Posted on 05/06/2008 8:01:43 PM PDT by cdchik123
McCain 342,959 74% 0 Huckabee 56,641 12% 0 Paul 34,152 7% 0 No Preference 17,996 4% 0 Keyes 12,388 3%
I know that the media LOVE(d) McCain in the last round of GOP primaries, but he was considered old forgotten news by media in the 2008 cycle. He snuck up on them in the primaries when he crept back into the race (some crossover votes, mushyheaded moderates, name-recognition voters, old codgers, veterans - he had a cobbled together base, such as it was.) They waited until he got his bandwagon up and running before they jumped back on.
And we agree that the GOP leadership is not very conservative. The problem is that the GOP rank and file is not very conservative. The leadership represents the rank and file pretty well. The truly conservative 20% of the population is not going to move the country in a significantly conservative direction at the ballot box, and I'm not ready to start shooting yet. The only other option is taking what I can get while hoping that our numbers grow.
I'm going to vote reluctantly for McCain, because of one issue. For all his faults, McCain will pursue the war against militant islam to a degree that Hillary or Obama (especially Obama) would never even consider.
He's a big government populist hump (not really a liberal, in today's marxist sense of the word), but he's the best of the lot.
I know that's too much compromise for your tastes, but militant islamic terrorism is the big issue of the day, and I have to vote for the person I think best suited to address it. In that context, it's not even a contest.
Fair enough. I have relatives, who otherwise loathe him, voting for him for the same reason.
You are correct - I personally disagree that this is enough, or that he is even that great on national security. But, that is one of two legitimate reasons for a clothespin McCain vote - the other being if he nominated a true young conservative hero as his VP, which will not happen in 100 years IMHO.
I have to run - thanks for a good discussion and well-thought out arguments, even if I disagree with them. I wish more of the pro-McCain types thought through the issues with the level of depth that you have.
Have a great day.
“I voted against Mccain in Pa in protest.”
Me, too — I am in Ohio and voted for Fred — he was still on our ballot.
“I will be voting for him in November.”
Me, too. (I am getting tired of picking the lesser of two evils, aren’t you?)
I know where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t lift a finger to bring that about either. They both suck IMO.
I can’t trust the guy, so no matter what he promises, I’m out.
It could be worse. Suppose an alternative universe in which enough GOP voters and Demonrat crossover traitors to America were so brain dead as to nominate the treasonous Al Qaeda spokesthing paleoPaulie as the GOP nominee. Just suppose. I know and I cherish the fact that this will never happen in the real world.
Well, they’d get elected. Put an (R) after their name and they would be ‘Golden’. Then we’d have an Al Qaeda agent representing Conservatism for four years.
When you look at McCain’s work to put the MIA issue to rest, and you look at his support for closing down the prison at Guantanamo, and you look at him talking out against water boarding, and you look at him proposing the detainees get normal legal representation, and you realize he wants full Geneva convention status for the detainees, you have to ask yourself what we are really dealing with here?
It’s a question I have no answer for. It certainly does not convince me he’s the man to lead this nation, unless none of these matters or the questions they raise concern you.
I think the total will actually be 27% of REGISTERED Republicans, not counting all the former GOP voters who switched to Independent this year. McCain is not as popular here among NC conservatives as he would hope. They may be in for a rude awakening in November.
The fact is, he'll get beat like a drum in any debate. Bama appears as a world class polished speaker compared to McCain. When he said, "We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out President George Bush's third term." I about fell out of my chair laughing. The man is right there, and he knows people are totally burned out on Bush.
Too bad the GOP ran this guy. What were they thinking? It's going to be ugly IMO.
No, McCain is more like a case of botulism food poisoning rather than a bittersweet meal.
When you consistently vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still a reliable agent of evil.
Who knows, though, maybe you will luck out and your Mommy government owners will allow you privileges that you enjoy. Maybe you'll even be lucky enough to afford to travel to India for quality health care when you need it.
Neither the GOP nor the US will be improved by restoring the Clinton junta or creating the Obama junta.
The situation we are in results from the retirement in 1980 of the conservative movement that elected Reagan. It has been nearly thirty years since there was genuine organizing, ideological education, nuts and bolts election training as there was pre-1980. If we have been too lazy for 28 years to do what was necessary to build and maintain a genuine conservative movement and we have preferred to tolerate an anything goes atmosphere of ignorance and "designer" self- defined conservatism posing as a political movement, then we are paying the price for our own negligence.
McCain is the "best athlete available" politically who can be elected. That is not his fault but ours. The last movement was built by Bill Buckley. Mr. Buckley has left the building. Who will build the next movement and keep us from having to choose between John McCain and Barack Hussein?
PaleoPaulie will NEVER represent any conservative movement. Nor will any Paulistinian. Surrender and treason are NOT conservative.
McCain can keep Barack Hussein's paws off the White House. If we want better choices in the future, then we had better start educating and recruiting a new generation to understand von Hayek and von Mises and Burnham and Herberg and Weaver and Kirk and to stand prepared to elect the next person remotely equivalent to Ronaldus Maximus.
Right, Tommy, I’m still looking for the “sweet”. McCain sucks, but the damage the Marxists will do to America will be irreversible. And another thing: It’s not OUR fault that this unpalatable candidate Juan McCain won. It’s the GOP leaders who allow Dems and independents to vote and skew our process who are responsible for this liberal jerk. Plus, those dumb elephants with no memory of the dozens of times this clown has screwed conservatives. Have a good one, Bob
Actually, I go to my local VA Hospital, and I get great care from great people.
I don’t see McCain supporting Conservative values on any level. I know he is touted as a good man to have when the military is involved, but I remain unconvinced. His comments on Gitmo alone are enough to destroy him on that count. At least for me they are.
I understand where you are coming from. I know there is panic in the streets that Hillary or Barack might gain the Presidency. I still say there are worse things than losing.
If Hillary or Barack become President, Conservatism, the RNC, the Republicans in Congress, in fact the nation become electrified to oppose them. This is good for Conservatism. It causes Conservatives to rally, to grow.
If McCain is elected, Conservatism is destroyed. John isn’t going to front for it. He won’t be it’s champion. The RNC will back McCain, it’s number one source of short term power. Congressional Republicans will be loathe to oppose him. They want acess and quid pro quo. State level Republican leaderships and Republican candidates across the land run further to the left since that’s what the media take on a McCain win will garner. Since leftist ideology is in vogue, you can’t fight it. Does that bode well for patriotic principles? I think it’s a catastropic blow to patriotic principles, read that founding principles, sovereignty and self-determination (Conservatism).
If Obama or Clinton win at least 175 Congressmen and 38 Senators oppose them. If McCain wins and proposes leftist legislation, or has to sign off on leftist legislation, only 3 Senators and about 20 Congressmen will oppose him.
McCain is a known leftist. He is the only leftist of the three who will be unopposed, if he proposes leftist ideology. A McCain victory is quintesentially the inception of one party rule in Washington, D.C. What else do you call it when only 3 Senators and about 20 Congressmen will oppose his leftist pipe dreams?
I can’t think of a worse outcome than Leftist McCain becoming the figure-head of Conservatism. You might just as well give sign-off to the Dodger manager for all Yankee decisions.
I think that those of you who are going to vote for McCain will be mortified that you did within one to two years after January 20th, 2009.
Then again, I would have supported Ron Paul as my alternative to McCain, so mock me if you will...
Someone said it earlier: Voting for McCain will be like choosing a Socialist over two Communists.
I wouldn’t disagree. What I would say is that I’d rather have a communist everyone on our side would fight, than a socialist everyone on our side would pray for and post day in pictures threads for.
Let me say, as a lifelong Yankee fan, that we sent the Dodgers their new manager when it became obvious that Joe Torre was too addicted to playing the Todd Zeiles of this world over talented prospects. Since our Yankee farm system (unlike whatever remains of the conservative movement which now resembles the recent decades of the Kansas City Royals or Pittsburgh Pirates) is absolutely loaded with quality prospects with the next draft to be held on June 7-8, we brought in Joe Girardi to manage the talent and avoid reliance on players old enough to have played with Joe Torre.
If Joe Torre had won a World Series since 2000, it would not have guaranteed his continued tenure. If the old conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan survived the likes of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, we can survive four years of John McCain while we rebuild from within. Of course, that means getting away from the keyboards and going out to organize seriously for the first time in three decades. What would be fatal to conservatism is continuing to avoid hard work not electing a temporary and elderly caretaker of insufficient ideology or morality.
Panic has nothing to do with it. I just don't care to relive the 1992-2000 experience of having the barbarians running the nation and culture. I don't need to be "electrified" literally or figuratively to be mobilized. That happened a long time ago when I learned to hate the New Left and its various spawn. Nixon did not front for conservatism. Nor did Feckless Ford. Nor will John McCain. Let McCain understand that his political survival is subject to conservative approval. Think Harriet Myers and the reaction to her candidacy for SCOTUS. If Barack Obama were POTUS and nominated Crusty the Pantsuit for SCOTUS, I don't think we can peel that one back. Then you can trust her to live and stay in office until she is 97 years old.
The loss of the Iraq War and of the war on terrorism would be a permanent thing. The election of a soulmate of Bill Ayres and Bernadine the Radical Queen Dohrn likewise. One man, one vote, one election is a lot worse than campaign finance reform.
A lot of this controversy has to do with which issues are truly important. The rest may well be generational. Those of us who spent 16 years building the movement that elected Ronaldus Maximus (and then foolishly retired to normal life) read a terrific lot of worthy books: Burnham's Suicide of the West, anything by Friedrich von Hayek or by Ludwig von Mises, Whittaker Chambers' Witness, Phil Crane's Democrats' Dilemma, Russell Kirk's Enemies of the Permanent Things, Ayn Rand's Anthem (though la Rand was no conservative and was an evil person), Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, many of Robert Heinlein's books, Malachi Martin's books (for those really Catholic and those who sympathize), biographies of Patton and Churchill and Robert Taft the Elder and of Reagan and of Goldwater (another who was unworthy) and a lot of books with which we disagreed as well but were worth reading to know thy enemy and mine and very occasionally to appreciate that the other side has an occasional worthwhile idea or motive.
Conservative candidates, however defined, will be hard to elect without an army of conservative activists, well-organized and acting with self-discipline as well as movement discipline. Our enemies organize relentlessly and successfully while all too many of us sit around whining as though we were entitled to win on all issues and win as each of us respectively may idiosyncratically wish (which is therefore not possible given current internal divisions).
How we define left and right is important. If we regard the founding fathers as permanently infallible oracles on everything they said (i.e. Washington's Farewell "Address" which was actually a newspaper column) and everything they wrote in the constitution (necessarily filtered through each individual's ideological prism) and everything they wrote elsewhere (like SCOTUS being "the least dangerous branch" no less) and everything we attribute to them rightfully, wrongfully and/or selectively, we are foolish and doomed to failure as a nation. We do the founders a disservice by doing a disservice to the nation they founded. They were remarkable men. They were NOT gods. The constitution has not achieved the authority of Scripture. In the aftermath of such as Roe vs. Wade, the "rule of law" ain't what it used to be and "stare decisis" has become Latin for crimes against humanity.
You write that "patriotic principles" should be read as founding principles, sovereignty and self-determination. To the extent that "self-determination" is a conservative principle, it is already covered by sovereignty. Sovereignty IS a conservative value or principle. Usually, "self-determination" is a Marxist buzzword for the "right" of Marxist revolutionary thugs to seize control of a nation and impose totalitarianism. Used by Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Chairman Mao, et al. I know that you mean the independence of our nation but sovereignty covers that as well. "Sovereignty", as used here, has its own baggage during the current anti-Mexican border hysteria. This is not meaningful since the issue has already been decided by previous history. If the issue is stretched out by perfectionists, we will simply become more and more Mexican with each passing year. While this is probably not good news for Americans seeking good paying jobs, that issue is a LOT bigger than bordermania. Just one elk's opinion. "Founding principles" is too imprecise a term.
There are permanent principles in the constitution that ought never be transgressed or even infringed upon. One example is the right to keep and bear arms. Others include freedom of worship, freedom of speech (actual speech and not "symbolic speech"), freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process of law, freedom from unreasonable and/or unwarranted searches and seizures (and from unreasonable arrests which are seizures), the right to trial by jury, equal protection of the law, and some others.
There are principles in the constitution which need not be at all permanent: the prohibition of alcoholic beverages or the restoration of the right to consume alcoholic beverages, prohibition of poll taxes, presidential succession provisions, term limits on the presidency, state legislative elections of US Senators, popular election of US Senators, voting privileges or rights for eighteen year olds, and such. Any one might be a good idea but few or none are necessary.
There are a few provisions, abolition of slavery, voting rights, women's suffrage which seem to have been necessitated by history although not included by the founders.
There are provisions of the constitution which ought to be removed ASAP as manifest threats to sovereignty (the provision putting treaties on a par with the constitution itself as "the supreme law of the land") or as manifest threats to public morals such as the "full faith and credit clause" under which morally decent states such as Alabama may be required to "recognize" sexual perversions posing as "marriage" as ruled by the Taxachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
A founding principle which needs restoration is checks and balances which have not bound SCOTUS and the federal courts effectively since Marbury vs. Madison in the first decade of the 1800s, a power grab by CJ John Marshall, then the Federalist "dead hand of the past."
Compared to the foregoing problems, we should keep John McCain in perspective as a minor problem, certainly not as bad as Gerald Ford or Nixon.
The foregoing discusses primarily constitutional issues. There are plenty of other non-constitutional issues and McCain is wrong on more than a few: Kyoto, global whatever it is called this week, Gitmo, waterboarding, and many more. OTOH, Gitmo and waterboarding are useful in the Iraq War and the WOT. McCain's opponents actively seek our defeat and are no better on the GITMO and waterboarding issues. McCain wanted to increase the troop levels in Iraq all along. He was right and he is right on that more important score as his Demonrat opponents are wrong.
I made a lot of money for a lot of years over a gin rummy table by never panicking. War is gin rummy by other means.
Illinois would be electrified by a suitcase Islamonuke leveling Chicago. What's more, the prevailing winds would take the fallout away from me since I am west of Chicago. Illinois would be suddenly as Republican as Idaho. Michigan would stop being a swing state as would Ohio and both would become firmly Republican. Even Buffalo, NY, might become a Republicanizing base in NY. Nonetheless, I'll pass on the suitcase Islamonuke in favor of old-fashioned organizing and persuasion.
Maybe we need to give more attention to GOP legislative nominations. Tennessee owes more to America than Lamar Alexander of Goals 2000 fame. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are not going to become Tom Coburns. Some here thought it was a terrific idea to defeat Rick Santorum as punishment for supporting Arlen Specter over some "fiscal conservative" who would have been defeated in any case. Now we have lost not only Senator Santorum but Congress members like Melissa Hart and some very good guys in Eastern Pennsylvania as well. North Carolina can do better than Giddy Dole. Arizona may well improve on McCain. We have many fewer than 38 members of the Senate under the best of circumstances. There are plenty of weak tea Senators holding GOP seats because many conservatives cannot be bothered to mobilize for races lesser than the presidency or to organize year round because organizing and educating and teaching conservatism and effective tactics are what we should be about all year long every year.
There are issues of military effectiveness, law enforcement, education, abortion, marriage, regulation, taxation, spending, religious freedom, culture, foreign policy, and dozens more that deserve our attention. I love some few in politics and loathe a lot more. Politics, however, is a LOT more than recognizing who is perfect (practically no one) and who is imperfect. Before the activism of electing candidates, it is necessary to learn and reflect so that the activism is well-directed and useful.
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.