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]

As I outlined in my post #31, it’s a lot more complex than that. I was madder than hell at these folks, too, 15 years ago, but time has given me a lot more perspective on the subject. GHW Bush put himself in a position to lose in ‘92. He squandered all his capital, of which he wouldn’t have had he stuck to Conservative principles. Problem was, GHW Bush never was a committed Conservative. He was just along for the ride with Reagan. I’d rather Reagan had run with Paul Laxalt of Nevada. Laxalt would’ve been an excellent President and would’ve continued to build on the Reagan legacy.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You couldn’t have voted for Paul in ‘92 unless you wrote in his name. Andre Marrou was the Libertarian candidate that year. Paul wasn’t on the general election ballot.

[Yosemitest]

You're wrong on all accounts about Reagan, it was the Democrat Congress that took over in 1986 that enacted every law you blame Reagan for.

But then, ... you liberals never could face the truth about your mistakes.

[counterpunch]

Save your snobbery, you sound like an Obama supporter.... hmmmm.
I love how you put your replies in bold.
Like all liberals, you value your own words a bit too highly.
Your cover is blown.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You confuse snobbery for intelligence and grasp of history.

I reply in bold to distinguish my comments, if I’m quoting someone else, so that they don’t run together, it has no other meaning (which you’ll no doubt be disappointed to hear). If I’m not quoting, it will be standard fonts (as you’ll note in my replies in this thread alone, if you took the time to pay attention and halted your mindless shilling and rewriting/reworking of history).

I also suggest you stop drawing conclusions. This quote most assuredly applies to you: “Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” Well, at least you’re right about Obama, but if only you could get up to speed on everything else. I guess it doesn’t bother your conscience being a sycophant for a man who doesn’t give a damn about Conservatism (or the GOP for that matter). Are you on his payroll ? That at least would explain your schtick.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Oops, I’m tired. I did vote for Andre Marrou. I was getting 88 and 92 mixed up. Bottom line, I didn’t vote for Perot. Bottom line 2, Perot didn’t make any difference in the election result. President Bush stabbed his base in the gut with his policies. He lost because he chose unwisely Grasshopper.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I don’t absolve Perot of his part in ‘92. It was clear the bulk of his support came from disgruntled Republicans (all you have to do is compare the 1988 and ‘92 election figures to see that. Clintoon essentially held Dukakis’s support for his minority victory). Even in ‘96, had Perot directed his supporters to vote for Dole, Dole would’ve narrowly beaten Clinton (it would’ve swung my state, for example, which Gore’s having lost in 2000 cost him the entire election — Tennessee). Make no mistake, Perot did intend to sabotage Bush and was quite happy to see him go down. But as was said, Bush placed himself in a position to lose (and he didn’t have Lee Atwater, either. Atwater would’ve had a field day with Clinton).

[NoLibZone]

You're wrong on all accounts about Reagan, it was the Democrat Congress that took over in 1986 that enacted every law you blame Reagan for."

So you are unaware that California Governor Ronald Reagan SIGNED into law the No Fault Divorce laws of Califronia that swept the nation?

[NoLibZone]

Please make no mistake, I think that Reagan was a great President.

Perfect?

Hell no! Not buy a very long shot.

But you,vote your conscience guys, would reject Christ because of what he said on the cross.

[Yosemitest]

And who passed the No Fault Divorce Law of California, before it got to Reagan's desk?

Damn those pesky little facts. Besides, No fault divorce only applies, if you don't contest it. SO if you want fault, then pay your lawyer and get fault.

[NoLibZone]

And who passed the No Fault Divorce Law of California, before it got to Reagan’s desk?

Democrats.

As Gov he had the legal and Republican moral authority to reject it.

Again, setting the stage for his later policies of larger Fed and illegal immigration, he ran with the Dems and took their lead.

He was a huge RINO by today’s standards.

[Yosemitest]

I'd like your thoughts on this insight to Barr's thinking, even if it's old and requires a good memory to go back to November 6, 2006 and earlier.

---

House Democrats Won't Repeat GOP Mistakes
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Bob Barr, November 9, 2006

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, 1994, after learning in the wee hours that morning that I was then a U.S. representative-elect, I had the opportunity at the Waverly Hotel to appear at a news conference with new Speaker-elect Newt Gingrich.

He spoke of new plans and programs with the self-assurance of a veteran leader. Even though Gingrich was about to assume a job no Republican had held in 40 years, publicly he and his transition team of House colleagues portrayed a sense of being in charge.

The difficulties of assuming command of one of the branches of government of the world's only superpower, however, began to manifest themselves as soon as the new majority began to consolidate power in the weeks following the election. Unlike their colleagues in the Senate, who had tasted and tested majority leadership in the 1980s, not a single member of the new House Republican majority had ever served in the majority. Mistakes were made that were directly and obviously the result of having been completely shut out of the corridors of power in the House for four decades.

First and foremost among those mistakes, perhaps, was not recognizing the true nature of their victory. Many in the new House majority incorrectly concluded that their 1994 victory was a mandate for all they had campaigned on:

dramatically smaller government, quickly achieved;
significantly lower taxes;
and a complete rollback of many policies instituted in his first two years in office by their nemesis, President Bill Clinton (whom we repeatedly underestimated).

What many congressional Republicans failed to realize until much later was that their November victory was less of a vote of confidence in them and more a vote against Clinton. This miscalculation led to costly blunders in our first year; including trying to do too much too fast, which placed us far ahead of where the American public wanted us to be and where it felt comfortable being.

Another major mistake was the failure to think through leadership decisions and to make such moves based on long-term goals as opposed to simpler, short-term concerns like putting more senior members in charge of key subcommittees. Gingrich did break with precedent and wisely moved some less-senior members to committee chairmanships over the heads of more senior, but less shrewd members. However, he only did this in a limited number of instances, and he failed to realize the importance of doing the same thing at the subcommittee level.

Thus, in a number of instances, what later turned out to be key subcommittee chairmanships were put in the hands of weak, but loyal, senior members. Other full committee chairmanships, thought perhaps to be noncontroversial, were also left in the hands of weaker but more senior members.

This quickly proved disastrous later in 1995, when the first two major and very high-profile oversight hearings—Waco and Whitewater—took place. Weak GOP leadership on the panels heading those hearings severely limited any substantive or political gain the Republicans hoped to make, affording the Democrats in the House—and Bill Clinton—much-needed political momentum.

Added to these tactical blunders were as the U.S. House of Representatives. These administrative problems were magnified by the new majority fulfilling its promise as part of the Contract With America to cut House staff, and by retaining a number of senior Democrat staffers on key committees. The seeds of more than two years of fitful leadership were sown from the start. the Democrats are unlikely to repeat any of these mistakes made by the Republicans a dozen years ago. I suspect the Democrats know, for example, this election was more a vote against Bush than for the Democratic platform.

Perhaps most important, every senior Democrat in line for a House leadership post or a committee chairmanship has served in the majority; they have wielded power before, and they know how to use it (something many Republicans in the House have failed to grasp even to this day).

The Democrats will do everything in their power to avoid a return to second-class citizenship. They will be more likely than were the Republicans a dozen years ago to take modest steps, and to be careful lest rhetoric overtake feasible action. The goal for Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her battle-hardened team will be to spend two years laying the groundwork for further gains in 2008, and to push an agenda that will provide a solid and likely centrist platform for their party's standard-bearer.

Bob Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation.

---

Barr knows how to plan, but he needs help from real leaders like Newt, Rush, and many others that quit government out of disgust.

[fieldmarshaldj]

On the article alone, Barr is largely correct (the only problem is more in the last paragraph — but the Dems have accomplished very little, and have NOT moved in a “moderate” course in the least, though Pelosi has managed to hold off the impeachment hardliners). The more shocking development is that the GOP has continued its bizarre behavior of not caring that they lost the majority and taking the steps necessary to close the gap and exploit the massive unpopularity of this Congress. Instead, we’re all but assured (even with a McCain victory) of losing at least 3 and as many as 8 Senate seats and anywhere from breaking even in the House to 2-3 dozen losses. Contrast that with 1996 when the Congressional Dems were mad as hell and wanted their majority back, and did indeed win back some seats. The desire just isn’t there. Add in McCain to the mix, and we could conceivably decline to 1/3rd of the membership in Congress within the next 4 years.

I sincerly believe McCain is going to be a terrible President (save perhaps for some aspects of foreign policy — but I could easily see him signing off on an executive order legalizing every criminal invader in this country if at all possible. He does that, and this party will consume itself, pay for McCain’s crime at the ballot box, and the Dems will become his biggest fans, and will gain enormously).

[Yosemitest]

Thanks.
I too, believe that McCain will be the worst Republican In Name Only President ever. But I believe he's get more democrat votes than republican votes.

I know a lot, a large amount of both old and young democrats that can't stand the far left under Hillary or Obama. You should hear some of the talk in the barber shops and at the local diner.

They think that McCain is great, a war hero, and they have no clue how liberal McCain is, when it comes to illegal immigrants, liberal judges, homosexuals, and kissing up to the likes of Kennedy, and Shumer, and all the other sycophants.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

OMFG! I knew there was something wrong with Mcloon.

He’s a Fracking CYLON!

[Rastus]

If you don’t like my peaceful music, get your own cab. Outta my peaceful cab!

[Rastus]

Six can beat me bloody if she wants.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

You can have Six.

I want the Sharon model. Eight has always been my lucky number...

[Rastus]

You can have whatever’s left of Cally. :P

[fieldmarshaldj]

There’s one thing I’ll say for McCain. I’m not sure even he believed he’d get the nomination this year (ostensibly it appeared his best shot was in 2000), but he merely turned out to be in the right place at the right time. I was a Fred supporter, the only acceptable first-tier candidate in the race.

I vigorously worked hard to enlighten folks to bring down Huckster and *omney, both horrific abominations with proven track records of NON-Conservative and one-man party destroyers (take a look how many Republicans were left after these charlatans were done), and I was proud to sink them both. But when Fred got out, there was no one in the primary left I could support in good conscience.

Why the very worst, bottom-of-the-barrel RINOs were the leading candidates for the Presidential nomination absolutely defied the imagination. We had 3 great Governors (Sanford in SC, Barbour in MS, even Don Carcieri in RI — not well known but an unapologetic Conservative) and yet none of them chose to run.

The only, and most remote chance of McCain getting my vote will be if he chooses one of those 3 aforementioned Governors. If he chooses one of those abominations from the primary (excluding Fred, whom I believe won’t accept the nod, but probably will retire in my state to run for Governor in 2010) or a subpar RINO (such as Pawlenty), he will not get my vote under any circumstances.

Fact is, if I lived in Arizona, I’d vote rodent just to get McCain the hell out of that Senate seat (if we couldn’t dump him in the primary). I surely wouldn’t have voted for him after 1986. Aside from President, I have no reason to vote in November, I’m through supporting the RINO boob Senator Lamar! Alexander. The Dems are giving him a pass this year as it is (ain’t that a surprise). My House district has been rodent for 134 years with no chance of electing a Republican, ditto my legislative districts (a civil rights state Senate seat, Republicans need not run, and the state House, gerrymandered Dem). So if I don’t vote for McCain, I’ll just go do something more productive in November and go clean my toilets on Election Day. Enough is enough.