Posted on 02/22/2008 5:48:40 AM PST by Kaslin
No one who is right of center would dream of proposing the amnesty nightmare that he lusts after and would never have voted AGAINST admitting gang members and TERRORESTS into this country. Then there is McCain-Feingold and on and on. Basically, he wants to turn this into a Third World nation. He lies so much that he could be anything. Anyone who saw him giggle and talk to himself on TV has reason to question his mental health.
You don’t get the whole point unless you read every post on this thread. I was just getting started there.
I never know what to believe with McCain. he may say that he admires Roberts, but I doubt he knows why. If he has a Dem congress, which in all likelihood he will, his willingness to cross the aisle in the past does not comfort me. He will give make some kind of deal that gives us a Souter.
“I think WOSG may be underestimating the dangers of McCain,”
I think some conservatives are underestimating the dangers of Obama. They are focussed on one piece of it not the whole picture; they are focussed on the past and not the future.
“but calling him a “shill” would be wrong.”
People reach for the name-calling when they run out of arguments. I was vehement in wanting someone other than McCain to be our nominee, but the chasm of difference between a moderate-to-conservative McCan and a left-liberal like Obama compels me to stick up for the better choice for conservatives. This is consistent, smart, pragmatic conservatism.
Frankly, its not even about party loyalty. Our country may deserve loyalty, but a party no more deserves it than the local supermarket. The party is a brand, selling a type of politician - the GOP is Growth Opportunity and Prosperity; it’s Faith, Family, Freedom & USA strong national security. I am only loyal to Republicans to the extent that they are loyal to what we believe in, and so I defend Republicans when others complain because in truth 80% of Republican officials are on our conservative side 80+% of the time.
So the complaints about McCain, while legitimate, are misdirected if used to paint the whole GOP with the brush from one candidate.
“McCain has not yet convinced me to vote for him. I will vote for Duncan Hunter in the Texas primary and vote for my own conservative local and national candidates, including my US House Representative John Carter, who called last year’s amnesty bill “intolerable.””
FWIW, I have no intention of voting for McCain in the primary as well. I’m gravitating to keyes to send a message, since he’s in the race; our best nominee imho would have been Romney. And Carter does have a good approach - law enforcement approach - on immigration. Part of the reason I am confident that we would do better on immigration w/ McCain than Obama is because 90% of the Republicans in Congress, especially the House *DO* get it. If we have a GOP House and/or get close to it, we will have turned the corner on amnesty.
I want McCain to come to conservatives, and I think conservatives should at least vote for McCain. Two weeks ago I was at a point where I said “I’ll vote for McCain but that’s it. I wont support him.” Yet, the more I learn about how liberal Obama is, the more I think this election will be a big difference election.
If there are conservatives who need McCain to do X,Y or Z in order to rally to him, lets lay out what they are. In truth, McCain is not worse than Bush on immigration, is better on spending, and his other deviations leave him miles ahead of liberal Democrats overall.
If people want to call telling it like it is ‘shilling’, then they can live in their own dream world for all I care.
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.
“How many Republicans are beneath McCain on that list?”
There are no more than 10 Republicans ... BUT THERE ARE 50 DEMOCRATS WHO ARE MORE LIBERAL.
If “Traitorous bastards” is what you call those who voted for immigration amnesty why are you not using that term on proamnesty Barack Obama and pro-amnesty Hillary Clinton?
“It’s going to take me awhile to reconcile between the two camps... I am not yet sure what to do in the general. On the one hand, McCain may be our best hope against completely losing the WOT. On the other, he may be the last straw in completing the GOPs de-evolution into liberal chaos, with no way back from the abyss.”
My point is that whether McCain wins or loses, this is an ongoing battle that takes place in primary races from local school boards to the presidential race. We ought not confuse primary races, which define our party choices, with general elections - which decide the future of the country.
Nor should we assume that there is no way back on the party choices; its the future of the country that will be harder to turn around. (Because once the liberals get the keys to power, they find ways to fund the left and lock us out - completely!) More important to our future of the party is what happens in the ‘farm team’ races of state reps, congressional races, mayors and governors. Are conservatives running? Are we supporting them? Are they winning? I know right now that good conservative Republican state reps in Texas are being challenged in primaries by special interests. Look up Nathan Macias and Phil King, two good conservatives who voted against the gambling interests in Texas and are up against dishonest campaigns for it:
http://www.empowertexans.com/node/445
A pro-education-reform conservative was knocked off by an educrat RINO 2 years ago. On the flip side, we have just a few weeks seen a conservative defeat an infamous RINO, in a Maryland congressional race... Nine-term Republican Wayne Gilcrest was beat by a more conservative foe.
“Obama being raw and inexperienced on top of his liberalism may help us. He may fumble in putting together and executing the liberal ideas he’s trying to sell.” - Whistling past the graveyard. The election will be about what is best for the country. Policy-wise, he will lean on his mentors Durbin and Kennedy, and left-liberal legislation WILL happen.
His inexperience and naivite will hurt USA for decades to come, just as happened with our experience under Jimmy Carter.
“On the other hand, he could actually succeed on some of his agenda.” - Of course he will succeed! Even if it is a small portion, the President has enormous power of appointments, etc.
” In either case, he has a distinct possibility of being so Carter-like as to completely turn off the American public to Dimocrats, then we can revolutionize 1994 style.” - This is complete wishful thinking IMHO by people rationalizing defeat and wishing for an escape from responsibility. Obama will be more like FDR or Clinton - if he wins, he will use the levers of power to get re-elected and squeeze out the conservatives. His plan to fund college kids and turn them into little liberal local community activists is worth a few million more votes right there - and the cost? you and I pay it as taxpayers; so too with the unions. They get more power, which Obama will give them, and you’ve got another millions or two votes. last, Obama’s amnesty; he is more extreme on this than anyone and for sure, his pro-drivers license for illegals and anti voting ID position add up to to - legalize the aliens and get them voting ASAP - for Democrats.
You know, if conservatives really are the majority, they are going to have to think and act like it and not try desperately to keep losing what ever shred of influence we have. Honestly, its like a death wish. First the death wish to avoid coming together on a conservative alternative to teh RINOs - so we get a RINO nominee. Now that the nominee is decided, they want to run away from a half loaf and get the worst possible outcome - a far-left liberal in the White House.
“I really don’t know how it will turn out. Both avenues are mighty grim. Makes me wish I could see into the future!”
History repeats itself enough to know this - Every president faces at least one serious crisis:
- GHWBush faced Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait
- GWBush faced 9/11
- Carter faced the Iranian hostage taking
- Reagan faced Grenada, Afghanistan and USSR/Poland
Obama is another Carter. he would have bungled all of these crises. We will face another crisis, Obama will bungle it, and we will suffer the consequences down the road. I have young kids. I dont want them to have to go to war 10-15 years from now because we screwed up with an Obama in the White House. It was Carter’s bungling that fostered terrorism that lead to both lebanon involvement, gulf war and even Al Qaeda/911. Who knows what damage can occur with a soft-on-Muslim-terrorism President like Obama!
“proposing the amnesty nightmare that he lusts after and would never have voted AGAINST admitting gang members and TERRORESTS into this country.” - Barack Obama is for that.
” Then there is McCain-Feingold and on and on.” Barack Obama is for that, for taxpayer funding of political campaigns and for the anti-1st-amendment ‘fairness doctrine.
” Basically, he wants to turn this into a Third World nation.” - Barack Obama wants to do that as well.
“He lies so much that he could be anything.” - Barack Obama’s rhetoric doesnt match his empty suit record.
There couldn't be a worse a scenario than a liberal Republican in governor's office or White House. Everything that goes wrong gets blamed on the RINO while Democrats gain or maintain control of the legislature
I agree 100% that McClintock should have been our governor. He would probably have been a major player for president.
I disagree with your opinion that a weak Republican is worse than a democrat. California democrats have a stranglehold on the state and they deserve the blame for the mess we have in this state.
I understand that. Many of our libertarian FRiends are pro-choice to this very day. But they retain a respect toward the pro-lifers that is entirely different from the disdain shown by the moderate/liberal pro-choice movement.
Likewise, I can respect the principles behind the libertarian position wrt the life issue, because they recognize the problem, but have a preference toward responsible personal freedom in all things, and generally support the necessity of the Judeo-Christian ethic. I am less likely to respect the others.
So there is equity and room for compromise within the spirit of Reagan Conservatism. That doesn't mean that one must compromise on everything. Such is the lot of Baker's big tent.
okay, but uniting means coming together. If we are going to unite fiscal, national security and social conservatives, we cannot force members of that coalition to adopt 100% the same views, or the coalition would break down.
They do adopt much the same view- That is the purpose of the party platform. Any Republican of good character who professes to adhere to the party platform and traditions, and has a record to prove it, will have no problem getting votes from Conservatives.
As you say - "No faction should be forced to submit to the others." Just as others should not force us to submit, we cannot force them to submit. The way out? Recognize that we need to support eachother without giving up on our ideals.
Indeed. But therein lies the rub. McCain is not a man of good character, and is appalling to socons and libertarians. I cannot imagine that his policy toward immigration endears him to ficons of any sort, when one considers the cost in services either. Defcons like him for the most part.
So even without considering his betrayals, we have a candidate that is only supported by the RINOs and the defcons- Everyone else is expected to assume BOHICA mode and take yet another one for the team. This isn't what Reagan Conservatism requires. This is Baker's big tent.
if this is a 'what would Reagan do' question, then the answer is to do what Reagan did in 1976 after the primary was over - he endorsed the Republican nominee and worked hard to get him elected.
That is only possible within certain limits- Something fairly close to the Republican platform and traditions. I don't know where that line is crossed exactly, where compromise can no longer be made, but we are far away from it this year.
It requires no convincing. It is evident on it's face. If you fear the alternative, continue on the present course. Soon there will be no alternative at all.
>>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.<<
More likely, if McCain succeeds in his next amnesty push, he will be helping the Dems to obtain an unbeatable majority in the future. Barring a true miracle, it’s McCain or a Dem. Maybe McCain will win the general election (a very big IF) and keep his word about securing the border first (although I’m not holding my breath). That should take at least 4 years, and perhaps Republicans will nominate a conservative next time.
There's a Dark Storm coming. Between our economy and world events, anybody that even looks beyond 4 years is living a fantasy.
Therefore, whose finger do you want on that button?
Given the choices, McCain laps the field.
I would be inclined to make a simple observation wrt your statement. The only way back from the abyss is to stop moving toward it. Compromise only leads to fewer steps forward, a mere delay of the inevitable end.
There will be no salvation if we do not stop, turn around, and start heading back away from the abyss. The political machinery to do just that is in the hands of the Republicans, they just refuse to use it.
If there is no opposition, there is no hope. If the Republicans are the opposition to liberalism, Why are we electing liberals?
>>Given the choices, McCain laps the field.<<
Yes, and Neville Chamberlain was better than Leon Trotsky, but that’s not saying much for Chamberlain.
I most vehemently disagree with that statement. Socialists of Reagan's day would be considered center, or even moderate right today. Continued moderation in the last thirty years has continually moved the center to the left by a great degree.
There are no more than 10 Republicans ... BUT THERE ARE 50 DEMOCRATS WHO ARE MORE LIBERAL.
More like five to my recollection. Either way, McCain is DEEP in RINO country.
If “Traitorous bastards” is what you call those who voted for immigration amnesty why are you not using that term on proamnesty Barack Obama and pro-amnesty Hillary Clinton?
The traitorous bastard has far, far more against him than just "immigration". McCain-Feingold alone is enough of a betrayal for me.
But wrt Obama/Clinton, I have no control of the enemy outside the gate. Better to let them advance, even right up to the walls, if we can remove the back-stabbers who would defeat us from within. What good the gate, what purpose the wall, if the traitor lurks in the dead of night to throw the bolt and open the gate?
The GOP is on the wrong track and I won’t be a part of it, just that simple.
Don’t accuse me of being a cut and run Republican cuz I really am a RINO and don’t pretend otherwise.
The GOP is going left, left, left and I won’t go with it.
There is a time to realize when to let go of something before it drags you down with it.
McCain is a poor choice as a candidate and if the best you have is that he isn’t Hillary or Obama, then you are backing the wrong man.
Quit having to convince yourself you’re doing the right thing with McCain cuz you can’t without killing your conscience and selling out.
Yes, selling out. You do this then no GOP candidate will be so bad you can’t vote for him. That’s right, in 4-8 years you might see a Log Cabin GOP candidate...and YOU WILL VOTE FOR HIM....because, hey, he isn’t Obama or Jackson, Jr., or Chelsea, etc.
Find another candidate.
Not calling him one, warning him that he is very close to becoming one.
If the GOP can vote for McCain this time, they will get a Log Cabin candidate next time.
Look if you don't want to vote for McCain that's fine. I haven't endorced him yet either.
That said your above there-isn't-a-dime's-worth-of-difference comment is a poor rationalization.
Continuing down the path of compromise, demanding nothing more that an "R" after the name of our candidates, is the sure way to political suicide. It is those who press us further on that prove to be uninterested in stopping the turn to the left.
Amen.
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.