Posted on 05/15/2008 2:38:55 PM PDT by kellynla
I did support Pat in 2000. It was before he went bonkers to the point that I could no longer support him.
He had some problems in 2000, but I could see where we were headed and I wanted to avoid it. Well we didn’t avoid it. We settled for Bush and here we are.
I have my problems with Buchanan. I know it wouldn’t have been all upside. It sure hasn’t been all upside with Bush either.
Well, here we are. Stuck in this mess.
I appreciate your comments. IMO, the last Conservative I vote for was Reagan.
That's the massive problem that McCain presents. If he is elected who is going to run from the right in the near future? He will keep the RNC in line and at the state level they'll force the locals to toe the line.
McCain is a disaster in the making. Just think of his appointments. Evidently nobody has. He votes for Ginsberg and everyone thinks he's going to appoint Conservatives. Brother! His cabinet is going to remind me of the old Munster television show.
Clinton's crew reminded us of a circus and McCain will remind us of a morgue. Well somebody has to embalm the Republican party before the burial.
Destruction of the family is the goal.
What happens when the family structure is destroyed? Dependence. What/who is there to ‘save’ them? Government/politicians.
Big government scheme and both parties are in on it.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Ruth bader Ginsburg by a 96 to 3 vote.
I would have been shocked if McCain had been one of the three.
As I recall, there was a lot of chat at the time that it seemed unfair that only one woman was on the court when over 50% of our population is female.
And just because someone votes to confirm, doesn’t mean that they will appoint that kind of justice.
Because you know in your heart that he's a RINO that does whatever it takes to make his Democratic allies happy?
As I recall, there was a lot of chat at the time that it seemed unfair that only one woman was on the court when over 50% of our population is female.
Wise government isn't based on what is "fair". The very fact that some Senators might have made a decision based on such nonsense just proves how incompetent they are to hold office.
And just because someone votes to confirm, doesn’t mean that they will appoint that kind of justice.
Past acts are generally indicative of future actions. Sure, he says NOW that he would appoint conservative candidates, but Hillary and Obama are running as "pro-gun" candidates now too. If we are to base the decision on campaign rhetoric instead of historical data, Hillary seems to be the most conservative choice available.
McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 80.
Hillary has an ACU rating hovering around 10.
But somehow she’s more conservative? Your comments leave me wondering who on these boards is working for the DNC?
McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 80.
Hillary has an ACU rating hovering around 10.
But somehow she’s more conservative? Your comments leave me wondering who on these boards is working for the DNC?
And a rating in 2006 of 65.
Hillary has an ACU rating hovering around 10.
But somehow she’s more conservative?
Of course not; and that's the whole point. You are trying to judge McCain by what he is saying now in the campaign, instead of what he has done in the past. The example of Hillary simply proves how your logic is faulty.
Your comments leave me wondering who on these boards is working for the DNC?
Considering the high praise of some people for McCain, I can't help but to have similar thoughts. The fact is that McCain holds a lot of beliefs that are simply leftist. Some things he believes in are just plain stupid (like his recent carbon credit scheme). His past actions (such as CFR) prove that he isn't willing to perform the primary function of President to uphold and defend the Constitution.
A pragmatist might feel that we must vote for him anyway, simply because the alternative (an authoritarian Hillary or communist Obama) is even worse. Perhaps that is true. But no real conservative can make a legitimate claim that McCain is actually a good candidate for the conservative cause; yet that is exactly what a lot of people on this board have been doing since he emerged as the front runner.
Anyone who actually prefers McCain as the Republican candidate, rather than merely tolerating him as the lesser of the available evils, isn't much of a conservative.
I believe strongly in voting for the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win.
This year it is McCain.
Two big issues for me are judges and the military. The next president will probably replace JP Stevens and RB Ginsburg on the SC.
I suspect McCain will give us moderate justices, Obama will give us justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I trust McCain, hands down, to be CiC of our military.
That is a reasonable position. But consider the consequences of that from a game theory perspective. It means that logically, assuming the majority of the electorate adopt a similar strategy, any candidate trying to win the presidency should try to adopt positions that are as leftist as possible without quite being as far to the left as other candidates in the race. The inevitable result of such a strategy is creeping socialism.
Is that really your strategy? For example, if McCain dropped out of the race and the only choice was between Obama and Hillary, would you vote for Hillary?
Similarly, if McCain dropped out and the only choices were between Obama and some slightly more reasonable 3rd party candidate (libertarian or constitution party) who didn't "have a chance to win", would you really vote for Obama just because the other candidates "can't win".
I suspect McCain will give us moderate justices, Obama will give us justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Again, that doesn't seem to be a reasonable suspicion, considering the fact that McCain has already cast a vote in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I’ve already pointed out that RBG was confirmed by 96% of the senate. Senators have to consider whether it will hurt their re-elction chances to vote against a {gasp} female nominee, for fear of being labeled sexist.
McCain also voted for Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
Listen TG, you can waste a lot of time running all kinds of hypotheticals: Hillary vs. Bill, Obama vs his evil twin. The reality, as of right now, is that it will be Obama vs. McCain.
There are differences between the two regarding Iraq/Military, there are differences between them regarding abortion, and there are differences when it comes to judges.
It’s like this: Your dying of thirst, you’re offered half a glass of water (McCain) or an empty glass of water (Obama)
Too many of us die-hard conservatives are making the mistake of saying, half a glass won’t cut it, so I’ll stay home/vote 3rd party.
But half a glass might be just what we need to stay alive until we can regroup and get conservatives at the top of the ticket hopefully in 2012.
The following was posted today by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1025):
TFP Decries California Court’s Decision as “Morally Reprehensible”
Written by The American TFP
Friday, May 16 2008
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) has issued the following statement about the May 15 decision of the California Supreme Court declaring unconstitutional the overwhelmingly supported proposition 22 and legalizing same-sex “marriage”:
“The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) registers its complete rejection of the May 15 California Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the overwhelmingly supported proposition 22 and legalizing same-sex ‘marriage,’ as a aggressive and morally reprehensible ruling that ignores both the nature of marriage and the expressed will of the California people.
“The 4-3 decision redefines marriage based on non-existent analogies between heterosexual couples and same-sex relationships. It awards rights and privileges to relationships that cannot naturally fulfill the duties of marriage. The Court clearly failed in its duty imposed by natural law to uphold morality in favor of the common good.
“In arbitrarily forcing same-sex ‘marriage’ upon the California people, the Court clearly shows its weakness by engaging in shameless judicial activism and ignoring the express wishes of the people who overwhelmingly approved a proposition forbidding such unions.
“With this decision, it is clear that only constitutional amendments, both state and federal, are the only effective means to stop this abuse.
“As Catholics, we are duty bound to fight this attack upon the family, take the initiative and mobilize in defense of the family.”
The American TFP invites its members, friends and supporters to offer prayers and acts of reparation to God for the offense caused by this tragic decision.
Yes, you keep saying that. But the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that 96% of the Senate is composed of leftists or incompetent bozos. Which group does McCain belong to? THIS is the problem I have with the McCainiacs; they are far too willing to find any available excuse to justify the mis-deeds of their mediocre candidate.
There are differences between the two regarding Iraq/Military, there are differences between them regarding abortion, and there are differences when it comes to judges.
I'll grant you two of those. And McCain's positions on the WOT and abortion are more than sufficient to distinguish him as the superior candidate between the two. But that doesn't solve the strategic issue that if we continue to vote for barely tolerable candidates who are only slightly more centrist than whatever socialist option the Democrats promote then we will only move further and further to the left.
It is obviously too late to solve this issue during this campaign cycle. Tactically, McCain may indeed be the only viable choice. But that doesn't mean that we should rejoice and embrace this woefully inadequate candidate who is almost certain to be an incompetent President.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Bill Clinton nominated her early in his administration. At the time there were 56 Democrat senators. The republicans realizing that she was going to be confirmed decided not to make political hay. Few wanted to go on record as voting against the second female to be named to the SC.
Exactly. They're political cowards who are more concerned about being "liked" by Democrats than doing the right thing, and were more than willing to abandon their principles in doing so. And since John McCain has already acted this way before, what makes you think he won't do so again in the future when there is a democratic majority in the Senate?
If you can show any evidence that McCain could have prevented Ruth Bader Ginsburg from being confirmed present it...
Otherwise STFU.
(PS. I only reply this way to FReepers who are abundantly ignorant.)
I'm a God fearing man
???
Maybe by actually opposing it? Maybe by presenting a case before the Senate that strict constructionism is more than just a liberal/conservative issue but one all sides should strive to adopt in order to preserve the Republic?
Just because the fall towards authoritarian leftism seems inevitable doesn't mean Conservatives should abandon their principles and embrace it. Your candidate (and apparently you yourself) seem to be willing to completely ignore any principle just so you can be on the "winning" side.
Otherwise STFU.
Translation: you know you can't defend your candidate on conservative principles, so you think you can win an argument by trying to suppress it. Nice try, pinko.
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.