Posted on 02/07/2008 5:58:17 AM PST by Brilliant
...Given that he and some of the other Republicans have been embroiled in a campaign to prove who is the most like Reagan, the choice of McCain is both shocking and a bit disturbing to those of us who remember the Reagan years fondly.
As a registered Libertarian and former Republican I must confess that I have utter contempt for any suggestion that McCain carries the mantle of Reagan Republicanism. If Republicans are honest -- and they remember anything about the 1980s -- they can only conclude that McCain is a militaristic socialist.
Reagan came to power at the height of the Cold War, with 45,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of the expansion-minded Soviet Empire. He managed to expedite, if not win outright, the Cold War without invading the Soviet Union in a pre-emptive war like the one McCain has supported in Iraq...
When Libya bombed a club in Europe, Reagan bombed Moammar Gadhafi's compound, but did not invade Libya. He reflagged oil tankers when Iran acted aggressively and protected this resource without invading Iran. He also rationally left Beirut when the U.S. Marines were killed...
On economic issues, just two weeks ago, McCain said, "I really don't know as much about economics as I should." Wonderful. Just as the American economy is struggling with the onset of a recession in the short run and challenges from the global economy in the long run, we have Republican voters picking someone who doesn't understand the economy?
McCain's record on economic matters confirms he is telling the truth. While Reagan pushed for the second-largest tax cuts in our history (John F. Kennedy's, as a percentage of the GDP, were the biggest), McCain voted against Bush's cut in income-tax... But he ...supported much of George Bush's enormous expansion in the welfare state...
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Still a worthy read..and spot on.
"Bipartisanship" Is A Dirty Word; and RUSH: "We want to defeat them"
The primary’s over in FL so the MSM has started deconstructing McCain, right on schedule. He’ll be mincemeat by Oct.
The takedown will be a combination of revelations about his disturbing personal traits and history to separate him from the moderates and independents, and reminders of his liberal voting history to keep the conservatives turned off. This is an example of the latter.
Wasn’t it Mark Levin who said “reach out across the aisle . . . and smack a liberal in the face!”
He is to self obsorbed to listen to anyone. His head has gotten to big with all that stuff about him being a war hero, which he is not.
To say the least.
If Reagan lost to McCain, he’d support him for the general election, (see: 1976 Republican Convention), but he’d also work like hell to change the Republican party.
That is what those of us who detest McCain need to do.
McCains past about how he left his cancer ridden wife to chase Cindy and her daddies millions will be the talk of the MSM very soon. He is the medias darling for a reason. He will be the easiest to destroy. Keating 5 will be reborn as well.
As the doctor said that my wife works for, McCain’s Melanoma has progressed into his lymph nodes. He could be fine or die next week. Why do we want this? Do not give the the VP argument.
I agree that he is more libertarian than conservative but what amazes me is how many former Republicans offer advise to Republicans.
This guy, Pat Bucannan etc LEFT the party. I am sure that guy supports a woman’s right to choose. When Pat ran as the Reform Party candidate, their platform was pro choice.
If you leave the Republican Party, just leave. Don’t try to tell us what we should do. Give your advise to your own party (Libertarian in this guy’s case)
Okay. . .not to negate what Reagan accomplished, and not to provide any support whatsoever to McCain. . .but the Cold War and the war in Iraq are two entirely different things. Trying to compare the two is simply silly.
After the Democrats unload their files on him, he will wish he was back at the Hanoi Hilton.
“Do not give the the VP argument.”
Why not? What’s wrong with it? If I have a choice between a lib who might die at any moment, leaving the government in charge of a conservative, and a worse lib who will probably live another 30 years, and has a VP who’s even more liberal, why would I not take the first alternative?
Agreed. The two wars can’t be compared, just like the Iraq war and Vietnam can’t be compared. While we did have Soviet spies infiltrating the US, they were not committing terroristic acts against us. The war in Iraq has been brewing for decades.
Ron would be even more shocked and disturbed that his widow and a group of his closest disciples have endorsed McCain.
They will try. But they will try to do that no matter who is nominated.
I think that a lot of McCain’s appeal is to the elderly and to Vets. My neighbor is a former Chicago Democrat. He’s never voted GOP in his life until the Fla. primary, when he voted for McCain. He says he voted for McCain because of McCain’s military experience. My neighbor is an ex-marine. I doubt that he’ll be deterred by the media from voting for McCain over Hillary or Obama.
You can’t count on his selection.
The Republican establishment was shocked and disturbed when Reagan first emerged as a presidential contender. He was the maverick then.
Quit boo-hooing about McCain, most realize we need someone (pro-life, strong defense etc) who will acutally be able to beat the demos in a year when the demos have MUCH more popular appeal.
I think they did it because they see the writing on the wall. They choose McCain over Hillary, largely because they are Republicans more than conservatives. And it’s beginning to look more and more like the GOP is more the anti-Democrat Party than it is the conservative party.
It wasn’t cancer. His first wife was badly injured in a car accident. Your point is well taken, though. And that’s just he beginning. McCain’s baggage has baggage, and the vast majority of voters know little or nothing about it. Yet.
He also provides complete cover for Hillary’s weaknesses. He can’t bring up family values because of his marital history, he can’t push the war hero thing too hard lest the press delve too deeply into that. He can’t talk about her corruption because of the Keating five. He can’t talk about her liberalism, because on important issues he’s just as liberal and has his name attached to legislation to prove it. He’s already said he doesn’t know much about the economy, so he can’t tout that issue. He can try to hit her on the war, but with it winding down, it’s becoming less of an issue.
He’s the weakest candidate the Republicans could have conceivably put up. The Stupid Party does it again.
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.