Posted on 04/25/2008 3:28:20 PM PDT by goldstategop
He has to go home and sit on his porch, that's what he has to do.
"...conclude that McCain is GUARANTEED to do untold damage to the Republican party and the principles of conservatism that are ultimately freedom's only guardian, while either Obama or Hillary in the White House would probably be weak within their own parties, have more people fighting them than not, quickly become pariahs, accomplish little of what so many fear they "will" do, and that backlash, combined with my and other conservatives' pointed rejection of McCain, would create an almost guaranteed benefit for the Republican party and conservatism....
Are you urging a McCain defeat as a means to benefit the "Republican Party." If so, this will be a hard sell since you assume a defeat would augur for better things when logic would assume a defeat is a defeat and the consequences are unknown albeit usually bad.
You go girl. :)
Yeah, it surely figures you'd use this pompous, secular, useless quote to show your arrogant selfish attitude, just like the hotheaded canidate you chose to align yourself with. It just shows your clueless outlook toward reality. Go ahead make enemies of your allies, see where you end up.
In time, people reflected. Most now see that we can solve this with a national identity card but the "real conservatives (as they portray themselves) don't want an identity card because it is a "show me your papers thing." On the other hand the ultra liberals count on those illegals to make the welfare system work and to vote whenever the coast is clear.
Tancredo, Hunter and Romney did not get traction with the illegal issue.
As far as some other McCain issues likely to infuriate others remember "it takes courage to make mistakes." Campaign finance reform was a mistake, but the problem was and is--do you really believe there isn't enough money in politics?
But the left in the form a republican can and will destroy the conservative movement. In the last 8 years we have seen the conservative movement barely able to get itself together with the abject failures of GWB. We have seen the party which we conservatives must work through being neutered.
It has been tossed out of the House of Representatives, the Senate, most of the state governorships that it possessed earlier as well as control of most of the state legislatures that it had earlier. GWB and his Rino associates such as Gonzales, Miers, Powell, Martinez, etc, etc have caused more damage to the conservative movement that a host of democrats could have inflicted.
I used to think Rush’s pomposity was shtick but her has become so full of himself that when his relevancy was questioned by the MSM he became hell bent on proving otherwise.
*******************************************************
No matter which of the three stooges is elected Rush , Hannity , Savage , Beck et al are out of business or moved to satellite radio as the FCC will re-impose the “fairness doctrine” ... he isn’t really being pompous , he’s going out with a bang... don’t think for a minute that McCain won’t appoint someone that’ll put it in effect , he’s already shown with Mc-Feingold that he doesn’t give a cr*p abut the first ammendment.
This is why I despise McPita. He is the epitomy of all that is wrong with the RNC. I want to get rid of him and his ilk. I want them to either get out or have conservatives force them out. (render their power useless) They are the cancer which will have to be cut out at some point in order for conservatives to survive in the repub party.
At some point conservatives will have no choice but to open up a major can of whoopass!
Huh? You said in a response to my post 51, and I quote, that "ad hominem seems to be your chief, if not single, means of argumentation."
So I asked you to elaborate how my post 51 appealed to peoples' emotions or prejudices over their ability to think. Say ... when's the last time you looked up ad hominem?
Are you urging a McCain defeat as a means to benefit the "Republican Party?"
Yes, in particular when the Republican Party in question represents a philosophy that gives popular big government policies priority over small government options to a level nearly equal to Democrats. Big government is the antithesis of conservatism; big government necessarily and by definition diminishes indivual freedoms and labor.
If so, this will be a hard sell since you assume a defeat would augur for better things when logic would assume a defeat is a defeat and the consequences are unknown albeit usually bad.
Suffice it to say your "logic" is different than mine.
From where I sit, there are few unknowns or gambles with regard to the consequences of a McCain victory. In my estimation, sure as sunset a McCain victory would result in:
}Severe disillusion among small-government voters with the Republican party
} Increased government infringement on freedom and my labor (tax dollars) under the name of "Republican" leadership
Less sure, but probable:
} More Democrats in Congress
} Stronger embrace of the communistic "Global Warming" environmental panic -- in the name of Republicans
} Mass confusion with regard to the WOT and policies with prisoners, in the name of Republicans
} Stronger embrace of the positively DEADLY prospect of nationalized health care in the name of Republicans.
As for the judges and the military, it a crap shoot in the same way it's a crap shoot to trust a colorblind guy tell you the green scarf from the red one. Conservative principle goes right over McCain's head, hence his ability to recognize conservatives.
An Obama or Hillary presidency would result in the same things except in the name of the Democrat party. Judges and the military would be more dangerous -- less of a crapshoot, but one can hope that enough right-thinkers could get into congress to battle bad decisions. On the other hand, among "less sure but "probable" or at at the very least possible --
} Recoil within the Republican party at the rejection of McCain
} More Republicans in Congress
} Intense division within the Democrat party
} Increased perception of the Democrat Liberalism bringing on heavier-handed government
If you ask me, the "consequences of the unknown" are a better gamble with the Democrats. But maybe it doesn't matter.
I'm a chicken-livered gamblin type, but I think McCain's going to crack one way or another at some point (so would/will Hillary! What a GAS!) and in the election, it's his vice presidential candidate who's being elected (not so in Hillary's case, I wouldn't think). That's the way I'm going to vote, anyway.
And as a politician: As a verb, it means to seize something without holding a lawful claim to it. Wickipedia
It will soon become to be defined as stabbing your own supporters in the back and then being insane enough to expect them to like it.
Your dictionary is different than my Encarta.
LMAO. If you believe that I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale you might be interested in.
1. Gang of Fourteen (Kept some of President Bush’s best judges from being presented for a vote)
2. McCain-Fiengold (Assault on Free Speech and Pro-Life groups and Gun-rights groups)
3. McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty for criminal Illegal Aliens)
4. McCain-Lieberman (50 cents a gallon tax)
5. Total support for global warming scam, including carbo cap and trade system.
6. Support for embryonic stem cell research (Murder of unborn babies).
7. Leaked top-secret information concerning CIA prisons in Europe
8. Wants to close Gitmo and give Terrorists access to our legal system.
9. F grade from Gun-Owners of America.
10. C- grade from NRA.
11. 60% score from American Conservative Union in 2006
12. Wants to bail out sub-prime losers (many of which are either illegal aliens or lied on thier applications) with US tax money.
13. Voted against President Bush’s tax cuts (called them tax-cuts for the rich)
14. Flirted with the idea of crossing over to the Dems in 2004.
The time is right now for conservatives and likeminded people to STOP voting for moderates/rino's just for the sake of it.
Go, Finny!
Who is and who is not a “conservative” depends on a self definition. If you believe you are a “conservative” you are one.
So, if Hillary were to call herself a "conservative" would you accept that?
”Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention and continuity.”
”Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.”
How can he possibly use two directly opposite axioms as part of his thesis?
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and human passions.”
I certainly don't ascribe restraint on passion as any kind of desirable construct for conservatism or any other ideology. Opponents of conservatism have it right then, when they note that conservatives lack passion and human emotion and equate us to automatons that cannot see the human standing next to us if they follow Kirk's definition.
”Tenth, the understands permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” The conservative is not opposed to social progress. “…Although he doubts whether there is any such force as mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world.” Where something progresses something else is usually in decline.
Is he now saying the "mystical Progress", which I would attribute to God, is not a conservative construct when earlier he declared God as a basic tenet of conservatism?
This essay rambles and reaches for a sort of all inclusive definition of conservatism. I don't buy it.
This is one of his best essays and most see it as a masterpiece of expository writing. Apparently you disagree.
Remember, the modern conservative movement began with Kirk's The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (1956). A long book, that he summarized with the lecture in question.
McCain’s ACU rating lifetime is 83 out of 100 and 80 out 100 for 2006. Good enough for me. If it isn’t for you, that is too bad but the world will go on.
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.