Replies

Just like Sarah!

The GOP establishment is putting on a full-court-press to save Juan.

I really hope he goes down in flames. It would be SO sweet.

Here’s a thought, Mac. Why don’t we look at YOUR record, instead. Shamnesty, Cap and Tax, reaching across the aisle, etc.

Oh, and be really careful about bringing up Abramoff...or do the words “Keating Five” ring a bell?

I think somebody suggested that the GOP get a restraining order against Romney for harassing the GOP... LOL... sounds like a good idea to me...

You lie down with dogs...

LLS

RINOs united!

McCain Hayworth

ACU lifetime score 81.43 97.56

NJ 2006 composite score 56.7 85

NJ economic score 64 80

ACU ranking Top 32% Top 4%

NJ ranking Top 46% Top 11%

NJ economic ranking Top 36% Top 20%

Who do you think is better?

In other comparisons, Hayworth was more conservative than Duncan Hunter in 2006, according to the National Journal. He was more economically conservative than Hunter, Dan Burton, and Mike Pence. He was more conservative on foreign issues than Henry Hyde.

Here are some of John McCain’s major accomplishments in the Senate.

* He sponsored McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, much of which has been ruled unconstitutional. Despite the bill’s attempt to limit the influence of moneyed interests in politics, Barack Obama was able to raise three quarters of a billion dollars in his presidential campaign.
* He sponsored the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would have capped CO2 emissions at the 2000 level. It lost in the Senate on a vote of 55-43 in 2003. It was reintroduced in 2005, when it lost on a vote of 60-38.
* He sponsored the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration bill in 2005. The Senate did not vote on it. Its follow-on bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, was sponsored by Arlen Specter in 2007 and cosponsored by McCain. It failed to pass committee.
* He voted in favor of the $850-billion TARP bailout one month prior to the 2008 presidential elections and influenced other Republicans to support it.

Here are some things McCain said in 2008 when he was running for president.

* “I think, frankly, the problem was with a Republican Congress.”
* “Look, I was for tax cuts; I wasn’t for those tax cuts.”
* His complaints about Bush’s policies: “Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10-trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously. Those are just some of them.” He also complained about Bush’s use of signing statements and executive privilege.
* On Obama: “I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States ... I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments.”

Here are things J. D. Hayworth has said that appear most contradictory to McCain’s stances.

* “The American people likewise want to see enforcement first — no tricks, no triggers, no amnesty, enforcing existing laws and closing loopholes to reaffirm that our great Republic is, in fact, a nation of laws.”
* “The tax relief package enacted in 2001 was central to pulling the economy out of the post 9-11 recession.”

McCain, the “maverick,” has been in Congress for 28 years, or since winning his first election in 1982. He is no longer fighting the establishment; he is the establishment. He personifies the compromise wing of the Republican Party, which has since become the dominant wing.

Hayworth represents the 1994 Contract With America Republicans. He first entered Congress in that historic turnaround, the first time Republicans took the majority of the House since 1952. He was voted out in 2006 when the House turned Democrat again on a referendum on Iraq, and the last time the unemployment rate was below 4.5%.

Iraq now seems to be behind us. And so does an unemployment rate below 9%...no thanks to the 2006 and 2008 elections.

This Arizona primary election can be put in simple terms. Do Republicans want more compromise with Democrats and “bipartisanship,” or would they rather take the Ronald Reagan approach: We win, they lose?

Romney and McCain are like old stink on each others worn out shoes. If some of the old trash gets thrown out, more will follow, and these old cronies know they are going out with the trash.

(McCain attacks Birthers)

Um....why? Hasn’t that been done to death?

"When tea partiers examine my fiscal record, they’ll find a friend.
We may have disagreement on some issues, but I’m confident that we will get significant support.”
McCain adds that the tea-party movement is “part of a groundswell of frustration” with which he identifies. “A majority of Americans are angry about their economic situation and the failure of Congress and the president to act on their behalf.
I want to keep fighting for their interests,” he says.

You will get NO support from the Tea Party Movement McCain.

We will NOT find you as a "friend."

If you identify with the TPM, then swing to the right and MEAN it John.

Sorry McCain, "want to keep fighting" for our interests doesn't cut it. We know you better.

Start fighting for the interests of Conservatives and tea partiers and stop all your lies then get back to us.

What IS IT with these idiots???????????

How many times do they have to be slapped, insulted, attacked, and savaged by this imbecile RINO before they get the message????

My opinion of BOTH Palin and Romney is suffering because of their support for this insufferable Boor!!!!!

“He would also like to bring in Mitt Romney, his former opponent for the GOP presidential nomination. “

The fact that McCain thinks this will help shows how far he has moved away from his conservative base.

Two RINOS laughing at who they think the suckers are.

I want to keep fighting for their interests,” he says

Juan, the teaparty corresponding secretary is one Helen Fry. If you want the support of conservatives, go to Helen Fry. (stolen from Dilbert)

I suppose Sarah could use this as an out by saying, I respect my former running mate, but it`s getting a little bit to nasty, and because of that I will have to remain neutral. I pledge to support the winner of the primary?

I support Sarah either way btw...I`m just saying she could now say it`s getting to nasty with attacks against JD etc

I’m proud of my record as a conservative and for taking on my party on spending and earmarks.

This guy needs to go.

Hey hey, ho ho
McLame has got to go!

I am a Conservative.   I make no apologies for being one.

I support Conservatism and all of it tenets. I support the most Conservative candidate. I support solid Conservative policy.

I respect our Founding Fathers and what they tried to achieve. Our guaranteed rights are rock solid. Our Constitution is a very important document, it's early form prior to 1800, a very wise well thought out set of tenets. Some modifications since then, are problematic, but not beyond repair.

It is always my intention to support Conservatives and avoid supporting people who join it's detractors to help marginalize or defeat it, by design or ignorance. I am not two faced about it. You won't find me explaining away the past antics of some person I want to support, because I don't want others to hold those antics against them. I will be frank about what they have done, and ask others to weigh those negatives as part of a comprehensive wise decision that takes everything into consideration. Not surprisingly, that's precisely the policy I will ask folks to abide by, if I object to a candidate.

If I make a mistake and back a policy that was wrong, you won't have to come and tell me what I have done. I will come to the forum on my own and explain what I did and why I think it was a mistake to have done it. I'm not perfect.   I make the occasional mistake. That being said, you won't go back and find literally hundreds of things I have said and done on different matters over fifty years, that were completely 180 degrees off the mark as it relates to Conservatism.

I came by most of my beliefs naturally. I didn't have Republicans telling me what to think in my teens. My parents didn't talk to me about Conservatism, Democrats or Republicans. And when I did register, I registered in the party that most closely represented my beliefs. And truth be told, I didn't grasp all tenets of Conservatism until the early 1990s, but that being said, I was 95% of the way there by then. I mention this, because I don't want folks to think they have fully arrived at Conservatism by their mid-twenties. A full comprehensive understanding of Conservatism on all tenets will come to folks at different times in their life, but we should not put ourselves into a position of thinking we have arrived at a full understanding at any point in our life. There is always time and a reason to ask ourselves if we need to think something out more thoroughly.

Most kids think they have arrived at adulthood and full understanding at 21. Most people at fifty plus understand what a fallacy that is. It's no difference with politics. And in truth, some people will never grow up intellectually, even at 100. That's why I always question my own understanding and motives. I am open to changing my mind at all times, if it is truly warranted. I am obligated to question everything. That being said, I have come to the place that I have questioned all my beliefs to the point I accept all but views on current issues to be just about beyond question. Even then, my core beliefs generally make those decisions very easy.

Our Founding Fathers and our U.S. Constitution are examples of men and documents that were as close to perfection as they could be as it relates to sound governance. There are no finer documents that have been handed down prior to or since by mortal men, at the establishment of a new nation. There is no finer intent on display by mortal men, that casts them as more dedicated to doing what was right, than that of our Founding Fathers. And those who seek to defeat their desires and the Constitution's tenets are enemies of our nation. If you try to abridge our rights, if you try to push things that damage our sovereignty, if you just don't get it time after time after time, you are unfit to lead. You will never get my support. And those who run against you with higher values will.

Our nation is in the death throws fighting for it's very life. Leftists have pulled no punches and are trying to overturn our Constitution, to turn this nation into a socialist bicameral or unicameral government, the fewer checks and balances the better. There has been an effort to silence those who object to bad policy. And every time the lights of Conservatism are turned out on one more available public office, those who object to bad policy are quieter by one voice, and those who support bad policy are louder by one voice. And as that takes place, the total objectives of the left come one step closer to realization.

Along the way, we have come to the conclusion that many in our own party have lost their way. We lament daily those who front for leftist ideology. We have come to the conclusion that we must return to our founding principles, if we are to turn this nation around. We look forward to the next election, sometimes for as much as six years, with the knowledge that we must replace a person on our side who has gone astray, so that we can move the entire body of Conservative office holders and thus the nation back toward the right. It goes without saying what our goal needs to be with Democrat office holders, but it isn't said enough what we must do with our own.

Seeing the intransigence of Republican leadership, we have embraced the Tea Party movement.

Folks, do Tea Party movements pop up when they are not needed? Do good solid Conservatives rush out to support such causes when they are not desperately needed. Do they shun an organized leadership to back an effort with very little organized leadership, for no reason?

As a group here, we realize that something is not only terribly wrong with our nation's leadership, but there is something terribly wrong with the leadership we have chosen to represent us as Conservatives. All too often our leadership has been willing to reach out across the isle in a bipartisainship trip down the road to destruction. And so it is said here frequently, we must turn this ship around if we are to save this nation. This isn't just an empty phrase. We have come to this determination after decades of observation, and the realization that our nation has moved dangerously, almost terminally left.

Our party leaders say that Reaganism is dead. They express views that mirror the left, that Conservatives are something akin to damaged people, their desires some manifestation of well-meaning (or not) lunacy. In the most extreme cases, they say things like, "I like the Democrat Party and their goals.", or "You have nothing to fear from a devout Marxsist administration, led by someone who has socialized with people who absolutely despise our Founding Fathers, our Founding Documents, and the United States as it existed at the end of Reagan's administration."

How can I possibly stand up for a person who would fit the model I described in the last paragraph? How can I stand up and defend someone who would stand up for such a person?

Folks, we have a number of boards and organizations in my city. You do too. Some of those boards and committees may be run by bad people. None the less, if a bad leader of a group asks you or me to join, wouldn't we be obligated to weigh the benefits of joining in an effort to help turn that group around?   Would we be wrong to join with that goal in mind? Of course not. After joining such a board, would we be an ungrateful individual if we voted against the bad leader who asked us to join? Of course not. And if that leader were to run for public office after bringing us on a board, would we be obligated to support them as a flawed individual? Of course not. It would be our moral obligation to support sound people and policies and retain our moral obligation to vote for them.

Can someone seriously tell me they think it would show character to back a person whose policies were bad for my community, just because they brought me on a local board? Can someone tell me with a straight face that it would show moral character to support them for public office, knowing their goals were detrimental to my community? To the contrary, I would be a moral relativist to explain away this person's poor policies, and back them just because they brought me on the board. And if they tried to use my name as a person who supported their activity, I would have to stand up and differentiate my views with theirs. I would be morally obligated to do so. And if another more solid person were running against them, I would have to support the views and candidacy of the better person. That would be the moral thing to do, the only path to the expression of a wholesome character. And if neither candidate were of high moral fiber, it would be my obligation to weight heavily supporting either one.

One of the best ways to break down an issue, is to take certain views and blow them out to the extreme.

We are told today that it shows character to back people who helped us along the way. If that is true, then we can never expect replacements of our current party leaders to be more sound on policy than the person they replaced. The people who supported the candidate that is leaving office, will more often than not be the people who make the decision to support his replacement. So when they come a calling, the very act of them supporting the new candidate, would obligate that candidate morally to back their views. And that is what has taken place, isn't it. We have good people go to Washington, D.C., and they have been coopted.

That's the moral conundrum those who support a person backing an extremely flawed individual for re-election, because that person once did them a favor, have to come to terms with.

Are any of us morally obligated to completely ignore our own moral standards simply because someone who doesn't share them once did us a favor no matter how big?

If the answer to that is yes, then check your Conservatism at the door. Similar claims of obligation will be claimed at every election, and Conservatism might just as well fold up it's tent and die.

If we can't support a man like J.D. Hayworth against a man like John MeCain today, then when can we?

We will never see a worse candidate to represent Conservatism on a Republican national ticket than John MeCain. And if we can't stand up to him, then Reaganism IS truly dead.

Rush, I don't say this often, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

Folks, don't come on this forum to say that we need to turn things around anymore, if you support MeCain today. This is your opportunity to strike a blow against the status quo. This is the time to turn things around. This is your opening. Use it or lose it.

If you can't work up the muster to oppose John now, you never will. And if you can't oppose an extremely flawed individual today, then how can you be expected to do so in the future? And if you cannot object to an extremely flawed individual today, how can you be expected to object to someone who is flawed to a lessor degree at another time?

This is a defining time for Conservatives. Either you are one and can only support people and policies that advance your cause, or you are a leftist and can only support people and policies that advance your cause.

Anyone who thinks John MeCain's candidacy is an example of middle-ground, at the very least, has temporarily lost their way.

Character? Morality? Loyalty? These are all good words, but even good words can be bastardized to destroy their wholesome meaning.

I will oppose the candidacy of John MeCain with every fiber of my being. I will weigh heavily the implications concerning those who can't.

Left or right folks? Which path is it to be over the next six years?

Morality is calling. So is moral relativism. Whose call will you answer?

By the memory of Ronald Reagan, I have made my determination clear. He is not dead to me.

John MeCain, tear down this wall. Let Conservatives have a voice. Quit siding with marxists to defeat our movement.

I don’t find his lack of bringing taxpayers money back to Arizona particularly admirable.

I will resent until the day I die the fact that I once voted for this vile scumbag and I had to hold my nose the entire time.

Never again!