Posted on 02/07/2008 3:06:02 PM PST by goldstategop
“Don’t you see? There is no win here.”
I so agree with you on that. There really is no win. I don’t like McCain any more than the others on this forum, but what decided it for me was the 3 issues that I pointed out in my first post. I decided that I would support our troops, that I would support living babies, and that I would support less or no taxes - I figured that’s what Reagan would do if given the same bad choices. What I think he wouldn’t do is throw a tantrum and walk away crying because the glass was 3/4 full (If he was like a lot of the neo-RINOS on this forum, he would have simply dropped out of public life after losing his presidential run the first time and he would never have been president).
Someone mentioned the option of voting conservative down ticket and I like that idea to a point, except that it doesn’t support the troops and we end up losing the war on terror. I can’t suport that.
The other thing that helped me decide is the quote we all know:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Seems to me that a lot of good “men” on this forum propose to do nothing as something. Again, I can’t support that.
Rush has been informing people for what, 20 years? Are you so delusional that you think Rush's listeners didn't know who Hunter was? Or didn't know McCain's record?
Many people thought Hunter had no way to get the name recognition in time, he wasn't going to get the big money that would go to more prominent names like Guiliani.
That's Hunter's job. What has Hunter done for the last 5-10 years to let us know who he is? It's not particularly hard to come to my attention and yet I wouldn't recognize him today if he bit me on the leg! If he isn't able enough to get his name out there, how can he be a viable candidate?
Then you pay even less attention that I thought. There were hundreds of Hunter pieces posted here. He came on FR and had a live press conference. The Freepers volunteered time and treasure to his campaign. Yet the most conservative Reaganite was dismissed right out of the gate by talk radio and the conservative media. Sorry, it stinks. So to now here them moan about McCain - after they were supporting other RINOS like Mitt and Rudy - is just rich. And hilarious.
“It might be Republican, but it isn’t conservative.”
I didn’t attempt to pass him off as a conservative. My post was in support of the troops, more live babies, and less taxes - practical, tangible things. There was also something in there about thinking rather than emoting.
Your selfish conservatism did not play into anything I said. How does letting a democrat win support the troops, support fewer baby murders, or help lower taxes? It doesn’t.
If you knowingly allow the dems to win, which seems to be your position, you are as much a RINO as McCain.
Too, trying to teach McCain how to sound conservative is not unlike Al Gore hiring someone to teach him how to appear manly.
That McCain needs instruction in sounding conservative is all one needs to know. It means he doesn’t have a clue.
Rush advocated Romney and Romney is not a conservative.
He’s a demogue with a bit of speaking ability, a bit of good looks, and a bundle of money.
When he needs to be a liberal, he’s a liberal. When he needs to be a conservative, he’s a conservative.
And what will we win? Will we get smaller government?
Damn right this isn't over. As Rush reminds us, this looks more and more like 1976, which can only mean 2012 will be a humdinger.
Gotta keep the faith in conservatism. My educator taught me that one.
Emoting? Disagreeing with your view of McCain is emoting? LOL
I’m not a Republican in the first place..for obvious reasons.
You know, other than extolling the greatness of all things New York City and appearing on some general/chat threads, I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen durasell espouse anything remotely conservative (burkean, fiscal, social or otherwise) OR libertarian.
In fact, I kind of wonder what drew her/him to the forum in the first place.
Hunter and Tancredo succeeded in forcing their concerns pushed to the top of the discussion heap. Reps don’t get nominated because they always get opponents from higher up the tree. They were successful this way.
It’s more like they’re asking for your soul in exchange for a spot in heaven - only to find out that your stuck in purgatory for the next four years.
I can appreciate your principled approach—supporting the troops, saving the babies, and no or less taxes.
As far as less or no taxes, McCain Lieberman will collapse this economy, meaning lots of taxes for bailouts of consumers and business and state governments. McCain Kennedy will make permanent the tax level required to take care of 20 million new citizens, and let’s not forget the additonal 30 million family members that they will be allowed to sponsor.
As far as saving the babies, John McCain has spoken out of both sides of his mouth. He may have voted well, but he has not been an outspoken fighter for babies and against abortion. Indeed each is quoted as being on both sides of the issue. Besides there is no guarantee that he will appoint constructiuonist judges. The Gang of 14 which he founded took many of those away and allowed the status quo in the Senate. It has not been shown that McLame will allow judges that Ted Kennedy does not approve of. So the chances are we will get more David Souters rather than Sam Alitos. So good luck with that.
The last point is support for the troops. Yes, McCain might be good on that. Will he be as stron as Bush has been in the face of withering pressure to do otherwise? It is much easier as a Senator to preach and bully than as the Commander in Chief who alone is responsible for them and the mission. Also, when McLame says he is tough on national security, how does that square with his sudden found need to build the wall, and his work to shove amnesty down our throats before we could react to it?
For the points for which McCain is viable in your eyes, you can see that he is not trustworthy, except for Iraq. But Iraq will pass in importance. Having Gitmo terrorists in American courts on American soil, giving non-combatants rights under the Geneva Convention, and not allowing waterboarding even if the fate of millions of Americans hang in the balance shows that McQueeg will not be stroing on national defense or defend our troops.
By applying our threat not to vote in droves for McCrazy, we may yet effect the outcome of this nomination. I’m not going to fold now, and sing Kumbaya, so the Republican leadership can feel we conservatives won’t leave the plantation.
No, I’m proclaiming my emancipation, and they, the GOP puppet masters who would give us McCain to fight Hillary, can take full responsiblity for their actions and for their forseeable defeat.
That's a big part of it. Also, though, there was a lot of gloating about the left being supposedly in retreat, when anyone doing phone banks could have told them that Kerry lost the election, Bush didn't win it. If the Dems had run a brick, they might have won.
When you look at the 2004 election honestly, you find places that had 2:1 Republican:Democrat barely squeaking by, and time after time, the Republicans I'd call would say that they were holding their nose if they were voting for Bush. It was obvious that they weren't happy with the perceived arrogance.
Nooooo...that is the object of some members of the Republican party. The point of the article and of Rush’s diatribes is that there are two components of both parties: the die-hard base who will not sell themselves out for a ‘win,’ and those who will do what is necessary to ‘win.’
Rush’s point, and I agree with him, is that the latter have not been ‘winning’ anything. The Republican party is no longer drifting but actively swimming to the left. Electing a RINO who is smiling from an outboard motorboat is not a ‘win’ for those of us who are conservatives first, Republicans second, though it would be a win for those who are Republicans first and conservatives second.
I am a fiscal conservative, a political realist and a staunch supporter of America’s military.
Now let me ask you — are you the type that wants to administer a litmus tests not only to the candidates, but voters as well?
You put up the guy who has the best chance of getting elected. Period. End of story.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that ain’t McCain!
Wrong analogy.
I want nothing. You offer me $1. It’s not about money.
If you can’t beat the likes of Gore and Kerry by a blowout, you’ve got a serious case of bloat on your own side.
These were essentially two George McGoverns. You know what happens to George McGoverns when justive prevails.
I agree with you. I appreciate you ‘inside’ comments. They don’t surprise me one bit. I know how I felt.
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.