John McCain Leads the Gutless Old Party

Thanks for the response.

I do not think Conservatism was pushed all that stridently this year. You may see it different.

Every candidate tried to lay claim to the Reagan mantle. From my POV, conservatism (at least FR conservatism) has come to embody immigration as the #1 issue. Every candidate but McCain adopted a no-tollerence policy on illegal immigration. If conservatism was a powerful force in American politics, anyone but wishywashy, get along McCain should have won the nomination.

It could be that the American people were decieved on McCain's stances, or that the Powers That Be( Illuminati, Trilateral Commision, Council on Foriegn Relation, Bildeburger...insert a million all powerful entities here) fooled us all agian...or McCain appealed to more GOP primary voters.

I think it was the later. I believe conservatism was rejected by the GOP primary voters in favor of...a new Washington tone. Kinda like in 2000.

I’m beginning to understand your obnoxious attitude. For whatever reason you have decided I am a supporter of McPain that placed the B-stard in the running again after he was down and out last year. Not at all. I was a Fred supporter all the way.

Still wondering how McPain became the candidate when he was out of money, down and out by all counts. Actually he was rejected up front...how did he come back to become (almost) the GOP candidate? Possibly Soros? Possibly tinkering within the RINO leadership of the Gutless Old Party? Perhaps all of the above.

“The Democrats took full control of the Legislature back in 2006.”

“Full Control”, I think not. Perhaps the leadership, but that’s not “Full Control”. Mind how they have been embarrassed and stopped at most every turn because they haven’t “Full Control”.

“But you just illustrated my point in the first place.”

I would hope the author of the article had achieved that.

I disagree with all of you out there that believe for whatever reason that it would be good for the Dems/Libs/Socialists with all their mischief making minions to gain the leadership of this Nation in November, or in the future. I understand your logic, but I much prefer to work to right the capsized RNC, clean it up, and set it back on course.

There was a time when I thought debates were a good idea. The problem this year was that the favored candidates got the majority of questions and a guy like Hunter couldn’t even get his message out. He and Paul were relegated to what sounded like desparate sound-bites, trying to move the debate in the direction of reasoned border policy (on Hunter’s part), but not getting the multiple chances to address it (or another personal preference).

We wind up getting the questions presented by liberals. They shape the debate and it’s very difficult for conservatives to get their message out. This isn’t the first go-round with that dynamic in play.

At this point, I’m even questioning Thompson’s motives from the get go. McCain and Romeny seemed to be the only ones with fire in the belly. Neither was someone I could look at their past and trust a word they said, as it related to Conservatism. And then Thompson soon endorsed the folks he’d been running against. It was downright unseemly IMO.

Hunter actually was someone I could trust, but he didn’t get the financial support, and didn’t have a good enough staff to do what he needed to do. And of course, that may call to question his executive skills.

Romney may have turned out to be a good President, but I couldn’t back the guy based on his history. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that McCain will savage Conservatism from the office of the President.

The problem this year was that the favored candidates got the majority of questions and a guy like Hunter couldn’t even get his message out.

This isn't the first time a candidate has complained that the media shut him down just because he was polling at .5% In fact since Fox News sponsored several debates it should have been easier for conservatives to get out their message.

The conservative messages of Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, and Gingrich were adopted by the front runners Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. Looking at the front runner pasts, I concur that their 2008 conversions were hard to swallow, but it is difficult for me to say the conservative message didn't get out. With Fred Thompson( my first choice ) it seemed he was doing better in the polls before he opened his mouth and spread the conservative gospel. When it was found he was hard line pro-life, anti-illegal, pro-gun, and ashamed of the McCain free-speech ban...his appeal faded.

As a former rat and president of his union, Gov Reagan had a record of tax increases and pro-abortion legislation in CA. He did not run as a conservative but was painted as one by the media. He didn't run as a conservative because conservatism, by itself, will not win elections. A winner must appeal to moderates as well as his base. When Guilliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee made claim to the Reagan conservative legacy they lost their original moderate GOP support, and maybe just as important they lost credibility.

I agree. A serious candidate needs to be able to raise money and volunteers on a national scale.

There isn’t any doubt in my mind that McCain will savage Conservatism from the office of the President.

I have doubts based on a lifetime of McCain's votes and actions. His move to the center began with his first run in 2000. I think it is unlikely McCain will move to the right as President, but then again, I had low expectations for Dubya in 2000 and I was pleasantly surprised that he exceeded my low expectations. I have faith in McCain's record of support for our military. McCain has a pretty good record on abortion, guns, and judges. I hope he will continue the Bush tax cuts. I expect McCain to be a better deficit hawk than Dubya. I will be satisfied with 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

That is my ringing endorsement of John McCain - the lesser of 3 evils.

Thank you again for a thoughtful response.

Let's be clear here, I'm making this observation about the debates, not Hunter. Hunter and Paul were allowed to address about two or three questions each debate, with Thompson, Guiliani, McCain and Romeny each getting six to eight questions. Questions to the front runners were on interest of the day, but with Paul and Hunter the questions were sometimes pointed as if to marginalize them. For the record, I did attribute Hunter's operation to have been woefully inadequate. That doesn't prevent me from observing the debates and calling it like I see it. IMO, the debates were more of a negative for Hunter than a positive. His opportunity to flesh out what his beliefs were, were just about non-existant. And with the questions he was asked, it probably would have been better if he simply had refused to appear. Either way, his ability to build off the debates was never viable.

Nah, Giuliani didn't adopt their message. Romney and Huckabee tried, but they couldn't pull it off. Folks saw right through them.

I don't believe you think that about Thompson. Look back on it. What was going with Thompson early on? He refused to jump the gun prior to Labor Day. For this he was trashed constantly by the media for not caring enough to get involved. He reportedly had high polling numbers, but let's get real here. You do recognize that the media loves to play up Conservative polling so that they can bring up lower numbers later to kill their chances. It's like McCain, the best friend the media every had until he got the nomination. Then it was daggers at dawn.

The media spun Thompson into the ground. Even on this forum a lot of folks were content to let the media do their thinking for them. Thompson was too lazy. Thompson did go there. Thompson didn't enter the early debates. Oh that Thompson, he's just killing Romeny's chances by stealing his votes. We let the media develop our game plan to a large extent this year. It was just sad to watch the dilusional posts about Thompson and others. Despite Romney's history, folks on this forum glommed on to him and pronounced him Mr. Conservative. Holy Cow Batman, how can you fight that. If people are going to join in mass dilusion, there isn't much you can do about it.

What you seem to be saying is that Conservatism simply doesn't sell anymore. Okay let's see if you really believe that.

1. Do you think the American public wants to cut our military by 50%?
2. Do you think the American public is comfortable with the 45 million abortions that were peformed over the last 40 years?
3. Do you think the American public doesn't care if the nation is overrun by 50 million illegal aliens?
4. Do you think the American public wants our first amendment rights to be severely limited?
5. Do you think the American public wants the second amendment repealed?
6. Do you think the American public wants the U.S. Constitution rewritten?
7. Do you think the American public wants a Communist model to replace our Republic?

1. The public supports our military.
2. By a large margin something like 65 to 70% of the public thinks there should be fewer abortions.
3. The American public has seen the ill effects of illegal alien crimmigration, and they want it stopped. Why do you think the recent shamnesty didn't pass? The public expressed it's opinion.
4. Nobody wants out first amendment right curtailed.
5. Very few people actually believe denying citizens the right to arm themselves is the right thing to do. We have a few activists who drive this efforts.
6. Most citizen are very proud of our Constitution and would rise up if it were to be messed with.
7. Most folks know better than to demand a communist takeover of this nation.

IMO, if you don't realize these things, you're kindof out of touch. The very way you frame this statement, "When it was found he was hard line pro-life, anti-illegal, pro-gun, and ashamed of the McCain free-speech ban...his appeal faded." makes me wonder where you are coming from. Do you really believe this? I don't recall seeing anyone state this with regard to Thompson. You're reading into his defeat things that are not there. I'm reading very little into this nomination process other than the fact that the process is completely broken. I believe that the RNC and the DNC have coluded to provide a system that is designed to produce leftist winners. The early primaries are run rather slopily, and by the time the majority of us are able to even express our opinions, the choices have already been made. Imagine a system that lets about two million people vote before the choices for a hundred million are very close to having been already made.

As a former rat and president of his union, Gov Reagan had a record of tax increases and pro-abortion legislation in CA. He did not run as a conservative but was painted as one by the media. He didn't run as a conservative because conservatism, by itself, will not win elections. A winner must appeal to moderates as well as his base. When Guilliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee made claim to the Reagan conservative legacy they lost their original moderate GOP support, and maybe just as important they lost credibility.

No offense intended here at all, but wow, this is how you saw Ronald Reagan's run for the Presidency? There's really not much to discuss if that's the way you see it. This doesn't address reality in the remotest IMO. I lived through those years and Reagan most certainly did run on a platform of Conservatism. Just dang dude, where are you getting this stuff? Seriously!

Just a little question for you. What was McCain's vote on Ginsberg?

We can agree the debates favored the front runners, and the media favors the moderate GOP candidates. My point is that is not new.

Nah, Giuliani didn't adopt their message. Romney and Huckabee tried, but they couldn't pull it off. Folks saw right through them.

Fine, we disagree on Rudy, but agree otherwise.

You do recognize that the media loves to play up Conservative polling so that they can bring up lower numbers later to kill their chances.

That is as plausible an explanation as mine for Thompson's drop. I can't prove my point so I'll concede it.

1. The public supports our military.
I support the military, however the rats don't and they are banking on a majority voting against us. November will tell the tale.

2. By a large margin something like 65 to 70% of the public thinks there should be fewer abortions.
I agree and I'm very happy the GOP is overwhelmingly pro-life. Abortion has not been much of an issue so far this election.

3. The American public has seen the ill effects of illegal alien crimmigration, and they want it stopped. Why do you think the recent shamnesty didn't pass? The public expressed it's opinion.
The status quo remains, but will likely be changed by the pro-amnesty candidate who wins in Nov...unless we can win back the House(I think this is a better than 2/3rds possibility).

4. Nobody wants out first amendment right curtailed.
CFR passed because it is popular. Dubya signed it because it is popular.

5. Very few people actually believe denying citizens the right to arm themselves is the right thing to do. We have a few activists who drive this efforts.
Not much of an issue this election and I agree.

6. Most citizen are very proud of our Constitution and would rise up if it were to be messed with.
Again not much an issue, and I agree unless you are referring to CFR(already responded)

7. Most folks know better than to demand a communist takeover of this nation.
The rat party is a socialist party. They will receive about half the votes in Nov and may even win.

None of this proves conservatism wins elections without moderate votes.

I don't recall seeing anyone state this with regard to Thompson. You're reading into his defeat things that are not there.

I was using Thompson's defeat as further evidence that the conservatism doesn't win elections. I could argued that every other GOP candidate is more conservative than McCain. Perhaps Thompson's, and every other candidate's, positions didn't turn off the voters. Perhaps McCain is just more attractive and personable and that made up for his wishy washy convictions.

I believe that the RNC and the DNC have coluded to provide a system that is designed to produce leftist winners.

Because of CFR the RNC and DNC have less power/money than ever. Perhaps Dean and Martinez are more clever than their predecessors and can do more with less money. The fact that the state parties of Florida and Michigan told the national parties to take a flying leap over early primaries also indicates the national parties have less power. The RNC did not produce McCain's win. The GOP primary voters did. Here's The Weekly Standard's take on McCain and conservatism.

Imagine a system that lets about two million people vote before the choices for a hundred million are very close to having been already made.

Only problem is McCain didn't win many early primaries. He barely looked viable until Super Tuesday. By the time McCain locked the nomination over 60% of the population had voted in the primaries. It's not like voters didn't already know McCain from his 2000 run. This is the system we lived with since the rats f-ed up the Chicago convention. It is basically the same system that produced Reagan who locked the nomination early in 1980.

This response is already long so I'm not going to back up my claim that Reagan did not run as a conservative.

McCain voted for Ginsburg's confirmation...as did 95 other Senators. McCain also confirmed Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. He also voted for Bork.

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.