http://www.brooklynrail.org/2007/06/express/bringing-the-war-home
This is what a paid member of Hussein's staff put together and participated in last year, Memorial Day. Demond Mullins, an anti-war Vet, spent a year in Iraq.
Posted on 05/14/2008 8:51:18 PM PDT by advance_copy
Sen. John McCain, taking a victory lap as the presumptive Republican nominee, happily poked fun at his only remaining opponent.
Asked during an appearance on "The Daily Show" last week which of the two Democratic nominees he preferred to run against in the general election, McCain quipped, "Ron Paul."
But Paul might get the last laugh during McCain's coronation at the party's convention in early September.
McCain's nomination may be certain, but he finds himself pressured by different wings of the conservative movement -- from the libertarians and the anti-war activists, to social conservatives and evangelical voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
W is not in that category, at least to me.
You're the one that's blind, and full of hyperbole:
Votes for confirmation of Alito: McCain Yea, Obama Nay
Votes to confirm Roberts: McCain Yea, Obama Nay
If those aren't two HUGE differences right there, then you have zero basis in logic or reason - no better than the nutroots we deride, all emotion.
You might as well show some balls and vote for Obama.
Oh please. Of course he is one of a 100 but where are his statements or actions that indicate he is interested in reducing spending. Sure he can’t do it alone but he could at least talk about out side the “I’m not voting to reduce taxes because there aren’t spending cuts” line he always gives.
Besides acting on the global warming hoax will raise taxes - no cutting there.
And now that he has Calry on his team, well........
I’m with you. At present our family has one member serving in Iraq. Prior to last November we had four members of our family there, including my son. Total, we’ve had seven members of our family who have served in Iraq since 2003. That does not include the extended family members - young men who my sons went to high school with who spent a lot of time at our home and whom my sons spent 6 years in Jr. high and high school sports with (my wife and I essentially served as surrogate parents for quite a few of these young men whose parents never made it to the games/meets). In all there were 14 of these young men who entered the service (Army and Marines) and all have served in Iraq. I will vote for the only candidate who I believe will not turn his back on these heroes.
We will survive any of these three. But if we are ever going to have a conservative Republican Party, it will only cone when we let the present crowd go. That can best be accomplished by voting only for those who are conservative and refusing to vote for those who are not.”
_____________________
RE-ELECT NO ONE!
Someone else here said it best,”I would rather take it in the chest than in the back.”
I’m with you. And I have the distinct feeling that many of these pharisical FReepers demanding “100% Pure Conservatives” would refuse to cast a vote for Ronald Reagan, if he was running today.
In this case, we can’t count on Congress having some sanity in it like there was in 1976-1980. Sure, it was Democrat, but with guys like Nunn, O’Neill, and others who were Democrats, but also pro-America.
This time around, we won’t even have that. In 4 years, with a few SC appointments, the damage WILL be done, and it will be irreversible. Think universal healthcare (how to undo that after 4 years?). Think military cut in half (meaning another 8-12 years to build it back). Think a destroyed economy (when taxes shoot through the roof). Think World Court. Think Kyoto. Think gay marriage.
These are issues that will not be undone, once done. Four years of Obama, these WILL happen, and having another Reagan, or Lincoln, or Eisenhower will not undo the damage. It’s done forever, and conservatives will be gone forever.
The time to fight for the candidate that is the most conservative is the primary; that is when you play offense. Now is the time to play defense, and keep the damage down as much as possible for the next 4 years to try again.
When you turn over the ball after a punt, you send your defense out. You don’t just walk off, let the other team score, then send your offense out again!
Bob Barr is on the payroll of the ACLU
They are a litle to far left for most folks.
1. His appointments to the courts will be better than Obama's
He voted to approve Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Clearly he found her acceptable. He is going to try to find people who will support his unconstitutional McCain/Feingold, so think "moderate" like Souter, who he also voted to confirm. Other than wishing it was so, and perhaps a campaign promise from McCain, there is little to suggest he will appoint people of Scalia's caliber.
2. He will not raise taxes as Obama will do.
Maybe we need to raise taxes. If we are going to have a fully functioning welfare state we need to pay for it. We have about a $10 TRILLION dollar debt. The charge card is maxed. We *need* to raise tax revenues to balance our books. That is the conservative thing to do, at this point, given that there is NO constituencey for ending spending.
3. He will not abandon the mission in our war against terrorists
Well hopefully our troops get to go home sometime. Obama said it would take him two years to pull out. That seems sufficient.
4. He is committed to reducing spending and eliminating earmarks
Earmarks are the icing on the cake. Cutting all earmarks off won't make a serious dent in the deficit which is composed of entitlements, military spending and interest on the debt. Sure, it's a good thing, but it doesn't fix anything.
And while McCain gets on his high horse over some congress-critter trying to build a bridge or a museum in his district he's just conceeded the major points (without any clarification) on global warming. So he's agreeing to sign us up for a economic meltdown behind the ridiculous idea of controlling carbon in the atmosphere that will dwarf any savings from bad earmarks.
So, that ain't much on the postive side. Now, lets look at the negative side.
McCain will grant amnesty. With him leading the charge the Reps, in the minority, will have little stomach for fighting it. With Obama proposing the identical bill it is much more likely the R's in the House and Senate will mobilize to stop it.
McCain will take the blame. Whatever happens the left, who (lets face it) have created and continue to extend and demagog any plan to cut their socialist programs will have the one, big, visible excuse they need when anything goes wrong. Why should we spend our votes to put a luke-warm Conservative in the drivers seat just before the train is likely to crash? Are we that stupid and masochistic?? It will all by John's fault, and the futher destruction of conservatism will be complete. It will be "bad, stupid conservatives" as McCain signs one Dem law after
Hunter S. Thompson once wrote of the 1976 campaign: Carter became President because all the smart money stayed home. No one with a brain wanted to take over the train-wreck that was the USA at that time.
Carter got the blame for the 20 percent inflation, the gas crunch, budgets, etc. Now, he was (and is) a total idiot and did little to solve these problems. But still, we we have ever got Reagan if we had elected Ford instead? I seriously doubt it. It would have been Ford taking the rap for the deep recession caused by macro-economic forces beyond his control. On balance McCain is likely to be the death of the conservative movement and the last Republcian POTUS in my lifetime (I'm 50). Our movement will be so fully debunked after his term (which will consist of doing the same things the Dems were going to do while shreaking about "Free Markets" that we will all need to buy flashlight to guide us in the dark wilderness that McCain will be taking us into. I find no compelling reason to support him (so far) and quite a few not to.
Don’t know where you’ve been, but I’ve heard McCain talk about the importance of cutting spending outside of his comments about tax cuts. Yes, McCain has recently began talking about Global Warming. But talking about the issue during a campaign is hardly acting on that issue, now is it? You know, it is possible that encouraging new technologies that provide for cleaner air and water may have benefits such as new jobs and increase revenues too!! After all, the industrial revolution was once thought to be bad for our country.
Do you want a president who is boldly and publically playing footsy with LaRaza?
See this. Oh, and notice that part about voting for the balanced budget amendment. And cutting billions in spending. And about cutting taxes, knowing that starving the beast is the best way to go...
1. His appointments to the courts will be better than Obama's
The leader of the Gang of Fourteen, and Teddy Kennedy's favorite Republican? You make me laugh.
2. He will not raise taxes as Obama will do.
If you think a global warming loony, who wants "cap and trade," will keep your taxes the same or lower them, you're smoking something.
3. He will not abandon the mission in our war against terrorists
Yeah right. The guy wants "consensus" with the Euro-weenies. You're fooling yourself. (But few others.)
4. He is *should be* committed to reducing spending and eliminating earmarks
There. Fixed it.
Let us just let the poor man sleep peacefully in his grave, shall we?
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.