If we can stop the left-liberals from getting the most liberal President in American history elected, we will have stopped a huge win.
What's on the line? Judges - good vs bad ones, lower tax rates vs Obama's tax hikes, Obama's plan to turn every college kid into a liberal-sheeple-community-activist on taxpayer dime!!, Obama's retreate and defeat out of Iraq, Obama's plan to sit down with our enemies and apologize for America.
We advance conservatism by stopping 2 more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. McCain has promised Alito/Roberts types. He wants credentialed judges for SCOTUS, a good metric for conservatives to see what's up.
Simply stopping Obama's agenda will be a huge win for conservatives. Now McCain himself is not perfect, but we conservatives can be a 'loyal opposition' that supports him on the 70-80% stuff that is good, and opposes him on stuff like immigration where we part company. We did that with Bush on immigration and it worked for us - we stopped amnesty. McCain has promised border security *FIRST* so we have a few years to move the ball on that in the *right* direction before we have to refight that battle.
All in all, McCain will be not much more annoying than Bush. A bit more of a nanny-stater, but better on spending and will have good instincts on Iraq and GWOT overall. Three more reasons he will be better than Obama btw.
“The fact that the original poster cannot see any difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton is idiotic.”
The simple proposition/agreement that McCain is more conservative than Obama and Clinton should be an ‘opening agreement’ statement and starting point for this discussion.
Anyone arguing that basic fact are simply refusing to have a balanced and rational discussion, and are merely trying to blur lines to avoid the real issue, which is a feeling of “He is better than the other side, but he’s not good enough for me.”
McCain has a 82% lifetime ACU rating, recent ratings of 65-75%.
On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html
It’s ok. You are one of several prodigal sons. When you return home the fatted calf will be killed and there will be rejoicing.
Your absence will not be brought up as the joy of your return is celebraated. The family knows you have your reasons for the absence and thats all that need be brought up
LOL!!
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.