Posted on 11/25/2008 12:50:10 PM PST by pissant
In his first real news conference since the week following his defeat for the presidency, Senator John McCain emerged today in Phoenix to talk about his own future.
He said he plans to run again in 2010 — it may seem a long time from now for you but so many are already gearing up for the midterm elections that maybe it’s no surprise. The longtime Arizona senator — at age 72 — had already returned to the Senate earlier this month and tried to deflect media inquiries every time he ventured into one of its public hallways.
At his news conference today, he continued to defend his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a choice that many top Republicans and their pundits ultimately came to blame for his decline in the polls. While the conservative newcomer was enormously popular at rallies during the fall election season, her lack of foreign policy experience and her inconsistent performances in interviews undercut the Republican presidential ticket for many leading Republican thinkers.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I aint gonna pile on today, but if jm is gonna run AGAIN...who is gonna carry the 'R' banner ???
That is what, in my insignificant way, I am trying to do. The GOP needs to either become the party of conservatives with real conservative principles at its heart and led by people who will give real support to these or conservatives will have to put together another party. What we have right now will not work.
His win wasn’t anywhere near as impressive as Obama’s win in IL....... He could possibly lose next time he runs for Senate, IMO. I hope someone good challenges him in the primary. I’m sick of this guy.
You said it..... Amen.
and I commend you for that...but I think (much as i hate to say it) your “tent” will be too small to get anyone elected.
The platform of the Republican party is designed to cater to conservatives....in general....not necessarily the far/far right.
Reagan signed the CA abortion bill....so to many...he would now be a RINO, and run out of the party (like they’re trying to do to McCain)...and that just doesn’t make sense. We can’t exclude everyone that voted/signed something we disagree with.
I personally think that the spending is what did us in. Every American is aware that Bush SPENT us into a huge hole and seemed to offer no intellengent hope for change....(and i voted for him).
The cost and size of gevernment has to be reduced...and abortion needs to be stopped....for those two things alone...I give McCain my support....but like my spouse...we may disagree on immigration and a number of other things.
I think if we stick with being anti-tax, anti big goverment/anti-pork and pro life.....we have a great platform. I think that any Republican Senator with a conservative rating of less than 60% should be run off.
So THAT’s what I will work for....not running off my own AZ Senator (with an 80% rating) that holds those particular things dear.
How is your Senator rated?
Their earmarks are "pork." Our earmarks are "a vital investment in needed infrastructure improvements."
Allard rates pretty well. Salazar stinks. When Udall gets in it will be much worse.
It is not the principles that are the problem it is the abandonment of these for political expediency that is the problem. They are REPUBLICANS In Name Only - not conservatives in name only. The party supports the following:
1. A pro-life position
2. Strong national defense
3. Fiscal restraint - low taxes and responsible spending
4. Small government
5. The rule of law which includes immigration law
There are others but these certainly are part of the Republican party’s core principles. McCain has acted in direct opposition to #5 in at least 2 areas: free speech and immigration (and he has been rather squishy on 2nd amendment matters). He is opposed to #4 by virtue of his support for environmental laws and regulations that will expand government into every home and business that uses energy. His support for the “Global Warming” hysteria will also put him in opposition to #3 as increased costs of energy (a hidden tax) will result, energy tax hikes are very much a part of the “save the planet” agenda and moves to create “green” industries and technologies will result in increased government spending as efforts are made to subsidize the effort thru grants and funded mandates (Obama has already promised to spend billions on this and McCain has said he generally supports the effort).
There was little reason for any conservative - or even many Republicans - to vote FOR McCain. There was plenty of reason to vote against Obama. And not a few voted FOR Palin. The more numbers come out on this election the more it looks like plain, old-fashioned turnout was the biggest difference. The left turned out in high numbers while turnont on the right was not as good as in 2004. I read one article that said that as many as 5 million people who voted for Bush in 2004 did not vote in 2008. Maybe this would not have won the election for McCain (it depends on where they were voting) but it could well have made a difference in down-ticket races.
I am with Rush on this. Politicians who unashamedly campaign on conserative principles tend to win far more often than they lose. And if they actually try and govern according to these they do fine. It is when they abandon these that they run into trouble. Lurching left in an attempt to expand the “tent” hasn’t worked yet that I can recall.
well I disagree. I don’t advocate tht we lurch left...I advocate a simple thing: if an unbiased conservative measurement gives ANY Senator a rank below 60%; they need to either get back in line or get out of the party.
“unbiased” measurement is the key...we all have our “hot-buttons” so to run an other wise good memeber out for one vote or position is simply self-destructive.
Regan SIGNED abortion legislation...would you run him out of the party like you’re trying to do to McCain?
I think a LOT of people were just plain tired of Republican talk...talk talk..with no discernable action on fiscal restraint (accept for mcCain).the spending thing has made me nuts.
I honestly don’t care if someone drones on about global warming as long as they vote against spending/pork/abortion.
The global warming thing will pass.....and immigration is a really tough issue....so every idea should be heard and hashed out.....
Sounds like you need to focus on YOUR Senators....and let AZ work with McCain.
McCain is determined to sell out this country. He is promising citizenship for illegal aliens. He has pushed more left wing agenda in the Senate than many Democrats. The GOP lost the election the moment McCain was nominated. How many actually believed somebody as flawed as he could win?
Well, I thought he would probably win because of Sarah Palin. I thought he would have gotten more of the Hispanic vote and the Jewish vote, and some centrists as well. Was I WAY off on my expectations! I don’t think I can vote for McCain again (I’m in AZ).
He was the worst of the GOP candidates, the one most determined to give citizenship to illegal aliens. The Democrats I know were thrilled when he was nominated and so was Soros and the media.
I hope the GOP will challenge him in the primaries.
You know, this rewrite of history is really getting old (and got many a freeper banned in April 2007). What is it with folks that they have to trash the record of others to prop up their favored politician? You're calling Reagan a RINO? And you say he inaccurately blamed doctors? Who, in your mind, should be to blame for so distorting the intention of the law that we end up with the abomination we have today? Reagan was very clear on his position: abortion could only be justified to save a human life.
Here are some facts for you (derived from 1967 L.A. Times articles):
In 1967, a democrat state lawmaker (Beilenson) pushed to liberalize the laws for just three reasons: to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or where the baby might be deformed. ...Or, perhaps you should read Reagan's own words. Here are some from Reagan: A Life In Letters -- Read pages 197-198.Governor Ronald Reagan's first response was "Here's an emotional problem that has so many facets of consideration. It is not only spiritual, but also legal... when does life begin? What right does the unborn life have? What legal right? I'm not prepared to answer now."
In subsequent statements, Reagan took great exception to the portion of the law addressing the possibilty of deformity. "I am satisfied in my own mind we can morally and logically justify liberalized abortions to protect the health of a mother. I cannot justify the taking of an unborn life simply on the supposition that the baby may be born less than a perfect human being... [this kind of thing] wouldn't be much different from what Hitler tried to do."
The deformity provision was dropped shortly thereafter. The final statute permitted abortions in the case of forcible rape, incest, statutory rape if the victim was under 15 years old or if there was a "substantial risk" that continued pregnancy would "gravely impair" the "physical or mental health" of the mother.
Several months before Reagan signed the final bill, Colorado passed similar legislation (thus, California was not "the first" as some have asserted.)
October 11, 1979, Letter to Mr. Robert L. Mauro:Like McCain, all you want. But don't post garbage just to make your guy look better.Dear Mr. Mauro:
I hope you won't mind my writing you about a recent column of yours suggesting that I might be preparing to abandon my anti-abortion position and that I signed a permissive abortion bill while I was governor. I think there are things I should make plain here.
First, my position is that interrupting a pregnancy means the taking of a human life. In our Judeo-Christian tradition, that can only be done in self-defense. Therefore, I will agree to an abortion only to protect the life of the prospective mother.
Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor. A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor thought he could sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject than I had done on anything in my eight years as governor. I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it could only be justified to save a human life. . . . Perhaps it was my inexperience in government, but like so many pieces of legislation, there were loopholes that I had not seen, and the thing that made the California abortion bill become somewhat permissive in nature was violation of the spirit of the legislation by the very groups who were supposed to police it. This was particularly true in the case of psychiatrists. If faced with the same problem today, I can assure you I would make sure there were no loopholes in the bill. Indeed, I have already written Congressman Hyde telling him of my support for his amendment.
Again, please rest assured there is no way I could or would change my position with regard to my opposition to the permissive abortion that is taking place throughout our land.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan
facts are fact: he signed the abortion legislation. have a nice day.
Reagan=RINO
Why do you leftists always make these false smears against Ronald Reagan? As calcowgirl just finished posting:
"Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor. A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor thought he could sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject than I had done on anything in my eight years as governor. I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it could only be justified to save a human life." --Ronald Reagan
Because it's all they got. McCain fought Reagan for years... I guess he and his supporters still are.
He should retire and live off Cindy’s fortune. He’s done God’s work by introducing Sarah to the world, and now he needs to go away.
The Rudy groupies did the same thing. No matter how thoroughly they’re refuted, they just post their falsehoods again later.
Or McCain could become Obama’s new Ambassador to Mexico.
Wanna bet?
BUMP
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.