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.

[counterpunch]

I’m glad we are not going down the suicide path of running a sitting VP as our candidate.
Have you no historical perspective?
Do you realize that GHW Bush was elected only on account of serving Ronald Reagan’s 3rd term, something that George W. Bush surely would not be permitted?
And do you realize, that of all the sitting Vice Presidents whom have run for president, the last one before him to actually win was Martin Van Buren, who was, if you remember you Seinfeld right, the 8th president?

We don’t need no stinking VP running on our side. We’re much better off without one. And then the suggestion that Cheney should have resigned as some knid of political coronation so this administration could hand select the next presidential candidate is offensive to the point of angering.

I am glad the GOP got a clean slate from the start. Look at what is happening with the Democrats now because they didn’t. We will win this election because of it.

[MARTIAL MONK]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Fwed’s shweeping!

[SampleMan]

Thank you for understanding my frustration with McCain.

Not hard to understand. He's been a real tool.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Another ringing endorsement of McCain. It's really pathetic, 'vote for our guy, he's not as bad as the other guys'.

We don't know, if a McCain Presidency would be better or worse than Obama or Hillary and there's no way to find out. My point is that it is an open question.

With McCain as President, you end up with a divided GOP. The professionals, the careerists, the politicians all line up with McCain, because that's where their bread is buttered. With Obama or Hillary in office, you will have a united Republican Party fighting tax increases, fighting liberalism/socialism, fighting open borders and fighting nationalized/socialized healthcare.

The question is, in which situation will we have a better chance to defend ourselves from the assault by the Federal Government?

The next question is, which situation would produce a longer term better result? It took only two years of the moderate leftist Bill Clinton to take over the Congress. What would happen under leftist leftists like Obama or Hillary? Could they really govern against the public?

Again, my point is that its an open question and McCain is keeping that question open. Please see his idiotic attack on Republicans in North Carolina. He never SAW the video, before he condemned it and he said he never wanted to see it. McCain accused Republicans of being racists in that video. How exactly is that different from what Barack Obama has been doing? Why is it better to have McCain in office to ratify the liberal assault on Republicans and conservatives? How is this better for conservatives, the country or the Republican Party than being in opposition?

[Jabba the Nutt]

Perot did not cost G HW Bush the election. Bush had a political meltdown due to his own actions: increasing taxes, affirmative action, diabilities act, clean air act and other idiotic policies took Bush from 91% at the end of the Gulf War to 34% at the election. This is a politic meltdown without historical parallel in US history.

Perot was a symptom, not a cause. In the voting analyses that I read about after the election, Perot's vote DID NOT determine the election. If Perot had not been on the ballot, Bush still would have lost.

Blame the RINO's and their policies. Blame the Country Club Republicans and their arrogance. Blame the Bush's for their political idiocy, which GW Bush executes to this day. Blame GOP politicians for their cowardice. Blame GOP politicians for not actually wanting to win elections. Blame GOP politicians for refusing to learn from their biggest political success in the past century, Ronald Reagan.

Blaming Perot or blaming voters is misplaced. They are either symptoms of the problem or victims of the GOP, who respond to GOP offerings and policies.

[Ditter]

Some Perot voters have had the humility to come out and admit their mistake............ and then others........ haven’t.

[Russ]

"Now we must make lemonade as best we can"

In order to make lemonade that's fit to drink you need to add sweetener. Where is that sweetener going to come from to make the lemon (McCain)palatable? His choice for VP? We will see...

[johnthebaptistmoore]

It’s truly more important to vote for all of the truly conservative candidates who are running for Congress and at each and every political level below the Congressional level all the way down to the most local levels of political office. DON’T PUNISH ALL OF THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE RUNNING FOR A VARIETY OF POLITICAL OFFICES BY STAYING AT HOME ON NOVEMBER 4 JUST BECAUSE ALL OF THE MAJOR CANDIDATES FOR POTUS ARE TRULY UNACCEPTABLE!

[johnthebaptistmoore]

He’s a WOT defeatist, and a ACLU defender-two serious problems for Bob Barr with a majority of conservatives!

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Just as long as you also truly continue to vote for conservative candidates who are also running on November 4 for a variety of other offices. Punishing all candidates running for all political offices by staying home on November 4 doesn’t make any sense.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Also, voting on November 4 to seriously make the next Congress much more conservative overall is, in many ways, actually even more important than “holding one’s nose” while voting against the Democrats by voting McCain on November 4. Congress must seriously become more conservative in ‘09 and beyond, or the U.S. as a country will truly be in big trouble for the long-term.

[Sun]

“The problem is, the VP does not make one hoot of difference on what is said or done in the White House.”

VPs often become POTUS, are a heartbeat away from the presidency, so they ARE important.

However, if Senator McCain doesn’t even reach out and pick a prolife, conservative, I won’t even be able to hold my nose and vote for him, because then, I can’t trust him to pick originalist judges, either.

[Yosemitest]

Can you cite an example of his supporting WOT?

If I was planning on staying at home on Nov 4, why would I suggest Barr for a McCain alternative?

No V.P. will change my mind about McCain!
McCain will NOT get my vote.

[Yosemitest]

"A pimp for the left should never be our president."

Then why would you support McCain?

[NoLibZone]

You must really hate the only US President to grant illegals amnesty.

To you Ronald Reagan he must be a mega RINO.

[Yosemitest]

But you forget? Clinton did the same!
Reagan trusted the Democrats to act on their promise to fix the problem.

NEVER TRUST A DEMOCRAT,
EVEN ONE (McCAIN) THAT REGISTERS AS A RINO!!!

[NoLibZone]

“Reagan trusted the Democrats to act on their promise to fix the problem.”

LMAO!

How old was Reagan when he bartered with the devil?

Based on conscience, we could not support Reagan if he were alive and could run again.

He made our Federal Government larger than when he found it.

As my Gov he was the catalyst that started the national sweep of no fault divorce that broke up thousands upon thousands of families.

Osama credits Regean with his his following. When Regaen surrendered in Lebanon he created Osama’s following.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thank you.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"You obviously see no difference between success and retreat in Iraq, or perhaps you just don’t care."

You need to check your eyeglass prescription.

"You also sound paranoid and delusional in your hatred for Senator McCain."

Nope. I just know John McCain. So do most FReepers. Burying your head in the sand and pretending he's something he's not won't change the reality. This is the same hackish sycophantism that surrounded the extra-chromosomed supporters of Huckster and *omney. I take it you're a party man first and Conservatism is a very distant priority. I used to be that back when I was a younger. When you grow and mature, perhaps you will change your perspective. I value my conscience first.

"You apparently think he’s no different than Obama’s revolutionary Marxism revealed in his adherence to “Liberation Theology.” People like you are apparently so blighted in your cartoon world that things no longer carry real meaning. It’s all little more than a parade of personalities for you. It’s very sad."

You don't have to convince me of Obama's ideology and goals, I know what they are. The man is dangerous. So is Hillary. But so is John McCain. McCain, like all RINOs, will have a singular opportunity to cripple the Conservative movement in a way Hillary or Obama NEVER could as President. Divide and demonize. He's demonized and divided Conservatives like almost no other "Republican." That's what's sad. Doesn't it bother your conscience serving as an apologist for somebody that does that on a daily basis ?

"I’m not sure why you think that Dan Quayle would have been the GOP nominee in 1996. I highly doubt he would have been."

I'll just conclude here. You don't know much about McCain, and your grasp of political history is on par with a kindergartener debating a college graduate. No offense. Read some books, I suggest all of Barone's Almanac volumes. I've read every last page frequently (so much so, many FReepers consult me on a daily basis for a primer on a given race and on alternative political/historical scenarios). After you've done that, then you'll be in a better position to have a good intellectual debate here.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Is that the best you can do? You didn’t respond to one point. Oh, btw, I didn’t vote for Perot in ‘92, I voted for Ron Paul.