Posted on 03/27/2008 9:58:07 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle
Many Republicans—this writer included—are not happy with the thought of Senator John McCain as their presidential nominee. Many of these same Republicans are not happy with the Republican Party’s drift toward big government and away from conservative principles. Instead of capitalizing on their control of both houses of Congress and the White House and ushering in decades of Republican control of the government, the administration has missed opportunity after opportunity to show real leadership and make government our servant rather than our master.
And Senator McCain promises more of the same, with even more of a tilt to the left. Given this, why should conservatives vote for Senator McCain? The conventional answer is that Senator McCain is the lesser of two evils and, as conservatives, we would be better off with him in the White House than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. But would we?
While a McCain administration could be expected to propose less “liberal” legislation and a somewhat less intrusive federal government than either Obama or Clinton, the differences would not be great. If one looks at the net result of legislative and executive initiatives, it could well be the case that more McCain-proposed legislation would be passed than that proposed by a Democratic administration. This would likely be the case if Republicans in the Congress functioned effectively as a “loyal opposition” and stopped the worst of any socialistic initiatives of the liberal Democrats. Those same Republicans would be reluctant to vote against legislation pushed by “their” president.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalledger.com ...
It appears you need to increase your meds. I said there is not a dimes worth of difference bewteen McCain and Clinton.
Unless you expect everybody to subscribe to the philosophy that it does not matter if the U.S. loses its wars or not, you are wrong.
John McCain was championing the Surge strategy that has turned the war around for the U.S. even back when both Rumsfeld and Bush were opposed to it. He has said that the war MUST be won.
Hillary has promised a bug out ASAP and Obama demanded a bug out over one year ago.
A year and a half ago, when only 18% of Americans supported the idea of the Surge and it was hurting McCain politically, he stuck to his guns and declared that he would rather lose an election than lose a war.
It seems that too many self-proclaimed "conservatives" would rather have America lose a war than have their favorite candidate lose a primary election.
FR needs to move on, get over the fact that we lost this one. This election is over, FGS!
It’s time to be constructive, and produce a candidate to challenge McCain or Hussein in 2012.
“the Republican Party’s drift toward big government and away from conservative principles....”
Drift!...Hell!....It’s full speed!
You have stated your position very clearly. You would vote for Barack "God DAMN America" Obama because you did not get everything you wanted in a primary election.
You put your politics above America itself and that says a lot about you.
You are a political partisan first and an American second.
McCain only cares about appealing to Democrats, moderates and RINOs. They can elect him and take responsibility for their folly.
This POS will never appoint conservative judges. He will give his liberal, global buds, everything they want, both here and abroad.
That is an excelent tagline.
excelent=excellent Sorry
Just beautiful, what you did in your child’s class.
How I wish there were private (G-dfearing Judeo-Christian) schools with teachers such as yourself.
It doesn't appear that conservatives stayed home.
Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates (2006)
Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split.
This is four RINOs in a row now: GHWB, Dole, GWB and now McRINO.
RNC Last Chance to Fix 2012 Primaries
As I wrote back in January, “According to a Fox News exit poll, 32% of the Michigan Republican primary voters identified themselves as independents or Democrats. Another Fox exit poll showed 20% of the South Carolina Republican primary voters said they were either Democrats or independents. In Michigan, Gov. Romney won with 39%, Sen. McCain was second at 30% and Gov. Huckabee third at 16%. In South Carolina, John McCain won with 33% of the vote, Mike Huckabee had 30% and Fred Thompson had 16%. Given those margins, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and independents controlled the result in both states.”In New Hampshire, the results were the same. According to Fox News exit polls, 39% of New Hampshire’s independents were voting GOP ballots. Sen. McCain won by about 5.5% over Gov. Romney in New Hampshire. Again, the independents apparently controlled the results.
By allowing cross-over voting, the Republican Party is enabling liberals to choose its nominee. Just as conservatives demand our borders be secure against illegal aliens, conservatives insist that Republicans -- and only Republicans -- choose the Republican nominee for president.
The early GOP primaries, at least, have to be changed to closed primaries like in NY. I had to change my registration from Conservative to GOP in NY in October 2007, at least 25 days before the last general election, in order to vote in the February NY GOP primary!!!
Read it again slowly, stop FEELING like a good Republican ought to, and THINK about what it says and why.
ROFLOL!
Thanks! Still waiting for him/her to stand up.....who will speak for us?
I'd forgotten about that one...thanks for the reminder.
How long do you have to wait? Finding a conservative these days may lead to white hair and tons of wrinkles!
We're fortunate to be living in North Texas, a much more conservative area than most.
I'm not a full-time teacher, though. My son's teacher asked for parent volunteers to read to the class, and I was happy to oblige.
I do teach Old Testament to sixth graders in my parish...been doing it for 10 years. Tons of great lessons in that book that all ages can relate to.
I'm probably a "typical white person" to Obama. That's cool, I can live with it.
Apparently you think we can afford to lose this war, just like the dems thought we could afford to lose in Vietnam. I got news for you. Between that loss and Jimmy Carter, we established a reputation as a paper tiger that haunts us to this day. Lebanon and Somalia reinforced that. And the world is much more dangerous today. McRINO is terrible, but you prefer a loss with either Trotsky or Stalin. Please reconsider.
Since McRINO got the numbers for the nomination, I needed a new tagline. I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.
“The Question McCain Needs to Answer (for Conservatives)”
Does he prefer the stiletto, the Bowie Knife, or just a plain old Butcher knife when doing his backstabbing?
And Senator McCain promises more of the same, with even more of a tilt to the left. Given this, why should conservatives vote for Senator McCain? The conventional answer is that Senator McCain is the lesser of two evils and, as conservatives, we would be better off with him in the White House than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. But would we?
No. No we wouldn’t.
The last time this political "strategy" (more like suicide) was tried was in 1932, and the country, far from rejecting liberalism/socialism after four years, embraced it for a generation. Republicans were shut out of power for 20 long years.
Four years of such a spectacle should energize the conservative core of this country and stimulate interest and participation by those previously uncommitted souls whose interest in politics was erratic at best.
Yep, that strategy worked wonders for electing Presidents Landon, Willkie, and Dewey. In politics, you don't win by losing. You win by winning. Anyone who advocates running a losing race from the outset simply to "win" in four years is whistling past the graveyard. Aside from that, think of the damage that can be done by a socialist/Marxist 'Rat President in four years. With Obama or Hillary, we're going to have two or three more USSC judges cut from the same cloth as Ginsberg and Breyer. That means absolutely no challenges to Roe v. Wade for the rest of our lifetime.
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.