Democrat Increase Inevitable

Human Events ^ | June 16, 2008 | John Gizzi

[Wendolyn128]

What do Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign have in common?

The answer is that both agree, at least for now, that the Democratic Party will increase its present 51-to-49 seat advantage in the U.S. Senate after elections this November.

In back to back meetings hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington last week, the chairman of the DNC and head of the campaign arm for Senate Republicans differed only in the number of seats they anticipated Democrats will have after the ’08 elections. Dean told a Monitor breakfast on Wednesday, June 11, that he expected “we’ll pick up from 5-to-7 seats” in the Senate. At a Monitor lunch the next day, Nevada Sen. Ensign told reporters that for his party to lose no more than three seats this fall “would be a terrific night for us. I don’t want to slip below the four-seat loss.”

[Alkhin]

Yeah, thanks for that RNC...it was good knowing you while you REALLY did something.

God, these next four years are going to BAD...

[roses of sharon]

The UnAmerican Democrat Party.

[romanesq]

That’s the best that can be hoped to stop the Socialist train. And in the House it will most definitely be worse.

So tell me now, why voting for McCain is such a horrible thing to do again?

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“So tell me now, why voting for McCain is such a horrible thing to do again?”

Exactly.

[Ingtar]

So tell me now, why voting for McCain is such a horrible thing to do again?

Because, to many of us not voting for him, he will not even slow that Socialist train down, just brand it with an "R."

[saganite]

Because he’ll get credit for the ensuing disaster once the dems take power? He’s already said he’ll reach across the ailse. I would rather Obama initiate the disaster and all the credit for said disaster stays with his party.

[Galtoid]

Hillary’s nomination was inevitbale too.

[romanesq]

“Because, to many of us not voting for him, he will not even slow that Socialist train down, just brand it with an “R.”

Oh okay. The guy has a conservative record on a whole host of issues, but I guess we should ignore that and hand over the keys to the Oval Office to a less than obvious marxist Manchurian Candidate.

4 years of that and there will be NO recovering. This country is in deep trouble if many people vote with this mentality.

[romanesq]

What about placing the country first?

[BooksForTheRight.com]

They don’t have to be right. If a few million normal-minded people get out and vote in spite of their distaste for John McCain, Congress will become Republican and Obama won’t be able to pass his far-left proposals.

[saganite]

I can foresee a scenario where the dems take a drubbing across the board this election cycle but it involves even higher fuel prices and Americans waking up to the fact that Dems are the problem, not the solution. I’m not holding my breath on that one since it’s so easy for them to vilify the oil companies.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“I would rather Obama initiate the disaster and all the credit for said disaster stays with his party.”

It ain’t gonna work that way, though. Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong is the “Anointed One” according to the MSM, and he will be shielded from ALL criticism. Look at how they’re treating him already, and he hasn’t even won. We can’t talk about his race, we can’t talk about his policies (he has none), we can’t talk about his wife, we can’t talk about his abortionist ways, we can’t talk about his Muslim upbringing, we can’t talk about his RECORDED voting record, we can’t talk about his racist pastor, we can’t talk about his links to known terrorists...the list goes on and on!

McCain can take the heat. He’s no wuss. And while I don’t agree with him 100% on things, when have we had a Candidate for ANY office since Reagan where we did? And you can find Reagan-bashers right here, too!

Why are so many here ready to give up? Poser Conservatives really make me wonder where their priorities lie. Let’s just HAND them the White House, the House and the Senate and see how well off we are then, LOL!

Quitters.

Here’s all any Conservative needs to know about Barrack Hussein Obama:

Special Interest Group Ratings:

Planned Parenthood - 100% Support
National Right To Life - 0% Support
NARAL - 100% Support
Americans for Tax Reform - 0% Support
ACLU - 83% Support
NEA - 100% Support
NOW Hags - 100% Support
Citizens Against Government Waste - 13% Support
Gun Owners of America - 0% Support
NRA - “F” Rating
Federation for American Immigration Reform - 0% Support
US Border Patrol - 8% Support
Unions - 82% - 100% Support
Population Connection - 100% Support (These are the ‘Zero Growth’ freaks)

http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS030017

[Barrack Hussein Obama’s record in the Illinois senate:]

- Opposed the Defense of Marriage Act; would work to repeal it in the U.S. Senate; would not vote for any legislation that would restrict the ability of gays and lesbians to marry.
- Opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act four times in Illinois. A similar bill passed the U.S. Senate 98-0. The Born Alive bill would have prohibited a baby from being born alive but left to die according to the mother’s wishes. Obama inexplicably opposed this bill not once, twice, or three times, but four times.
- Obama took almost $90,000 in bundled contributions from the Council for a Livable World. The council is a well-known anti-defense organization.
- Obama puts rigid ideology before what’s best for the people of Illinois, and presumably he would do that as President as well. He has on several occasions made public his opposition to the NAFTA trade agreement and his belief that it must be negotiated. All the while thanks to NAFTA, Illinois exports $1.3 billion in agricultural goods to Canada.
- Obama refused to vote for a bill in the Illinois State Senate that would have increased penalties for drug traffickers.
- Obama voted against a bill that would have delivered the death penalty to gang members who murder first responders.
- Finally, just in case you thought it couldn’t get any worse, Obama was the only member of the Illinois State Senate to vote against a bill that prohibited early release for sexual predators.

Can’t kill the innocent fast enough, can’t free the guilty soon enough!

[MrB]

WE ARE SCROOOOOOED.

Talking with an accountant/tax lawyer soon about sheltering assets from these thieving bastards.

[meadsjn]

Democrat Increase Inevitable

Wrong.

Democrat wins anywhere are due to Republican candidates who refuse to differentiate themselves from their Democrat opponents -- on environmental insanity, outsourcing, work visa fraud, illegal immigration, domestic oil production, corporate corruption, government corruption, etc., etc.

If a Republican candidate can articulate how he/she will properly represent their American citizen constituents, they can win.

Republicans cannot win by promising to sell out citizens quicker, slower, or differently than their Democrat opponent.

Republicans cannot win by supporting illegal immigration and its benefactors.

Republicans cannot win by continuing to support much-abused and fraudulent visa work programs that have and continue to put American citizens out of work.

Republicans can win almost everywhere if they convincingly advocate domestic oil exploration and drilling.

The real problem is that most Republican candidates are just Democrats with a different label.

[okie01]

I’m not holding my breath on that one since it’s so easy for them to vilify the oil companies.

They're in a position where they've got to vilify the oil companies.

It's the only way they can save themselves -- if the voters don't realize that the Democrats are the ones responsible for the rising price of gasoline.

[Man50D]

Oh okay. The guy has a conservative record on a whole host of issues,

That's true if you exclude him seeking out the socialist Democrats in 2001 to become a member of their party, ignore John Kerry considering his as a VP running mate in 2004, forget McCain was funded by Communist billionaire George Soros, fail to take into account McCain has sponsored bills supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, restricting free speech and the fallacy of human induced global warming with socialists Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman not to mention his refusal to drill in ANWR as do the socialists and his meeting with La Raza.

[DLfromthedesert]

This is the NRSC; the Senatorial Committee, the one that in the previous cycle was headed by Liddy Dole, who smeared Laffey in Rhode Island because he dared to challenge the “Republican” incumbent Chaffee in the primary.

I got a call from the NRSC a few nights ago. They needed money because they need to get “conservative” senators in to stand up to Obama.

I practically screamed at the woman for already giving the presidency to the RATs and hung up.

[Man50D]

If a few million normal-minded people get out and vote in spite of their distaste for John McCain, Congress will become Republican and Obama won’t be able to pass his far-left proposals.

It's interesting how McCain supporters are so eager to downplay his socialist bent by ignoring his history of abandoning conservatives many times over the years and then expect conservatives to support him. LOL!!! Becoming Republican increasingly means incrementally favoring socialist principles in order to expand the voter base.

[Ingtar]

From McCain’s history, there is no Conservative, conservative principle, or ethical stand he will not compromise to “get something done.” He doesn’t care if it is good or bad, as long as he gets credit.

And, no, I’m not telling you how to vote. That is between you and your conscience. I am explaining my reasoning since you seemed to be asking.

[romanesq]

Agreed those things are most definitely all true and largely accurate. But we moved him on illegals, at least on securing the borders first.

And we can move him on drilling. I’m convinced he will move.

Now tell me again what Obama will do on these things and the rest of the marxist agenda?

[avacado]

My Representatives:

Congressman John Culberson (R-TX)
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)

We Texans can’t keep holding down the fort!

[saganite]

The voters get to decide where the country is headed. We’ll see what they say come Nov. Meanwhile, my view isn’t confined to a few posters here on FR. Just look at McCain’s contributions from conservatives. That speaks volumes about his appeal to his own (supposed) base.

[romanesq]

I understand and agree with you on the whole. But leading the Executive defines people differently than as a senate vote.

You are front and central and defined by your sole position there. I think people are overlooking that. And it’s understandable considering Senators don’t often make it to the Oval Office.

And yes, I am both asking and challenging people to explain the moral equivalence between McCaina and Obama.

Thought I was done with that type of crowd’s mentality back in the Cold War days between the US and Soviets.

As far as I’m concerned, both groups are similar in one aspect: maturity.

[saganite]

Poser Conservatives really make me wonder where their priorities lie

Poser conservatives are the ones who pretend that John McCain is even remotely conservative in thought and action. Real conservatives know a phony when they see one.

[nmh]

It’s too depressing to think about.

[isrul]

Yeah. He'll stand right up to those RATs and stop their agenda in its tracks. Right?

[isrul]

Good to see the RATs and the RINOs on the same page. That hardly ever happens. Right?

[Allegra]

Yep...good ol' Texas District 7 where we just don't elect Democrats.

I'm in District 7 for two or three more weeks. You should meet some of us FReepers at Nick's on Thursday where we totally suck at trivia but have a lot of fun.

(Hey, I thought of a similar name for our team name "We Suck." How about the Houston Astros? Heh!)

[avacado]

Do ya’ll go each Thursday night to Nicks? Perhaps I will stop in. Is that the Nicks located in the heart of Katrina-ville (Wilcrest/Briar Forest)?

[Allegra]

Do ya’ll go each Thursday night to Nicks? Perhaps I will stop in. Is that the Nicks located in the heart of Katrina-ville (Wilcrest/Briar Forest)?

That's the one...although we've never seen any Katrisians in Nick's. (We were entertained by some across the street in the Food Town parking lot last week, however...) We don't go every Thursday, but we plan to this week. Heck, I'm not here enough for us to make it a regular thing, but we do win....every now and then. :)

[ripley]

“because... he will not even slow that socialist train down, just brand it with an “R”.”

correction: “because... he will not even slow that stalinist train down, just brand it with an “R”.”

[Ingtar]

-Planned Parenthood - 0% Support*
-National Right To Life - 0% Support (They did see the handwriting on the wall and endorse him)
-Americans for Tax Reform - In 2001 McCain scored just 55 percent and in 2002 he scored 60 percent. (he suddenly reinvented himself on this over the last two years and got back into the sixties and seventies.
-ACLU - 82% Support (1% less than Obama)
-NEA – McCain was the first Republican they ever endorsed
-NOW Hags - 0% Support*
-Citizens Against Government Waste - 95% Support (but how does this square with Global Warming?)
-Gun Owners of America – “F-“
-NRA – From “C” down to “F-“
-Federation for American Immigration Reform - 0% Support
-US Border Patrol - 0% Support
Unions – ?
-Population Connection - ?
* When he was there. He dodged most votes.

- Opposed the Defense of Marriage Act; Helped kill it in 2004 and said that opposing gay marriage was “un-Republican”
-If you are counting on him for constructionist judges, you have to ignore the fact that those judges would most likely overturn his signature piece of legislation: McCain-Feingold

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Alkhin]

...his conservative record...which has been nullified by the likes of CFR and Amnesty. Its hard for me to swallow how 'heroic' and 'American' he is when he turns around and p*sses on the very Constitution he swore to uphold, in both the military and the Congress. He has that R behind his name because he wants to destroy the conservative influence within the party. He's been doing that behind the scenes since the Contract With America. He's just getting more exposure to it.

The issue becomes for me in what *I* personally want to claim as having participated in in the future. Im still trying to live down the fact that I pulled the level for Perot back in 1992. I did it because I wanted to send a message to Bush 41 that I didnt appreciate his limp-wristed, cold-butter, patrician backstabbing...but I didnt want to vote for Clinton because he gave me the heebie-jeebies at the time and he had a D behind his name...which was enough for me at the time to decide I didnt want to have that on my conscious. Being politically naive at the time, I might as well have, with Perot. Now Im faced with NO MATTER WHO I pull the lever on, Im going to have to explain to my grandchildren (if my daughter lives long enough to have any) how that was 'the best I could do.' The best? McCain is the best we can do?!

I'll spit in his face for what he's done so far. He sullied his fellow veterans and his fellow Americans with his lust for power. He's no better than Obama or Clinton.

As to who I'll vote for, it will depend on what mood Im on that day. If Im distressed and worried, I might pull for McCain. Hes the lesser of two evils, but not by much. If Im pissed off, Im writing in whatever name comes to mind...probably my favorite actor.

[Man50D]

Now tell me again what Obama will do on these things and the rest of the marxist agenda?

The same as McCain but by your logic if you can move one socialist as McCain then you should be able to move another socialist. The reality is either socialist could very well be supported by an even greater majority of socialists after general election and either one will be more inclined to go with the socialists in Congress and less likely to be moved by the likes of you or anyone else.

[WOSG]

Nothing is inevitable ... until it happens.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t really expect anything, but I do “expect” people who voted in the Republican primary to vote for the Republican nominee. If you don’t consider yourself a republican, that’s fine, but don’t vote in the Republican primary.

We get all pissed off when moderates vote in our primaries, but when we pick a conservative, the moderates run off and vote for the democrat or don’t vote. We rightly complain about their lack of loyalty to the party they agreed to be a part of by their vote.

So it would be hypocritical for conservatives who voted in the republican primary to do any different. Like it or not, fair or not, McCain won the Republican primary.

If conservative republicans decide to stay home, in the hopes that after 4 years of disaster they can get a conservative nominee, what makes them think that, assuming we DO, the moderates who voted for McCain this year won’t stay home in 2012 to punish us for abandoning THEIR candidate?

And since conservatives are not a majority, we need moderates to vote for our candidate in order to win the election. It’s hypocritical to tell moderates they need to vote for our conservative candidates when they win primaries, but that we won’t vote for their moderate candidates when they win primaries.

If you didn’t vote in the Republican primary, then this is not for you, because you did not incur any obligation to support the Republican nominee.

[WOSG]

“Democrat wins anywhere are due to Republican candidates who refuse to differentiate themselves from their Democrat opponents — on environmental insanity, outsourcing, work visa fraud, illegal immigration, domestic oil production, corporate corruption, government corruption, etc., etc. “

That’s such BS, there are many many Republicans doing that every day.
The real problem is that we waste our time bashing Republicans instead of getting our a88es out of the chair to help them defeat liberal Democrats! Start with Senator McConnell on down. Quit whining and help the good ones get elected before we get washed out in a tidal wave of the Democrat Idiot-cracy.

[WOSG]

“-National Right To Life - 0% Support”

Ingtar, you have sunk to moveon.org-level smearing. I have lost respect for you. How dare you claim McCain is 0% on national right to Life! What a pile of BS!

McCain right-to-life record is 80%+ near 100% lifetime.
“2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 75 percent in 2005-2006.”
He got dinged on his support for stem-cell, and in the past dinged on CFR. Otherwise, McCain has been a strong pro-life advocate, voting against public funding, for good judges, voting against partial birth abortion and voting against resolutions in favor of roe v wade. McCain advocates overturn of Roe v Wade and return of abortion decisions to the states and is prolife.

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/01/mccain-best-pro-life-choice.html

http://amerpundit.com/2008/01/18/mccain-endorsed-by-national-right-to-life-co-founder/
U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign announced today that pro-life leader Carolyn Gerster, M.D. has endorsed John McCain for president. Dr. Gerster is the Chair of the Arizona Right to Life Board of Directors and is both a co-founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee.

“John McCain is the most qualified candidate and has a consistent and principled pro-life record,” said Dr. Gerster. “He has spent his career standing up for human rights and he will continue to do so as president. John McCain will nominate judges who understand the sanctity of human life, and firmly believes that courts should not be legislating from the bench. John McCain has the conviction, strengths, and experience to serve as commander in chief from day one and that is why he has my vote.”

http://www.redarizona.org/?p=86
The heads of two national conservative organizations addressed the group. “Ask Right to Life, ask the NRA, ask the taxpayers groups if they are unhappy [with McCain]. They are not. Those who are [still] whining about McCain are the people who don’t do anything anyway,” one said, addressing lingering concerns that conservatives might not unite behind Senator McCain.

http://www.redarizona.org/?p=155
“Not only has NRL already endorsed Senator McCain for President, but they have supported Senator McCain consistently in ALL of Senator McCain’s campaigns for the U.S. Senate and note with deep satisfaction that Senator McCain has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997.”

“The choice for president is clear. National Right to Life PAC supports Senator John McCain for election as President of the United States and strongly opposes both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

http://mccainblogs.com/2008/06/05/mccain-gets-endorsement-of-national-right-to-life/
“Senator John McCain has a solid voting record against abortion and has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997. (McCain’s votes can be seen on the National Right to Life website at: www.nrlc.org.) This includes voting to uphold the Mexico City Policy which prevents International Planned Parenthood from receiving your tax dollars. He has also voted against endorsing Roe v. Wade and believes it should be overturned. In addition he voted to confirm Justices Alito and Roberts. National Right to Life is grateful for these votes.”

McCain supports overturn of Roe v Wade:
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions
McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A11 Jan 22, 2000

Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion
Q: Should Republicans encourage pro-choice voters to support their candidates?
A: We must begin a dialogue and a discussion on the issue of abortion. Both pro-life & pro-choice people believe very strongly that we need to eliminate abortion. I and my wife, Cindy, are proud adoptive parents. We need to encourage adoption in America. We need to improve foster care dramatically. We can work together. We can have respectful disagreements on specific issues, and we can work together on this one.
Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 29, 1999

Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing
In a letter to the National Right to Life Committee, McCain detailed a long anti-abortion record, including his sponsorship of the effort to overturn President Clinton’s veto of a bill banning late-term procedures called “partial birth” abortions. He also has opposed public financing of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s life.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

The rest of your analysis is similarly suspect/wrong. (eg NEA endorsed *Huckabee* not McCain). Note also:
“2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 80 percent in 2007.

2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2007.”

999 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 1999.
2000 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2000.
2001 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2001.
2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 5 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 0 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.

2007 In 2007 American Civil Liberties Union gave Senator McCain a grade of 50.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270

IN SUMMARY, INGTAR, YOU ARE BASHING MCCAIN UNFAIRLY BY DISTORTING HIS REAL RECORD. SHAME ON YOU.

[WOSG]

What’s all this drama-queen BS about John McCain being a ‘socialist’?

Reality check:

“2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2007.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 80 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 83 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 88 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 75 percent in 2005-2006.

2001-2002 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2001-2002.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 82 percent in 2003-2004.

2001 Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

1999 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.

1998 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1998 Senator McCain, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 73 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 90 percent in 1999-2000.

1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 85 percent in 1998.

1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 76 percent in 1998.

1997-1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 84 percent in 1997-1998.

1997-1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 100 percent in 1997-1998.

1995-1996 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 1995-1996 , Senator McCain voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2007 In 2007 U.S. English gave Senator McCain a grade of A.

Fall 2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 90 percent in Fall 2004.

2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 80 percent in 2007.

2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2007.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Club for Growth 76 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Traditional Values Coalition 80 percent in 2006

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 80 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus on economic issues 80 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 77 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 75 percent in 2003.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Club for Growth 76 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Traditional Values Coalition 80 percent in 2006”

You cannot be a ‘socialist’ and compile that record.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270

[Man50D]

I don’t really expect anything, but I do “expect” people who voted in the Republican primary to vote for the Republican nominee.If you don’t consider yourself a republican, that’s fine, but don’t vote in the Republican primary.

Oh really? Please show me the rulebook that requires people to blindly follow a candidate who has repeatedly opted for socialist legislation and attempts to cozy up to the very group of people who seek to replace our Representative Democracy with socialism! It defies logic that the GOP is so intent to sacrifice the Conservative values seeking to preserve our Democratic Republic and prevent the incremental creep of socialism merely for the sake of expanding its voter base under the pretense this some how viewed as winning! You cannot win by empowering the very movement who wants to create a strong centralized form of government that is anathema to the very reason why our founding fathers wrote the Constitution! The GOP is not in touch with reality if your fallacious expectations represents the Republican party.

So it would be hypocritical for conservatives who voted in the republican primary to do any different. Like it or not, fair or not, McCain won the Republican primary.

No, it is hypocritical for the GOP to expect conservatives to follow a party intent on abandoning conservative principles. Regardless of the fact McCain hasn't won anything until he is nominated, him being the presumptive nominee after he actively sought be a member of the very party he is now running against only illustrates how far the GOP has moved to the socialist left.

And since conservatives are not a majority, we need moderates to vote for our candidate in order to win the election.

Another statistical fallacy. Conservative blogs and talk radio shows would not have been and continue to be so successful and draw the large audiences and bloggers over the years if they were a minority. The term "moderate" you keep referring to is merely euphemistic spin for socialist. It is absolutely amazing the GOP has been so willing to compromise what once was its conservative values to the socialists when even though history shows socialists are never willing to sacrifice their principles. You won't win anything because the only result will be more socialism. The GOP needs to stand up to the so called "moderates" and socialists by advancing the conservative cause and stop trying to pacify them.

If you didn’t vote in the Republican primary, then this is not for you, because you did not incur any obligation to support the Republican nominee.

My only obligation when I registered as a Republican in February was to advance the conservative cause by voting for the only conservative candidate at the time, Duncan Hunter. I promptly switched back to independent three weeks after I registered.

The reach across the aisle for the sake of compromise and "bipartisanship" strategy espoused by the GOP has been and continues to be an abysmal failure. I suggest you and the party ground yourselves in reality by dismissing a set of rules that only exist in your heads and stand up to the socialists by pushing the conservative cause with the same vigor as you and the GOP do for appeasing socialism. You need to remember this is a conservative website not a Republican party website.

[meadsjn]

Start with Senator McConnell on down.

You sure picked a good one to start with -- Mitch McConnell, the senator who represents China.

HOW MUCH HAS MITCH McCONNELL BEEN PAID TO ALLOW THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS TO DUMP THEIR POISONOUS PRODUCTS ON AMERICA?

[Ingtar]

NRTL - was 2004.

McCain is 80% when he is there. When he dodges the vote, over 60% of the time, or it deals with free speech, he is on the other side.

McCain moved a lot of his numbers back up 2006-2008 because he knew he had to win the primaries. Between elections is a better place to look at his natural voting history. Fear of Obama is also a driving force in the endorsements and comments.

SD Abortion ban: According to a spokesperson, McCain “would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.”

When running in 1999, he said that Roe v Wade should not be overturned.

I’m sorry I remembered the NEA wrong. I’ll have to check that again.

... and yet La Raza invites him to speak and he spouts their talking points.

He’s a political chameleon and he’ll take whatever stand his Senatorial friends take after the election.

[threeoeight]

How long are folks going to engage in this endless babble?
When are folks going to decide to do something really meaningful that will make a difference and start planning?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Nothing you wrote is any different than the crap I get from the moderates whenever we pick a solid conservative — except the names are different. It’s all how we took the party too far to the right, how we can’t expect the moderates to follow us off the cliff, how we are out of touch with the base, how we pick nominees that can’t win.

So long as the Republican party is two parties who won’t vote for each other’s candidates when they win a nomination, we’ll be a minority party. There won’t be enough “republicans” elected to give backing to a single item on the conservative agenda.

Of course, the moderates are only half-harmed by this, because half the time they are happy with the liberal side of things.

So it’s really just the conservatives that lose — which makes it all the more humorous that it’s the conservatives who are pushing so hard to “rid the party” of the people we unfortunately need to get our candidates elected.

But if you ever get us 51% conservative voters, we can certainly kiss off those silly moderates.

When you are 30% of the population, you better find a way to get along with another 20%, or you will find the OTHER 50% who you loathe will be making all the rules.

[supercat]

But we moved him on illegals, at least on securing the borders first.

Have you moved him, or have you merely moved his rhetoric?

I would suggest that conservatism is not a collection of stands on various issues, but rather is a philosophy. That philosophy will tend strongly to drive what are commonly referred to as "conservative positions".

I've seen no indication that McCain believes in or even understands any significant aspects of conservative philosophy. He sometimes takes "conservative positions" on viewpoints, but in most cases I doubt he really knows why they're the right positions (beyond the fact that conservatives seem to support them).

[EDINVA]

too funny !

well, not really funny at all :(

[supercat]

We get all pissed off when moderates vote in our primaries, but when we pick a conservative, the moderates run off and vote for the democrat or don’t vote. We rightly complain about their lack of loyalty to the party they agreed to be a part of by their vote.

If a moderate votes for McCain in the primary with the intention that--should he win--that person would also vote for him in the general election I could consider that fair.

If a moderate votes for McCain in the primary, but McCain doesn't win, I see no reason that the person should be bound to vote Republican in the general election. Since their candidate didn't win, their vote was essentially meaningless(*) and thus they should be free for whatever surviving candidate in the general election.

(*) Yes, I know that sometimes a vote for a non-winning candidate can shift the balance of the race and thus change the winner, but I would consider that a secondary effect.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

Nice “cherry pickin’” there. I guess you and I have different concepts of “evil.” :)

But, I’ll add you to my Ping List for November, 2008. Can’t wait to hear your justification for an Obamanation at your hands, and the hands of other Freepers.

I’m excited. I can’t wait to see what happens. Either way, I’ll make the best of it, while I sleep peacefully in my bed at night. A clean conscience does that for you. :)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“Real conservatives know a phony when they see one.”

I’ve added you to my November 2008 Ping List. See you after the votes are counted! :)