Posted on 05/30/2008 1:42:51 PM PDT by vietvet67
Perhaps because I'm a neocon, and not a dyed-in-the-wool, native-born conservative, I look at John McCain, with all his flaws, and still think that he's a pretty darn good candidate for our time. More importantly, I think that Obama is a very dangerous candidate precisely because of the time in which we live. I therefore find disturbing the number of conservative purists who insist that they're going to teach John McCain -- and everyone else, dammit! -- a lesson, either by sitting out the election or by throwing their vote away on a third party candidate. This is a kind of political game that may be fun to play in uninteresting eras, but I think it's suicidal given the pivotal existential issues we now face.
It's easy to target John McCain's flaws. Most recently, he's managed to buy into the whole green machine just as it's becoming clear that the greenies probably rushed their fences, and leapt into hysteria well in advance of their facts. Still, whether because you view the world through green colored glasses, or because you really hate funding totalitarian governments that are hostile to America, there is a lot to be said for exploring energy alternatives. McCain's free market approach should help that effort. Also, by the time he becomes President, there should be a sufficient aggregation of rationally based information about the climate to allow McCain a graceful retreat from a foolish campaign promise.
McCain also seems to be unresponsive to the feeling ordinary Americans have that illegal immigration is a big problem. This feeling arises, not because we're all xenophobic nutcases, but because we recognize a few fundamental truths: (a) American law starts at American borders, and it is deeply destructive to society's fabric to have an immigrant's first act in this country be an illegal one; (b) a country's fundamental sovereign right is the ability to control its own borders; (c) unchecked immigration provides a perfect pathway, not merely for the field worker, but for the bomb-maker; and (d) immigrants who come here should be committed to this country and its values, and shouldn't just by moseying over to grab some illegal bucks to send to the folks back home.
Nevertheless, while illegal immigrants are irritating, they're not an existential threat that can bring America to its knees within the next four years. They are a problem, but not an imminent one.
McCain may also never be absolved of the sin he committed with the McCain-Feingold Act, a legislative bit of bungling that has George Soros singing daily Hosannas. However, that's done. There is no doubt that it reflects badly on McCain's judgment, but I think it's a sin that needs to be ignored, if not forgiven, in light of the person facing McCain on the other side of the ballot box.
You see, from my point of view, this election isn't really about John McCain at all. It's about Barack Obama. Of course, it shouldn't be about Barack Obama. During a time of war and economic insecurity, one of the two presidential candidates should not be a man who has no life history, beyond a remarkable ability at self-aggrandizement, and no legislative history, despite a few years paddling about in the Illinois State Legislature and three years (count ‘em, three) doing absolutely nothing in the United States Senate.
That Obama is a man of no accomplishments or experience, though, doesn't mean that he hasn't managed to acquire some bad friends and bad ideas. The friends are easy to identify: Comrade . . . I mean Rev. Wright; Michelle "the Termagant" Obama; the explosive Ayers and Dohrn duo; Samantha "Hillary is a Monster" Power; Robert "Hamas" Malley; Zbigniew "the Jews are out to get me" Brzezinski; etc. Over the years, he's sought out, paid homage to, and been advised by a chilling collection of people who dislike America and are ready to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who talks the Marxist talk and walks the Marxist walk.
Obama's ideas are as unnerving as his friends. To my mind, the Jihad that Islamists have declared against us is the fundamental issue of our time. Thanks to the nature of modern asymmetrical warfare, the fact that these Jihadists number in the tens of thousands, rather than the millions, and that they're often free operators, not formal armies, does nothing to lessen the serious threat they pose to American freedoms. We've seen with our own eyes the fact that, using our own instruments of civilization, 19 determined men can kill almost 3,000 people in a matter of hours.
Nor was 9/11 an aberration, committed by the only 19 Islamic zealots on planet Earth. Whether they're using the hard sell of bloody deaths, or the soft sell of co-opting a nation's institutions and preying on its well-meant deference to other cultures and its own self-loathing, the Jihadists have a clearly defined goal -- an Islamic world - and they're very committed to effectuating that goal. And while it's true that, of the world's one billion Muslims, most are not Jihadists, the fanatic minority can still constitute a critical mass when the passive majority either cheers on the proposed revolution from the sidelines or does nothing at all. As Norman Podhoretz has already explained, this is World War IV.
I understand this. You understand this. McCain understands this. Obama, however, does not understand this. He envisions cozy chit-chats with Ahmadinejad and loving hand-holding with Hamas. There's every indication that, given his world view, he'll take Clinton's "Ah feel your pain" approach one step further, and engage in a self-abasing "I -- or, rather, America -- caused your pain." That approach failed when Carter tried it, and it's only going to fare worse the second time around.
Obama is also bound and determined to withdraw instantly from Iraq, even though the momentum has shifted completely to the American side. Even though another famous Illinois politician spoke scathingly of General McClellan for "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" at Appomattox, Obama has not learned from that painful lesson. He is adamant that he will repeat McClellan's errors and enshrine the snatching method as national policy. Every five year old understands that you don't leave the fight when it's going your way; Obama, however, does not. That is scary in and of itself.
There is one thing, though, that Obama understands with perfect clarity: the role of Supreme Court judges. He knows that they should apply compassion and empathy, without the restrictive hindrance of the outdated United States Constitution. I'm not making this up. He's said so: "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through."
As someone unfortunate enough to litigate in a jurisdiction filled to overflowing with these empathic judicial actors, I can tell you that this approach is disastrous. First, it's unfair within the confines of a single case when the judge can ignore the law and, instead, decide a case based on the color of his underpants on any given day. Second, and more importantly, judicial activism (for that is what Obama describes) also destroys the stability necessary for a safe, strong society. It becomes impossible for people and entities to make reasoned calculations about future behavior, since they cannot rely on cases or statutes as guides. They simply have to hope that, if things go wrong, the judge before whom they appear likes them better than he likes the other guy. This is no way to run a courtroom, let alone a country.
What should concern all of us is the power a President Obama will have to effect an almost permanent change on the Supreme Court, one that will last far beyond his presidency. Those with gambling instincts point to the fact that, if anyone leaves the Court during an Obama presidency, it will be the existing liberal justices. In other words, they say, Obama, by replacing the departing liberal justices with equally liberal incoming justices, will simply be maintaining the status quo. I'm not so sanguine.
Although I preface the thought with a "God forbid," it is possible that conservative justices might leave the Court too, whether through death, illness, incapacity, or personal choice. If that's the case, Obama, backed by a compliant Democratic Congress, will be able to appoint anyone he pleases to the Court. With a solid activist majority, you can bet that, in your lifetime (as well as your children's and grandchildren's lifetimes), the Supreme Court will become the second Legislative branch, with the sole difference being that it will be completely unhindered by having to woo or be answerable to any pesky voters back home.
It's these last two points -- the War and the judiciary -- that make me feel very strongly that we have to accept John McCain as president, warts and all. While he is far from perfect, he is rock solid on the two issues that can't just be massaged away in four years. He will continue to wage war, both on the field and in the realm of ideas, against the Jihadists, and he will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices.
He is, therefore, a much better bet than the scenario in which the gamblers among us have placed their faith; namely, a replay of 1976 and 1980. These risk-takers believe that, as happened before, we'll elect a horrible, horrible ultra-liberal President who will expose to the world how hollow Democratic ideologies really are. Then, after a mere four years, a sadder but wiser American public will elect the next Ronald Reagan who will magically make everything right again.
I have my doubts. First, I think there's a great deal of conservative hubris in believing that we can just wish for and get the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. Not only was he a pretty unique man, he'd been kicking around the political arena for decades. Do you look out in that same arena right now and see anyone remotely like him who will be ready to serve and acceptable to the American public in the next four years? Second, Reagan came in facing two primary problems: a stagnant Cold War and a moribund economy. Both of these situations were remediable. Reenergizing a stagnant war game America the dominant position; and rejiggering a damaged, but fundamentally strong economy was difficult, but do-able.
Here, however, we have two situations that are not so easily repaired should Obama bungle them (as I confidently expect he will). We are not fighting a Cold War, we are fighting a hot war. To walk away now inevitably places the momentum in the hands of our enemies, enemies who have done what the Soviets never did: entered our borders and killed our people in the thousands. Further, unlike the Soviets who had replaced their revolution with a cold, calculating political machine, one that could yield to rational self-interest, we now find ourselves facing fanatics in the blind grip of an ideology completely antithetical to any rational negotiation. To lose the high ground now - and we certainly have that high ground in Iraq - may mean to lose it forever. Even the best case scenario would only echo the changes between the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the Allies, having lost the high ground, were eventually able to win it back at the cost of more than twenty million lives.
Likewise, the Supreme Court situation, if Obama is able to switch the balance from strict constructionist to activist, cannot magically be remedied. Even Reagan was unable to make that change. It's been thirty-five years, and American is still riven by Roe v. Wade, the most famous activist decision of them all (and that is true whether you are pro-Choice or pro-Life). One can only imagine how many decades of damage an activist Obama Supreme Court can do.
It is very tempting to those who care deeply about their country and their politics to "punish" an ostensibly conservative politician who has, too often and too visibly, wandered from the fold. Sometimes, however, teaching someone a lesson can be infinitely more painful for the punisher than for the punishee. That's what I fear will happen now, if conservative voters decide that McCain has failed to pass the purity test and then gamble that Obama can't really be that bad. I'm here to tell you that Obama can be that bad, and that we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to keep him out of office. Bookworm is a crypto-conservative living in hostile teritory, and proprietor of the website Bookworm Room.
“he’s a pretty darn good candidate for our time.”
Our time being defined by a corrupt government destroying its own country - I guess he is right.
Start off with a patronizing comment and have the rest written off.
The answer is ZERO.
I am, however, a charter member of Operation Chaos, and will continue to do my part in the ongoing effort to flush the 'Rats out of the sewer and into the daylight.
Probably we could find some pretty good pictures of McCain and the Gang of 14, too, if we looked around a bit. Regretably, it is a pure delusion that he would appoint conservatives justices to our courts.
Unless some miracle intervenes, we are screwed.
This article sums up why neo-cons ain’t really conservatives.
It isn’t McCain who will be taught a lesson this November. The target student is the GOP. McCain is merely the poster boy for the problem.
“No, I’m not a neo-con. I’m a gentile.”
Ann Coulter
He must have read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2014469/posts
He is, therefore, a much better bet than the scenario in which the gamblers among us have placed their faith; namely, a replay of 1976 and 1980. These risk-takers believe that, as happened before, we’ll elect a horrible, horrible ultra-liberal President who will expose to the world how hollow Democratic ideologies really are. Then, after a mere four years, a sadder but wiser American public will elect the next Ronald Reagan who will magically make everything right again.
I have my doubts. First, I think there’s a great deal of conservative hubris in believing that we can just wish for and get the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. Not only was he a pretty unique man, he’d been kicking around the political arena for decades. Do you look out in that same arena right now and see anyone remotely like him who will be ready to serve and acceptable to the American public in the next four years? Second, Reagan came in facing two primary problems: a stagnant Cold War and a moribund economy. Both of these situations were remediable. Reenergizing a stagnant war game America the dominant position; and rejiggering a damaged, but fundamentally strong economy was difficult, but do-able.
Here, however, we have two situations that are not so easily repaired should Obama bungle them (as I confidently expect he will). We are not fighting a Cold War, we are fighting a hot war. To walk away now inevitably places the momentum in the hands of our enemies, enemies who have done what the Soviets never did: entered our borders and killed our people in the thousands. Further, unlike the Soviets who had replaced their revolution with a cold, calculating political machine, one that could yield to rational self-interest, we now find ourselves facing fanatics in the blind grip of an ideology completely antithetical to any rational negotiation. To lose the high ground now - and we certainly have that high ground in Iraq - may mean to lose it forever. Even the best case scenario would only echo the changes between the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the Allies, having lost the high ground, were eventually able to win it back at the cost of more than twenty million lives.
“McCain’s free market approach should help that effort.”
There’s nothing free in government mandates, especially with junk science.
I am a conservatarian who will be voting for McCain.
Good heavens, this guy lost me right there. This isn't about cutting off our nose to spite our face...We have already been beheaded and we are now trying to get it back on some how.
Visit: Margaret Sanger
I’ll place my bets on McCain rather than the Obamessiah wrt USSC appointments, perfection aside.
In other words, you used to be a Democrat, but hopped on board the GOP bandwagon when it started to take off in 1994. And while you are maybe ok on national security, you don't really have any strong beliefs regarding taxes or the size of government.
Please, go back to the dems.
“How many ‘conservative’ judges (whether federal or SCOTUS) will McCain get past a Senate with 55-65 Democrats, as well as a bunch of RINOs fawning at the liberal Senators’ feet?
The answer is ZERO.”
Now please describe for us what a typical SCOTUS nominee will be like with the same Senate under an Obama presidency.
Is that any reason to vote against McCain?
Just how many conservative judges do you think a Dem in the White House offer up?
You and I both know the answer to that; ZERO!
There ain’t a clothespin big enough to cover up the stink comin’ off of Juan McCain.
Not one mention of his support for the global warming hoax.
I have my doubts about these self described ‘dyed in the wool conservatives’ (maybe LW trolls, in reality) who appear to have their heads stuck up their ‘perfect conservative worlds’.
Nevertheless, while illegal immigrants are irritating, they're not an existential threat that can bring America to its knees within the next four years.
I’m starting to reaize that “neo-con” is just a fancy why of saying a Trojan horse one worlder.
| FBI stopped Hezbollah smugglers (US Mexico Border) |
||
| Posted by bordergal On News/Activism 03/30/2006 2:28:14 PM CST · 65 replies · 1,329+ views JTA ^ | 3/30/2006 | JTA The FBI broke up a ring that tried to smuggle Hezbollah operatives into the United States. In testimony Tuesday to Congress on the FBI’s budget request, director Robert Mueller said most recent reports on terrorist smuggling do not pan out. However, he identified one that did: “This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States,” Mueller said. “That was an organization that we dismantled and identified those persons who had been smuggled in. And they have been addressed as well.” Mueller did not elaborate further, except to... |
||
“Perhaps because I’m a neocon, and not a dyed-in-the-wool, native-born conservative....”
Stopped reading right there.
I meant to say: I’m starting to realize that “neo-con” is just a fancy way of saying a Trojan horse one worlder.
“Start off with a patronizing comment and have the rest written off.”
LOQ (Laugh out Quietly. That’s kinda what I said before I even read your post.
I will not vote for McCain. He had half a chance of getting my vote if he came out with a good conservative #2 man BEFORE the primaries.
I will vote..but not for him. Am I throwing my vote away? I don’t think so. I think the RNC threw me away.
That is what most people don't understand. You are correct. NONE will be confirmed. Further, those republicans who are left in the senate, will be forced to go along with all of McCain hairbrained ideas, as he will then be the effective leader of the republican party.
But, if we have a dem president, those repubs with any spine (a few left) will be allowed to oppose the dems at every turn.
Also, its time for them to turn on themselves, I would rather we have 4 years of a divided country beating on a dem over the economy, gas, whatever, than 4 years of them being united against Bush II (or whatever they will call him).
Let them take this country to hell for 4 years so the country (young ignorants) can open their eyes and see what happens with a lib president. Jimmy Carter did it for me, he gave me a good dose of reality.
Then lets start fresh.
Further, my wife said she's tempted to vote for Barack just so the race-pimps (ala jackson, etc) will go out of business. Since Barack will be “the man”... how will “the man” be keeping them down?
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and I'm not against breaking this republican party to start fresh.
Nearly everyone in this party is a disgrace.
The ONLY thing I like about McCain, is that he has promised to veto any and all bills with earmarks.
The problem is.... I don't believe him.
Although Reagan was unique, I refuse to use that as an excuse to continue to warmly embrace every mediocrity the GOP puts up for the Presidency as they they first began doing with the half-witted Poppy Bush in 1988.
Read my lips, GOP: I am no longer voting for just any piece of crap you nominate for office.
If I was a neocon that really cared about Obama not getting elected - I’d be doing everything humanly possible to see that McCain is NOT the Republican candidate this fall - by hook or crook - whatever!!!
Worst possible candidate for the worst possible times. This man has got to go!
But he had no problem hiring their people for his campaign staff...until he got caught in the act.
Yes there is. It's glossed over like everything else negative about McCain.
It's mentioned a little above this, which is where I stopped reading:
Nevertheless, while illegal immigrants are irritating, they're not an existential threat that can bring America to its knees within the next four years. They are a problem, but not an imminent one.
I doubt this guy even knows what OTM means.
So, given a choice between McCain and the racist empty suit Hussein, I'm thinking McCain.
I am getting really tired of these rinos constantly berating conservatives because we wont vote for their guy.I wonder if they will ever get a clue.They must be really worried he cant win without the conservative vote.Hmm Come on and lets see just how screwed up BAMBI will be.
You obviously don't think a problem that is and will drain us of our resources (funding, medical, educational, social, etc.) and force us all the more quickly into that fine world brotherhood of "third world" status is important. But let me tell YOU something, I sure as hell DO. They are working on our "knees" inch by inch and lost opportunity (actually missed opportunity because we could be devoting our resources elsewhere). In my opinion, they are an EQUAL or greather threat than terrorism. It is merely just on a little slower scale but the outcome is still the same.
Illegal immigrants and their in-country appeasers are stealing the future of my children and my grandchildren as sure as they would take their lives in an outright attack. As far as I'm concerned I see know reason why McCain will improve the illegal immigrant situation on the side of actual honest to God citizens.
And how many older than dirt ultra-liberals judges with 60 Democrats in the Senate will Obama get to nominate? Minimum 3, possibly 4. So instead of having a bunch of 80+ year old liberal judges about ready to keel over, we will have youthful liberal judges on the Supreme Court that will be there for 25-30 years. Our best hope is to get McCain and hold the status quo until we can regain the Senate.
What was it somebody said about hanging together or hanging separately?
I think John McCain is a good candidate on the following grounds that can not be ignored:
1. He has always supported smaller government and lower taxes. He has also stood with other conservatives like Senator Coburn against earmarks. Tell me one tax increase he voted for? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fTNZfD4EOo
2. He has been stalwart and unwavering in standing against gay marriage, hate crime legislation, and special rights for sexual activists.
3. He has been there as a Pro-Life candidate something that is indisputable from his voting record.
4. He has also has been unwavering on the Iraq War and the importance of American strength in the world. We know where the Democrats stand they are monolithic on this issue and stand proud of their anti-patriotism. Do you want to put the lives of our soldiers in the hands of those who despise them again? John McCain has and will stand up for our military.
These are just 4 things. I do not agree with John McCain on Global Warming and Cap and trade, I don’t agree with him on immigration. I also know that regardless of the situation that John McCain will not go off raising taxes and destroying the strength of our capitalist economy for the sake of stopping green house gas no matter how much lip service he gives it. As for immigration we have proven that we can hold the line on it and McCain now supports a secure border first policy. His position may not be perfect but the alternative is no border security and the most liberal immigration plan possible. Do anyone think that they will sway Barack Obama when it comes to Amnesty the way President Bush and McCain have been swayed?
The one thing that is certain is that Obama and Hillary and the whole Democrat party leadership see no limit to the reach of their power whether it comes to spending trillions of dollars fighting an imaginary enemy(the climate) while decrying the money spent fighting terrorists, a battle which we have effectively won against Alqaeda. They want to use our military to fight wars and hand out humanitarian aid not for the sake of our national interest or to better secure sources of energy that fuel our lives and our economy but instead to do it to satisfy some touchy feelie concept of worldwide socialism and to assuage the guilt they feel for US prosperity.
I’ll vote for John McCain over the party of turncoats, socialists, baby killers,environmentalists, and perverts any day. The choice is clear and if John McCain wants to be President he will continue to make distinction between him and the Democrats. He may not be the one we desired but it is the one we are left with and when looked at objectively without a jaundiced eye he doesn’t look half bad.
Isn’t it good to be able to vote for a real war hero for once? Someone who has credibility on such matters. Someone who made Michael Moore almost cry at the Republican national convention in 2004. Someone who didn’t equivocate but told Ellen Dengerate he believed marriage is something reserved for a man and a women. McCain has been wrong but he is certainly no more wrong than President Bush has been and on many issues like government spending McCain has held the line when the President and fellow Republicans have wavered too eager to spend like they are spending from a bank account not one filled by the dollars of citizens here on earth but one filled with an inexhaustible supply of pennies from heaven. I personally welcome a conservative who understands the value of money and where it comes from.
I bet she worships Hannity, too.
Well, I’m a conservative - not a Republican. It’s the GOP that’s screwing up - they’ve squandered every opportunity - they will lose completely on their own incompetence and open contempt for their formerly hard-working base. It won’t be the voter’s fault.
Our biggest failings:
1) Conservatives lack patience;
2) Conservatives are generally unwilling to accept incremental political gains, preferring to seek the One Big Battle;
3) Despite voluminous evidence and embarrasing losses to the contrary, conservatives seem to rely on the assumption that the other side shares our view of both the rules and desired outcomes, and we're always surprised and outraged when the left defeats us because they operate by a different set of rules;
4) Conservatives are not "active" in governance in the same way that liberals are. They go to the meetings and get on the committees. We bitch about it, and listen to Rush bitch about it, too.
I agree - most of these self proclaimed “Reagan Conservatives” who are proclaiming they will not vote for McCain would also have never voted for Ronnie, either - for pretty much the same reasons. Goldwater conservatives didn’t like Reagan, mainly regarding immigration - and they would have much rather have put Goldwater on the ticket. But none of them would have dared even dreamed of voting for Mondale over Reagan. Why? Because they were voting adults who loved this country, not bed-wetting whiners who only wanted attention.
It is good to try and swing the ballot to the Right; it is treason to throw it to the Left. Pick your direction, and push - and let it reveal your character.
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and I wore it to the polls to vote for John McCain...
...cutting to the chase -- if we vote him in, we might be able to train him. If we don't, we will have absolutely no voice. Those are the bottom line choices. We have no other options. I say vote him in and work our way up from there. The alternative presents no hope for us.
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.
