The New “A List” –If Conservatives Stay Home

Since many conservatives say they won’t vote for John McCain, and some say they’ll even vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it might be worth looking at some of the people whose power and influence will be far more potent as a result of such pettiness. To wit:

–George Soros. A multi-billionaire with megalomaniacal ambitions. Financier of some of the most virulent lunatic-left organizations in the country. Just revealed as the chief funder of a recently debunked “study” by the British medical journal, Lancet, which claimed 650,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the war–ten times the actual number.

–MoveOn.Org. Do you like it when George W. Bush, a wartime American president, is hated more than the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11? How about when Gen. David Petraeus, leader of the turn-around in Iraq and man who has dedicated his life to the country is called “General Betrayus?”

–Michael Moore. Propagandist film maker, dedicated socialist. Mr. Moore has called Americans the “stupidest people on the planet.” Believes communist Cuba has a better health care system than our own. Given a seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic convention.

–Jimmy Carter. Worst president of the modern era. Never misses a chance to bash America, especially when traveling abroad. Says Israel is an “apartheid” state. Why? For having the “gall” to defend itself from ongoing Palestinian terror.

–The mainstream media. Already leaning left, already “massaging” any info that accrues to the benefit of conservatives. A Democratic Congressional majority coupled with a Democratic administration might be more than willing to re-visit the “Fairness Doctrine”–tipping the scales even further leftward.

–Hollywood celebrities. A deadly combination of brain-dead, America-hating, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-loving socialists. Sean Penn? Danny Glover? Barbara Streisand? Susan Sarandon? The list is endless–and gag-inducing.

–Academia. Other than Hollywood celebrities, no one embraces a dimmer view of American values and traditions than the “ivory tower intellectuals” who poison the minds of our youth.

–Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. A resurgence for the two race hustlers whose livelihoods depend on maintaining the black “victim of racist society” myth while shaking down guilty white liberals who head major corporations. With a Dem majority in Congress and an Obama or Clinton administration, bet the farm that “reparations for slavery” hits the front burner.

–Anti-war protesters/appeasers. Despite all evidence to the contrary, there are those who believe Islamic terror is an “exaggerated threat,” and that “nothing is worth fighting for.” 9/11? America’s fault. Atomic Iran? No big deal. Reactive better than proactive? Better an American city under a nuclear halo than continuing the fight against “peace-loving” Muslims abroad. One more domestic attack away from irrelevancy–but who gets to “take one for the team”–first?

–Conspiracy theorists. The Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center, the war in the Middle East is only about oil, Haliburton, et al, controls the world. ‘Nuff said.

–Enviro-whack-jobs. We don’t drill for domestic oil now, despite funding both sides of the terror war. Our economy is already shaky without global warming “mandates.” We’ve already lost incandescent light bulbs. That’s just the tip of liberal-inspired, environmental tsunami which would hamstring our economy for decades.

Supreme Court Justice “X.” Or maybe Justices “X,” “Y,” and “Z,” all of whom believe the Constitution is a “living document” to be “interpreted” as a means of securing “social justice.” Presidents come and go in four or eight years. A Supreme Court appointment is for life.

This is only a partial list. But it ought temper the “hate-McCain,” “stay home on election day,” “my principles or nothing” conservatives who are willing to bite the bullet and let the liberals take over. There are far worse things than a flawed candidate. The empowerment of the above would be a paradigm shift away from virtually everything that has made this country stand above all the rest.

Are conservatives genuinely ready–with spite as their primary motivation, no less–for THAT?

Dear pookie18, .... Does closing down the detention facility in Guantanamo ring a bell?... Does banning the use of all forms of “torture” (whether they’re really torture or not) ring a bell? .... If that’s where Mr. McCain STARTS, there is no telling where he will WIND UP....

So, if, say, you lived in 1944 and liberal FDR wanted to stop so-called "torture" (real or not) of captured Gestapo agents at Guantanamo Naval Base but wanted to win the war, would you help throw the election to a candidate who had promised to bug out of the war entirely?

****

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006

****

Obama wants troops home by spring ’08

****

Real Conservatives help win wars.

Traitors and Copperheads help lose wars.

Pick your side.

Dear Polybius,

If Mr. McCain were someone to be deemed trustworthy, you might have a point.

However, he’s been stabbing conservatives in the back for a while now, so he's not and you don’t.

“We cannot afford to lose this war and leave 70% of the World’s known oil reserves under the military control of Islamist fanatics in Iran who are now working to acquire nukes and the ICBM’s to deliver to U.S. soil.”

It might happen whether or not we elect John McCain.

As well, obviously, you’re a single issue voter, and for you, the current war is that single issue.

As for me, I view the current war as one battle in a much longer conflict. It will be necessary, to win the overall war, to rebuild and sustain the will of the American people.

Electing a Republican liberal isn’t the way to do that. In fact, electing a Republican liberal is probably the single fastest way to further demoralizing the American people, and ultimately losing all of the will necessary to fight this prolonged war.

I don’t blame anyone who votes for Sen. McCain to prevent the election of either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. I won’t call them any names, or slight their patriotism, their intelligence, or good intentions.

But at this point, I can’t vote for Mr. McCain. He looks to me like someone who will put the finishing touches on the destruction of conservatism in the United States.

I’ll continue to listen to him. But frankly, I don’t view him as trustworthy, and thus my inclination is to think that he’s just lying to get my vote.

sitetest

There’s Nothing Conservative Or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November
By John Hawkins
Friday, February 8, 2008

“(Don’t let) the perfect (be) the enemy of the good.” — Voltaire

I keep hearing conservatives say that if John McCain is the nominee — and barring a miracle, he will be at this point — that they’re going to sit out the election or even vote for the Democratic nominee because of “conservative principles.”

As one conservative — and not as a “John McCain conservative,” but as a “I supported Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, oppose amnesty and abortion, fought to get Samuel Alito instead of Harriet Miers, believe in small government, term limits, tax cuts, and balancing the budget” conservative — to another, let me tell you that I very respectfully, but also very strongly disagree with that definition of “conservative principles.”

There is NOTHING conservative about working with the Democratic nominee against most of your fellow conservatives in order to grow government, socialize medicine, lose the war in Iraq, tilt the Supreme Court to the Left, and make Roe v. Wade the permanent law of the land. If you are conservative and vote for the Democratic nominee or even just refuse to vote for McCain, who is by any and every objective standard, considerably more conservative than either of them, let me tell you what you are NOT doing,

* You are NOT doing the logical thing. When faced with a choice between a moderate who holds some conservative positions and some non-conservative positions and a liberal who holds no conservative positions, the logical decision is to take the moderate. After all, half a loaf is better than none.

* You are NOT helping conservatism or your fellow conservatives. To the contrary, you are helping liberals defeat conservative ideas. Isn’t that what conservatives are saying that they’re furious at McCain over? Well, who’s less of a conservative: John McCain, who, if he were in the White House, would help conservatives win some battles and would help liberals win others or the conservatives who want to help a Democrat get into the office who will go against conservative ideas every time?

* You are NOT looking out for the best interests of the country. If you believe winning in Iraq is better than losing, if you believe balancing the budget is better than higher deficit spending, if you believe that having a Supreme Court that is tilted to the right is better than having a Supreme Court tilted to the left, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is leading to the immoral murder of millions of children — and the overwhelming majority of people reading this column certainly believe all those things — then you are certainly not putting the good of the country first if you oppose John McCain in November.

Some might argue that having Hillary Clinton in office would be better for the country and conservatism because she would screw things up so badly that it would actually help conservatives in the long run. But, if people haven’t seen through Hillary Clinton after 16 years in the public eye, what makes you think another 4-8 years in the White House would do it? How many Americans saw through FDR? Even as his government policies extended the depression for years after it should have ended, he was voted back into office. Yes, he was a capable war President, but he also did more damage to this country domestically than any other President in history, short-term and long-term, and he’s still considered by many people to be one of our greatest Presidents.

But, we don’t have to go all the way back to Roosevelt: just think back to 2006. What did we hear then? “We should stay home and teach the Republicans a lesson. They’ll take a big beating and it’ll be great for conservatism.” How did that turn out? From where I am sitting, we have a lot less Republicans in Congress, more squabbling than ever, and we’re going to have Republican nominee John McCain. Why? Because sometimes a loss leads to better things, but in politics, as often as not, losing just begets more losing and it can sometimes take a very, very long time for movements to learn from its mistakes. Think back to Roosevelt, whose victories started a 40 year-long dominant cycle for the Democrats and that party’s shift to the left in 1972 that started a long slow slide for them that may have finally ended in 2006.

Along those same lines, it’s also worth noting that after Barry Goldwater was destroyed in 1964, Richard Nixon, who was even less conservative than McCain, was elected to two terms in the White House. Then, in 1980, Reagan became President. So, there is absolutely no reason to think that if a moderate Republican gets into the White House that it will prevent a conservative Republican from getting in later — and since I mentioned Reagan, I have heard his name invoked many times in the past few weeks to justify not supporting McCain in the general election.

If Ronald Reagan had been alive and had chosen to endorse a candidate in the primaries, even McCain fans should be honest enough to admit that candidate probably wouldn’t have been John McCain. But, McCain’s most ardent opponents should also be honest enough to note that Ronald Reagan campaigned for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, both of whom were to the left of John McCain. So, were he still alive, Ronald Reagan would almost certainly campaign for McCain against Hillary or Barack and you can be sure that he would not approve of conservatives who say that they’d rather have a liberal Democrat in the White House than a far-from-perfect Republican. So, whether the question is “What would Reagan do” or “what would a principled conservative do” in November, the answer would be the same: vote for John McCain.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/02/08/theres_nothing_conservative_or_principled_about_helping_a_democrat_beat_john_mccain_in_november

There are several articles on FR about McCain/Soros chumminess. There’s also an article from March 2005 listing all the extreme left-wing organizations that financially support McCain’s Reform Institute. I just did a search for it but keep getting a Proxy Server error.

And then there’s this..........

McCain-FeinGold = no freedom of speech = no freedom.

http://www.news.com/The-coming-crackdown-on-blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate’s press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He’s one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. “The commission’s exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines” the campaign finance law’s purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn’t get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a “bizarre” regulatory process now is under way.

Dear Polybius, If Mr. McCain were someone to be deemed trustworthy, you might have a point. However, he’s been stabbing conservatives in the back for a while now, so he's not and you don’t.

Well, the fact that he was championing the strategy that is now winning the war even when everybody from Rumsfeld to the Media and the opinion polls were against him tells you that he says what he means and means what he says about the war.

It might happen whether or not we elect John McCain. As well, obviously, you’re a single issue voter, and for you, the current war is that single issue.

Well, ummm .... I certainly care about other issues such as not having a Far-Left Supreme Court for the next 20 years and not having a guaranteed tax hike but I must admit that having America not go up in a nuclear holocaust has always been right up there in my A-List of issues.

Mutually Assured Destruction worked with the Soviets and with the CHICOMS.

Mutually Assured Destruction does NOT work when you are dealing with Islamic religious fanatics who believe that they will gain Eternity in Paradise if they die just as long as they take the Great Satan of America with them.

As for me, I view the current war as one battle in a much longer conflict. It will be necessary, to win the overall war, to rebuild and sustain the will of the American people.

If a dozen Islamist nutjobs with plane tickets out of Boston can bring down the World Trade Center, just think what Islamic nutjobs with nuclear-tipped ICBM's can do.

You allow a nuclear capable Iran to inherit military control of 70% of the World's known oil reserves and chances are that America will not survive long enough to finish your "war".

We conservatives make up around 20% of the population of the U.S.A. Republicans, moderate or conservative, make up less than 35% of the total population of the U.S.A. We are not going to win EVERY election.

Putting America under Iranian nuclear-tipped ICBM's in 6 years will give us "I Told You So" rights but we might not live long enough after that to enjoy rubbing it in.

That is reasonable.

But at this point, I can’t vote for Mr. McCain. He looks to me like someone who will put the finishing touches on the destruction of conservatism in the United States.

That's fine. Don't vote for him now.

But, from here to November, please consider the catastrophic strategic consequences of abandoning the Persian Gulf to Iranian Islamist lunatics.

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.