Posted on 02/11/2008 11:09:41 PM PST by zeestephen
"What a kerfuffle! Half a dozen talk-radio hosts whose major talent is that, like hairdressers, they can talk all day long to one client after another as they snip, have decided that the presumptive Republican nominee does not hew sufficiently close to their gospel.
"As anyone who has listened to them knows, the depth of their thought is truly Oprah-like."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I’m tired of being lectured by GOP party regulars who have no clue as to why I cannot support McCain. If McCain thinks he can make the sale by bullying tactics, he’s in for a rude shock.
He needs to find out what our concerns are and address them to our satisfaction. The bludgeon and the patronization are not effective tools for convincing people who can think, such as conservatives.
Pretty nasty...
Unfortunately Dave, bludgeoning and patronizing are the only tools they have.
If he wants to run his campaign on “Vote for me because you hate me the least”, I highly doubt he will get the votes he believes he deserves.
“to the gorgeous Laura Ingraham and the relentlessly crocodilian Ann Coulter.”
MEOW!
I think McCain believes that, if he can discredit talk radio in our minds, we will follow him. What he doesn’t realize is that we made talk radio. Limbaugh, et al, are talented hard working people, who would have no audience without conservatives. An insult to Rush, is an insult to his audience. That’s a great example of using salt instead of honey, not that honey works with we curmudgeons. ;)
Then you must assert your “conservatism” as an “I am more than you”.
If you must “preach your conservatism”, it is YOU you are trying to convince, not us.”
you are right, I had to convince myself and I have. I will not vote for either Dem or a third party. I still believe that SCOTUS is too important as is the war on terror. I was a big supporter of Fred and then a reluctant supporter of Mit. I am now an even more reluctant supporter of McCain but I have decided that is what I must do.
I think you’re thinking of Mark Halprin, not Helprin. Halprin used to be with ABC.
Aw, damn, now I feel terrible for being harsh. I’m sorry {{{hug}}} (I truly mean that).
“...and 4000 who will have died in vain”
How DARE you say that their sacrifice will have been in vain, regardless of what happens in November. How dare you!
Europe is a socialist hole fast going dhimmi, so does that mean the sacrifice of men in WWII was in vain? Korea is still half communist, so did the men who died in Korea die in vain? Did the men in Vietnam die in vain? No! No! And no! The sacrifice of any military man or woman is to be honored for all time, reagardless of how the conflict eventually turns out, and I’m sick and tired of people saying that if foreign nations can’t hold things together in perpetuity, the sacrifices made on their behalf are worthless. That’s mindless sophistry of the worst kind.
If, in five, ten or fifty years Iraq is just another typical Middle Eastern craphole, as it probably will be, it will be due to the failure of IRAQIS, not the failure of the troops or the failure of any political party or ideological group. It’s their country, and ultimately their responsibility.
Outside of the far right, the war is unpopular. The next President, whoever he/she is, is either going to withdraw from Iraq or lose the ‘12 election. That includes McCain. Get used to the idea, and stop blaming the American voters or American fighting men and women for the failure of foreigners to establish and maintain functioning representative government.
Our military men and women in Iraq have killed terrorists, lots and lots of terrorists wishing to do us harm. If nothing else comes of the war in Iraq, that will be more than enough to honor their bravery, patriotism and sacrifice for all time!
Thanks, and I mean that too!
The WSJ open borders crowd have no creds regarding the illegal alien issue.
Back in the Simpson-Mazzoli era, amnesty seemed to have a rational basis. It proved to be wrong.The reason is simple; Mexico has never been cordial to the US since the US took a huge swath of its territory. It is a foreign and only in a limited sense friendly country. Compared to the US, Mexico has xenophobic laws prescribing the local language to the exclusion of other languages (read, English) and circumscribing the ownership of real estate by foreigners (as a practical matter, Americans) and prohibiting political demonstrations by foreigners (i.e., Americans).
Consequently there are limits to what a pure one-to-one amicability will do for the US. Mexican culture considers itself to be the victim of gringo culture, and exploiting America economically and politically seems not merely justified by a cultural duty. Native-born Americans who are looking up at middle-class status find Mexican, and hispanic generally, competition for jobs and status. America could admit a lot more professional people from Europe than it does, but the WSJ position on the border issue means that instead legions of poor people from poor countries arrive here, and burden services of all kinds.
Democrats love hispanic immigrants - because without them the party is in danger of running out of poor people. The Wall Street Journal in general, and this article in particular, take none of this into account in their analysis.
Spare me the indignation obviously intended to make you and all the other petulant children who refuse to support the candidate who supports the troops feel better about yourselves.
If we don’t finish the job, it will be like a patient who does not complete a course of anti-biotics: The infection will come back, stronger than before.
We don’t change the world for the better by losing wars. I don’t know about you, but that’s not why I raised my hand and took the oath three times. We change the world by winning wars. We’re winning this one, but let Clinton or Obama get in the White House and see what happens.
If our net security is no better than it was before, because we’ve left the job half done, they will have died in vain - and it will be the fault of all of us who know better and should be standing up for what is right, right now.
I am tired of the open border....
Until something is actually accomplished, I won't vote for Republicans at all.
Prop. 187 in California gave Republicans control of the California legislature. 1994 put Republicans in power and illegal immigration was one of the biggest reasons.
The rope-a-dope on illegal immigration is losing elections.
Lou,
Nice post. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The spineless bunch on this forum disappoint me. I’m not a big McCain man, but he’s devoted his life to this country. He’s a war hero, and except for a hand full of votes has been pretty conservative, in fact those entities that keep score say he’s right up at the top on his voting record.
If the intent here is to make him wake up and respect the issues that are important to us, then fine. I think he’s getting the message.
We have a much more chance of influencing McCain as president, esp on Supreme Court nominees, than we do with those two dems.
Check out the response I got at #40. Real smart fellow that guy.
The rope-a-dope on illegal immigration is losing elections.
"LET NOT YOUR HEART BE TROUBLED!"
I puke every time I hear Airhead say that.
And I turn the volume down whenever he goes into his "Bill Clinton" voice.
And in case anybody is wondering why I torture myself listening to him, it's the only talk radio we get out in the sticks.
“Real smart fellow that guy.” correction.....
Real smart gal that girl.
“The spineless bunch on this forum disappoint me.”
There are some FReepers who admit they will hold their nose and vote mclame because their back is against the wall. THEY are honest about it. You and others spew hateful remarks, I guess you take your talking points from your “leader”. Who, by the way, said hill would make a very good president. I don’t see you repeating that one.
You think McCain is going to win this war? You think he supports the troops? Bull. McCain, who wants to close Gitmo and bring the terrorists to our soil, who, along with Carl Levin, wants to weaken the rules for military tribunals, who wants to join the International Criminal Court and let them try soldiers for war crimes. Who doesn’t want to torture terrorists, even if the nation is being directly threatened with an attack. Who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but then in the next breath says that’s only if the troops aren’t being injured or killed. McCain, who fought the President and Rumsfeld at every turn because they weren’t running the war his way, even though his vaunted military experience amounts to being a mediocre pilot. That McCain.
And you’re willing to use our dead troops as a weapon to keep conservatives in line to vote for THAT? John McCain is just another hypocrite democrat who says he supports the troops while undermining them and their mission at every turn. He, like certain Freepers, USES the troops to accomplish his own political ends. That is not supporting and honoring the troops.
McCain supported the war, even if I disagree with his stance on Gitmo, tribunals, and other aspects of it. He turned out to be right, and Rumsfeld turned out to be wrong, about the surge and the need for more troops.
I’m not using anyone to accomplish anything. I am imagining the way the world looks under Clinton, Obama, and McCain. I think there are real differences, particularly regarding the war on terror. McCain is committed to winning, the democrats are committed to an immediate withdrawal.
If you’re honest with yourself, you will realize he is the best choice. I’m not happy about it, I’m not a McCain fan, but that is the reality of the situation.
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.