VOTING FOR MY CONVICTIONS, or For The Lesser Of Two EVILS

Several articles from Rush Limbaugh, Enter Stage Right, and Fox News ^ | April 27, 2008 | Me, and several others

[Yosemitest]

VOTING FOR MY CONVICTIONS, or For The Lesser Of Two EVILS
By Yosemitest, April 27, 2008

After McCain's latest outburst against conservatives about the North Carolina Republican Party TV ad, I did some research that I'd like to share with you. We don't have to follow the GOPs marching orders into the abyss of liberalism. The GOP is destroying conservatism, and we should withdraw our support for this corrupt organization.

Now may I suggest someone that I can support. Someone that the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, June 2, 2002 described as

"... the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics. "
Now that's my kind of President!!!

Where does he stand on the issues? Associate Editor Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine Online talked with Barr in September 2003, and described him

"After entering the House of Representatives in 1995, Georgia Republican Bob Barr acquired a reputation as one of the most conservative members of Congress. It was Barr who in 1996 wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, which said states didn't have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states; it was Barr who protested when he learned the military allowed soldiers to practice Wicca. A former federal prosecutor, a firm social conservative, and a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, Barr doesn't fit most people's image of a civil libertarian.

But in his eight years in Congress (he failed to win re-election in 2002), Barr was one of Washington's loudest critics of the federal government's abuses of power, taking the lead in investigating the raid on Waco and in opposing Bill Clinton's efforts to undermine due process in terrorism cases. Since leaving Congress, Barr has taken an advisory post with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and started writing a column for Atlanta's alternative weekly Creative Loafing -- neither ordinarily a haven for Republicans. While many on the right have fallen behind the Bush administration even as it betrays their purported principles, Barr represents another set of conservatives' growing discomfort with the administration's erosion of individual liberty."

Take a look at Robert L. (Bob) Barr, Jr. statement on the issues at the Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee web site. There are some things I disagree with him on, such as the fair tax. But look at his answer to the drug issue that Hannity addressed.

HANNITY: What would your vote be? Would you vote to legalize heroin and crack?

BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean. We've talked about this.

And for those who want to follow the GOP, well remember this

HANNITY: Well, then, I believe what Ronald Reagan said: no pale pastels; bold colors. Work within the Republican Party to make it more conservative. I want it to be conservative.

BARR: You know who tried to work against Ronald Reagan and convince him not to run? It was the Republican Party, Sean.

John Bender of enterstageright.com wrote on April 7, 2008.
"Congressman Barr is a solid conservative with a lifetime ACU record of 98%. His last two years in office he scored an ACU record of 100%.
McCain's lifetime ACU record is 82% but his 2006, the most recent year for which ratings are available, ACU record was 65%. Among Republican Senators only Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter had worse voting records."

It's time to renounce that Sorry Ole Bonehead McCain and support a real conservative.

[Yosemitest]

When the GOP or McCain ask for money to support McCain, print and send them on of these.

I've found someone I can support!!!

[Yosemitest]

Correction

... print and send them one of these.

[ansel12]

Sure, this will fix things.

[Krankor]

Yep, Barr is a big supporter of the ACLU. We need more conservatives like that.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You had me until you mentioned “Bob Barr.”

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Bob Barr also wants to completely withdraw from the ongoing War on Terror when we have actually been winning it. Just like the Libertarian Party on this issue, this is also the same position that the Constitution Party takes on complete withdrawal from the War on Terror. Wrong move! This issue alone completely takes out both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party as serious contenders for the majority of votes from conservatives.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

[MARTIAL MONK]

Well I’d vote for your conviction, too, but I’m not on the jury.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup. But a vote for McCain is a vote for McCain.

[Sun]

btw, I just found out that Baldwin got the nomination for the Constitution Party:

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/26/chuck-baldwin-becomes-the-constitution-party-presidential-nominee/

I used to be a committeewoman for a 3rd party, but that 3rd party caused NYS to get the infamous Eliot Spitzer elected A.G., and then Governor, so that’s why I’m more practical now.

What concerns me is that the next president will pick a couple of Supreme Court judges, and Hillary and Obama will pick another Ginzburg.

But I will think about it and pray about it, and the VP that McCain picks will help me make my decision. If McCain doesn’t pick a conservative, pro-life VP, then I’ll know he doesn’t care about conservatives at all.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

soon to be “President McCain”

[fieldmarshaldj]

I find the choices this year the single most distasteful for a Conservative of conscience since Ford-Carter in 1976. As for the Supreme Court, knowing Johnny’s ole record of kissing liberal tuchus, he’d appoint a “Conservative” in the mode of John Paul Stevens (yup, Stevens, despite being a leftist abomination IS a Republican) just to piss us off. The best thing for us to happen is that he picks Gov. Mark Sanford as his running mate, wins, and then kicks off sometime between after the election and 1/20/2009.

[rawcatslyentist]

The Veep is the slot to watch this time!

Just a bad gut feeling tells me the Chief wont make a full term this time, incarceration, incapacitation ect...

[fieldmarshaldj]

Lord help us all.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Why would that be bad ?

[x_plus_one]

[counterpunch]

Brilliant.
Let’s throw the election to the Revolutionary Maxist Barrack Hussein Obama and his Black Liberation Theology.
That’ll teach those RINOs.
Man, I wish I had as many brains as you.

[x_plus_one]

If you dont vote for McCain you get this:

[Yosemitest]

I don't like the ACLU any better than you do, but let's take a closer look. Let's see what Barr and Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine had to say.

Reason: A lot of people were surprised when you took a post with the ACLU, but you actually cooperated with them going back at least to the early Clinton years.

Barr: It started with the initial anti-terrorism bill in '96. That probably was the first time that we recognized specifically that we had some very fundamental common interests. We worked together after that on several other pieces of legislation, such as the asset forfeiture reform, the national driver's license, and the Know Your Customer program.

I had always known them to be a very, very consistent advocate for civil liberties, but we disagreed on so many issues that I never really sought them out in terms of an ally.
But shortly after I came up to the Congress, I realized ,

-- and I think they realized the same thing --
that the size of government and the expansiveness of government power were creating a smaller sphere of personal liberty and personal privacy,
and that we needed to find allies in this fight, and work together on those issues in which we agree and .

Reason: Have you caught much flak from other conservative Republicans for cooperating with them?

Barr: To some extent, but the reaction generally has been positive.
Most people, when they stop to think about it, realize that there is a great commonality of interest between liberals and conservatives on these issues.

Reason: You started out sympathetic to civil libertarian concerns about trying terrorists before military tribunals,
but ended up endorsing the idea. What changed your mind?

Barr: The administration, in that instance, seemed to listen to a number of the criticisms that we made. It made some fairly substantial changes to the way they were going to carry out the tribunals.

There are two concerns that I continue to have.
One is that the administration can change its mind at any time. You can't say, "Hey, this is a great idea," and just walk away from it. You've got to monitor it and make sure nobody backslides.
The second is that I don't think we've seen a consistent standard exercised by the administration in deciding when to use military tribunals. That's bothersome.

If you use it in an appropriate setting

-- a military setting, in the context of an active conflict --
and you have an enemy combatant, a military tribunal with its accelerated procedures lends itself to a wartime scenario.
But the government really needs to have an articulated, consistent standard.
You have John Walker Lindh, who I consider to be a poster boy for a military tribunal proceeding, tried in our civilian courts.
And then you have this other fella, Jose Padilla, being tried in a military tribunal. I think his situation is much more appropriately handled in the civilian courts.

And then you have the Zacarias Moussaui case, where because the government doesn't seem to be getting its way with regard to access to witnesses by the defendant, they indicate,

"Well, if we don't get our way, we'll just go ahead and try him in a military tribunal."
I don't think that's appropriate.

Bob Barr is very conservative, and isn't going to allow the borders to be open, or going to have a Gang of 14 choosing Judicial Nominees.

[counterpunch]

Forget choosing the Lesser of Two Evils.
Right now the Democrats are deciding on the Evil of Two Lessers.