Posted on 01/31/2008 6:44:15 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
Just ... months ago, the 2008 presidential contest seemed predetermined. ...Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were far ahead... .... Sen. Clinton was all but declared the foreordained winner a year in advance.
But not now. [snip]
The result of all this has been that while Hillary still polls ahead of the surging Obama in most states, in hypothetical general-election polls she runs behind Republican frontrunner, Sen. John McCain.
End of story?
Hardly. In reaction to McCain’s own surge and the Republican windfall, the conservative base went ballistic. Soon a Republican civil war broke out over how best to lose the election.
Despite McCain’s 82-percent career ranking by the American Conservative Union, and his support for balanced budgets, an end to pork-barrel spending and earmarks, strong support for the war, and expressed regret over once supporting the Bush illegal immigration reform package, McCain was branded by the conservative media as a sellout and a near liberal. Not to mention that he was supposedly too old and hot-tempered to be the Republican nominee. The more McCain was discovered not to be a perfect conservative, the more he was accused of not even being a good one.
Even stranger, the various Republican candidates began invoking Ronald Reagan...
Were conservatives supposed to forget that a maverick Reagan raised some taxes, signed an illegal-alien amnesty bill, expanded government, appointed centrist Supreme Court justices, advocated nuclear disarmament, sold arms to Iran, and pulled out of Lebanon — but to remember only that John McCain was not for the original Bush tax cuts or once supported the administration’s offer of a quasi-amnesty?
[snip]
November’s vote may hinge on whether moderates and liberals are nauseated enough by the Clintons...to ... vote for a decorated Republican war hero — that is, if his own flag-waving party doesn’t destroy him first.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
McShamnesty is NO Reagan, and Conservatives KNOW Reagan.
Bow down to your new masters, McCain in 2008, Homies!
“His frank embrace of Roe v Wade”
And Romney never embraced Roe? Romney has embraced Roe so many times.(1994, 2002, 2004, 2006-with RomneyCare) that Roe is considering suing him for harassment.
Giver me one action McCain has taken to promote abortion. He has voted for three of the prolife judges who sustained the Partial Birth Abortion ban, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Where did Mitt come down on those justices especially Thomas. Oh, I forgot. When Thomas was nominated, Mitt was busy denouncing Reagan in front of Ted Kennedy. What a guy.
While McCain just sat there in the Senate and did nothing about it for 25 years.
You're not too well informed. McCain has on several occasions filed friend of the court briefs against pro-life protestors. He is a solid supporter of planned barrenhood. How much is enough? He's a fluorescent purple hypocrite.
You have no facts. If you have something other than what you remember someone may have said about...maybe McCain. He is prolife by any standard.. his prolife record is 10 times better than Bush’s was in 2000 and is probably better now.
He’s pro-life by the MSM’s standard, and that’s good enough for you.
But he’s not pro-life by pro-life standards.
“But he’s not pro-life by pro-life standards.”
And Romney is prolife by prolife standards. His RomneyCare big government health plan provides subsidized abortion for women up to 300% of the Federal Poverty level (For a single woman, that would subsidize her abortion if she made up to $32,000 per year) with copays as low as $50. You call that prolife????? And that was in 2006, after his supposed epiphany on Abortion.
Soooo. If the situation was reversed, and there was a great conservative candidate to vote for, would you be complaining?
I think not.
Therefore, the blame goes to the candidates, not the voters. For there would be no problem if there was a good candidate.
And calling for us to vote for a lousy candidate... simply nets us a lousy candidate. And then the GOP leadership, who actually looks at election results, will conclude that a lousy candidate is what the electorate wants.
All that states is that employers can’t base their hiring standards on sexual orientation. And, as an corrolary, cannot fire someone based on it, as well.
That’s a far cry from forcing employers to hire homosexuals.
Sooo, if Romney is the Republican candidate... and has been shown to lose to the Hildabeast... you’d be onboard with the winner?
Sorry, somehow your comments make me think you don’t really have any beliefs or values important enough for you to vote for.
Since you have that ‘onboard with a winner’ mentality. So, I think you’ll be registering as a Democrat should Romney win the Republican nomination.
All I can say is you get what you vote for..
McCain has an 83 percent conservative voting record over his lifetime... that ain’t too bad. Romney is getting a pass on his Conservative credentials.
Do some investigation, legitimate not Sean or Rush talking points and then find out who is the More Conservative of the two don’t just jump on the Hate McCain Train cause someone told you to.
Just one example of the problems I have with Romney: He morphed and contorted his positions to pander to the right. Here is just one example. The position on Iraq. Is it fair that Romney gets a free ride on the surge? McCain staked his entire candidacy on the Iraq issue (which by the way is the defining issue of our time) he said that winning in Iraq was more important than running for POTUS. Now Romney needs to be made to answer on why he morphed his Iraq position and cannot be allowed to ride the gravy train of the force surge which can be argued that he did not exactly support 100 percent at the time it was implements and Romney did say that maybe you conduct secret negotiations with the Iraq leaders for drawdown of troops and now its being played as if McCain is being unfair about Romney’s position? I just don’t get that. Another example is Romney’s position on Abortion... morphed to pander... Romney’s position on taxes ... morphed to pander... Romney’s position on illegals.. .morphed.. sure he says what you want to hear now but what about before it became such a hot button among Republicans...McCain changed his position too but you hear nothing but McCain/Kennedy being force fed to you by the talking heads...
So if you want to elect a candidate that is going to get ripped apart by Obama or Hillary then go right ahead...
Sean and Rush are banking on you being the disgruntled Conservative that continues to listen to them as their ratings sky rocket under a Dem president...
Me there is simply to much at stake for our posterity to make such an assinine choice.
lol good McCain doesn’t need half hearted support anyway.. go vote for Obama or Hillary or Kucinich whatever floats your boat...
Just before you go please do some independent investigation and think for yourself and stop falling for idiotic talking points brought to you by Sean and Rush...
“McCain was branded by the conservative media as a sellout and a near liberal.”
He is. He is also a traitorous son-of-a-b*tch to the conservative cause.
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Feingold
McCain-Liebermann
Gang of 14
Keating 5
Making nice nice with the Vietnamese over the POW issue.
That this man believes that he deserves the Presidency is the height of arrogance and delusion.
“He[Romney] did not disavow Reagan, he revered him as a hero.”
Spare me. I have seen the clip. Kennedy accused him of being a Reagan Republican and he said, “I was an independent during Reagan Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan Bush.”
That is a disavowal. He was offered an opportunity to defend Reagan conservatism by one of its frankest enemies and, because he feared it was unpopular, he said, “I have nothing to do with that.” That is a disavowal, indeed a betrayal. It is much more of a betrayal than St. Peter, who merely said, “I know not the man.” Mitt said, “I know the man, and I do not follow him.” It was an affirmative denial of Ronald Reagan, whose mantle now seeks, with stunning hubris, to don.
“True, McCain opposed Bush43’s measly, temporary tax cut , because it had no spending restraints whatsoever.”
That’s not the reason he used at the time. He used Lib-speak. “Tax cuts for the rich.”
I think you are right. On government spending, which was one of Reagan’s great pet peeves, McCain is far more conservative than either of the Bushes and much closer to Reagan. In fact, I predict that McCain will use the veto pen more than Reagan, perhaps as much as Ford, to tamp down big government. And it is 20 years overdue.
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.