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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

That’s scary. It’s just as scary with McCain’s head on Yul Brynner’s body.

[counterpunch]

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.

Bob Barr doesn't have a say in any of it because he's no longer in elected office, nor will be.
 

[BlackbirdSST]

Bob Barr doesn't have a say in any of it because he's no longer in elected office, nor will be.

I'd vote for Bob Barr before I'd vote for McNutt. Blackbird.

[counterpunch]

I bet you were one of those people who voted for Perot instead of GHW Bush.
Yeah, thanks for that.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Let it go.

[AmericanInTokyo]

It is worth considering. He was EXCELLENT during the Clinton Impeachment period. I will say that.

[AmericaUnited]

BARR HAS JUMPED THE SHARK!

He’s no different from McCain in that it doesn’t matter what he did years ago, it matters what he’s done recently. WOT defeatist LOSER! ACLU butt kisser! No thanks.

[Yosemitest]

Bob Barr voted Yea

To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq on 10 Oct 2002.

So how is he against the War On Terror?

[counterpunch]

Let it go?
Let it go that many Republicans stabbed their nation in the back and gave us 8 years of Clinton because of their immature temper tantrum?

Pretend that this type of betrayal doesn’t have detrimental consequences in the real world?
You’ve got to be kidding me!

[Yosemitest]

A vote for Barr is NOT a vote for McCain.

A vote for Barr is a vote FOR BOB BARR.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yes, you need to let it go. It was 16 years ago and sniping at folks when you have no idea whether or not they voted for Perot is unhelpful. I was 18 in that election and I did support GHW Bush and even wore a black armband when he lost because I knew EXACTLY what we’d be getting with Clintoon and my jackass Senator Gore. Problem is now that Perot reminds me a LOT of McCain. A total kook, arrogant, megalomaniacal jerk. Perot deliberately undermined GHW Bush, NOT the voters. Still, many Republicans rightly believed at the time that Bush had undermined the Conservative movement and squandered Reagan’s capital.

In hindsight, GHW Bush was a subpar President and seemed genuinely disinterested in doing everything it took to win a 2nd term. His greatest mistake in office was doing EXACTLY what McCain will do as President... go along to get along with a corrupt and morally bankrupt liberal rodent Congress. GHW Bush lost 1992 the moment he broke his word on raising taxes.

A more disturbing scenario IF GHW Bush had pulled off a 2nd term victory is that in 1994 there would have been no GOP Congressional and Gubernatorial victories, only a further erosion of the GOP. Vice-President Quayle would’ve lost in ‘96 against whichever Dem would’ve run (either Clinton again, or Gore) and then take a wild guess what President would’ve been in office for 9/11 ?

Sometimes we have to go through those awful scenarios like Clintoon to get to better leadership. Go back even to 1976. If Ford had won over Carter, there wouldn’t have been a President Reagan in 1980, as Carter himself probably would’ve won that year in an open race (since the economy and most everything else would’ve still been in the toilet under Ford). The Soviets would then still exist today, as Carter would’ve followed the path of appeasement, and Eastern Europe would still be under the thumb of the Communists. Would that have been preferable to have kept Carter (and Reagan) out of the White House ?

[NavVet]

He’s better than McCain but I ain’t voting for a bed wetting ACLU type period. Barr’s a bigger friend to the terrorist at GTMO than McCain.

[NavVet]

Heaven forbid we blame Bush senior for being a lying weasel and alienating the base.

[counterpunch]

I reject your whole premise.
First of all, McCain is McCain, and no one else.
He’s imperfect, but lets cut the hyperbole - he would be infinitely better than either Democrat.

McCain would not be guaranteed a 2nd term, nor would he necessarily seek it. Many times in American history has a sitting president declined running for a 2nd term, or dropped out of the race seeking his party’s nomination, because he was unable to win it. This was the case with both Truman and Johnson in the not too distant past.

I reject the premise that either Clinton or Gore would have gotten the Democrat nomination in 1996. Democrats don’t tend to hand it to losers unless they know they’ve already lost. Hence Mondale in 1984 and Stevenson’s repeat in 1956.
So no, I would say Clinton and Gore would have been out. We have no way of ever knowing whom it may have been instead.

I reject the premise that the GOP wouldn’t have taken congress in 1994 had it not been for Clinton. Once again, we cannot know, but we do know the American people were finally fed up with the congressional Democrats (and obviously not the Clintons, since they won re-election just two years later). They were fed up with the wasteful spending and the corruption of Jim Wright and Tom Foley.
We know that Newt Gingrich orchestrated a national campaign, centered around a powerful theme.
Do I attribute the GOP’s victory that year to the Clintons?
Honestly, I do not.

This whole idea that we have to lose big first to win is a mental disease. The failures of the Republican lead congress was the failure of conservatives to demand better from their leaders. Conservatives cheered on the big government spending of the GOP, declaring it a political victory for President Bush. It was our failure above all.

Now we expect candidates who will give us an easy ride?
There is no such thing. Conservatism will only flourish in government if we demand it of our elected leaders every day.

We will have to fight McCain perhaps 30% of the time if he is president. We will need to be vigilant and keep him on a short leash. But McCain is already on notice, unlike the free pass Bush got for his first 5 years. We can and will do better this time.

But it is far better to have to remain vigilant and fight McCain 30% of the time, than have to fight Obama 100% of the time, and then be called racists for doing so.

[SampleMan]

I despise McCain, but those who seek a third party candidate should first create a viable third party, instead of just throwing in a marginal candidate at the last minute.

There is zero chance of another candidate winning at this point, so the actual desire is to just create a spoiler.

Spoilers have their place, and the effort would not be completely wasted. However, that is the same as saying that the face remains spited, despite the loss of the nose.

We conservatives failed to groom and delivery a strong candidate into the primary process. That is our failure. Now we are whining that despite our lack of effort up front, we will take our ball and go home.

The most pragmatic approach at this point is to elect McCain and THEN put pressure on him from the conservatives in Congress. He must have their support.

In the future, we need to ensure that the primary is packed with good conservative choices. That means an active conservative movement and money, and it must come two-three years BEFORE election year. Having said all that, I haven't given a dime to the RNC or McCain, nor will I. He can go to his independents for money. If he does lose, it is best for conservatism if he is simply a failed candidate, unable to raise money or interest.

[Russ]

I agree with everything you said but after McCain’s latest smack-down of conservatives (the North Carolina ad) I will not just “hold my nose” and vote for him. Maybe something will change between now and November but right now I plan to stay home for the first time in my voting life. A candidate has to earn my vote and my respect but as of now McCain has done neither. I’m fed up with him and the RNC...

[SampleMan]

I agree with everything you said but after McCain’s latest smack-down of conservatives (the North Carolina ad) I will not just “hold my nose” and vote for him. Maybe something will change between now and November but right now I plan to stay home for the first time in my voting life. A candidate has to earn my vote and my respect but as of now McCain has done neither. I’m fed up with him and the RNC...

A vote is not an oath of loyalty or fidelity. Think about that. It is a pragmatic choice. If a vote is being taken to remove my leg or my head, I am not going to sit it out.

We have already failed and been handed the lemon. Now we must try to make lemonaide as best we can.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"I reject your whole premise."

That's your problem right there.

"First of all, McCain is McCain, and no one else."

And that's yet another problem.

"He’s imperfect, but lets cut the hyperbole - he would be infinitely better than either Democrat."

I'm seeing little evidence of that. In fact, what I see is a man with the singular potential to eviscerate the GOP to 1964, 1958 or 1936 proportions in 4 short years (if he lives that long). Neither Hillary or Obama could do that.

"McCain would not be guaranteed a 2nd term, nor would he necessarily seek it."

As I've said many times, I don't expect him to live long enough to seek reelection.

"I reject the premise that either Clinton or Gore would have gotten the Democrat nomination in 1996. Democrats don’t tend to hand it to losers unless they know they’ve already lost. Hence Mondale in 1984 and Stevenson’s repeat in 1956. So no, I would say Clinton and Gore would have been out. We have no way of ever knowing whom it may have been instead."

If you think Clinton was just going to go away if he had lost narrowly in '92, I want some of what you're smoking. He would've run again, and he would've won. Quayle would've been disemboweled by the media. A nice man, but he just couldn't have pulled it off against Clinton.

"I reject the premise that the GOP wouldn’t have taken congress in 1994 had it not been for Clinton."

I'm sorry, sir, but if you can believe that scenario, your grasp of political history is poor. That scenario would've been without precedence in U.S. history. No party in power in the WH moves that dramatically from Congressional minority to majority status -- in a 6th year mind you -- EVER. In fact, I guarantee you in 1994, the GOP would've dropped into the high 30s in the Senate and around 150 House members.

"Once again, we cannot know, but we do know the American people were finally fed up with the congressional Democrats (and obviously not the Clintons, since they won re-election just two years later)."

It was BOTH of them. If Clinton had been up in 1994 for reelection, he'd have lost.

"They were fed up with the wasteful spending and the corruption of Jim Wright and Tom Foley."

Jim Wright had been gone 5 1/2 years from Congress by Nov '94. Most people didn't even know who Tom Foley was. The GOP ran against Clinton and the Democrat Congress in 1994.

"We know that Newt Gingrich orchestrated a national campaign, centered around a powerful theme. Do I attribute the GOP’s victory that year to the Clintons? Honestly, I do not."

I'm sorry, but it largely WAS the Clintons. It was the perfect storm of Clinton and the out-of-control Democrat Congress, the tax hikes, and all the rest that led to their having their asses handed to them. I cannot believe you honestly think the majority of the country were simply mad at Tom Foley (and long-gone Jim Wright, a non-issue since 1989) and ignored the Clintons. It was a specific repudiation of the Clintons. It wasn't until the government "shutdown" standoff of late '95 when Clinton recovered his game. Up until that point, he was counting down the days to the end of his failed one-term Presidency.

BTW, if Wright and Co. had made the country so fed up with the Democrat Congress, it would've gone Republican in the 1990 election. It didn't. With almost no exception, every Congressional election generally tends to be a referendum on the President's party, no matter how many seats they have. 1980 was a repudiation of Carter and it reflected in our winning the Senate for the first time since 1952. 1982 was a repudiation of Reagan (just BEFORE the positive economic numbers showed his plan was working) and the Dems made sizeable gains in the House. 1984 was a positive affirmation of Reagan. 1986, a repudiation in the 6th year that cost us the Senate. 1988 was an affirmation but a status quo election. 1990 was a status quo. 1992 was a repudiation of Bush, but we made modest gains in the House exclusively on the backs of redistricting. 1994 a repudiation of Clinton and our winning Congress. 1996 a repudiation of the GOP Congress. 1998 was a 2nd repudiation of the GOP Congress (the one and only time in the modern era where a 6th year election bucked the usual trend, which was actually occurred in '94 instead). 2000 was actually a draw, but we lost seats. 2002 was a positive affirmation for Dubya and the GOP (just as odd an election as '98 was). 2004 a 2nd positive affirmation. 2006 was a full-on repudiation of Dubya and the Congress.

"This whole idea that we have to lose big first to win is a mental disease. The failures of the Republican lead congress was the failure of conservatives to demand better from their leaders. Conservatives cheered on the big government spending of the GOP, declaring it a political victory for President Bush. It was our failure above all."

Problem is, politics being what it is, you do indeed often have to lose in the short run in order to win later on. The question is whether you want to win Pyrhhic victories instead, as my example of Ford and GHW Bush proved.

"We will have to fight McCain perhaps 30% of the time if he is president. We will need to be vigilant and keep him on a short leash. But McCain is already on notice, unlike the free pass Bush got for his first 5 years. We can and will do better this time."

As far as I see, we're fighting him almost every time he opens his damn mouth. I wouldn't vote for this guy for Senator because he's proven how unstable and treacherous he can be. As bad as Dubya can be, this guy is as BAD as we can get and still run under an "R" label (save perhaps for the dual asshats of Huckster and *omney).

"But it is far better to have to remain vigilant and fight McCain 30% of the time, than have to fight Obama 100% of the time, and then be called racists for doing so."

We're called racists regardless. Problem is, it's McCain who is calling us that.

[jmaroneps37]

As soon as barr explains being on the board of the ACLU and why he wants to dismantle the Patriot Act I'll listen to him. I have debated him and he has no answers for this questions. This nit wit is wiling to cut the Patriot Act in some fanciful delusion that IT is more dangerous to America than the terrorist scumbags whose rights he wants to protect.
When I asked barr how he would know when he cut the Patriot Act's protections too much he had no idea. I asked him if it might be a spike of car bombings or assassinations he had no idea. In fact he had no idea because he has no ideas. You barr sycophants ask your hero why he dropped out of the Georgia GOP Senate primary in 04. It was because he couldn't explain his position on the board of the aclu. Ira Glasser laughs at this schmuck behind his back.

[ZRicochet]

I love your logic and analysis! Keep up the good work and may God bless.