VOTING FOR MY CONVICTIONS, or For The Lesser Of Two EVILS

Several articles from Rush Limbaugh, Enter Stage Right, and Fox News ^ | April 27, 2008 | Me, and several others

[Yosemitest]

VOTING FOR MY CONVICTIONS, or For The Lesser Of Two EVILS
By Yosemitest, April 27, 2008

After McCain's latest outburst against conservatives about the North Carolina Republican Party TV ad, I did some research that I'd like to share with you. We don't have to follow the GOPs marching orders into the abyss of liberalism. The GOP is destroying conservatism, and we should withdraw our support for this corrupt organization.

Now may I suggest someone that I can support. Someone that the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, June 2, 2002 described as

"... the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics. "
Now that's my kind of President!!!

Where does he stand on the issues? Associate Editor Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine Online talked with Barr in September 2003, and described him

"After entering the House of Representatives in 1995, Georgia Republican Bob Barr acquired a reputation as one of the most conservative members of Congress. It was Barr who in 1996 wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, which said states didn't have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states; it was Barr who protested when he learned the military allowed soldiers to practice Wicca. A former federal prosecutor, a firm social conservative, and a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, Barr doesn't fit most people's image of a civil libertarian.

But in his eight years in Congress (he failed to win re-election in 2002), Barr was one of Washington's loudest critics of the federal government's abuses of power, taking the lead in investigating the raid on Waco and in opposing Bill Clinton's efforts to undermine due process in terrorism cases. Since leaving Congress, Barr has taken an advisory post with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and started writing a column for Atlanta's alternative weekly Creative Loafing -- neither ordinarily a haven for Republicans. While many on the right have fallen behind the Bush administration even as it betrays their purported principles, Barr represents another set of conservatives' growing discomfort with the administration's erosion of individual liberty."

Take a look at Robert L. (Bob) Barr, Jr. statement on the issues at the Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee web site. There are some things I disagree with him on, such as the fair tax. But look at his answer to the drug issue that Hannity addressed.

HANNITY: What would your vote be? Would you vote to legalize heroin and crack?

BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean. We've talked about this.

And for those who want to follow the GOP, well remember this

HANNITY: Well, then, I believe what Ronald Reagan said: no pale pastels; bold colors. Work within the Republican Party to make it more conservative. I want it to be conservative.

BARR: You know who tried to work against Ronald Reagan and convince him not to run? It was the Republican Party, Sean.

John Bender of enterstageright.com wrote on April 7, 2008.
"Congressman Barr is a solid conservative with a lifetime ACU record of 98%. His last two years in office he scored an ACU record of 100%.
McCain's lifetime ACU record is 82% but his 2006, the most recent year for which ratings are available, ACU record was 65%. Among Republican Senators only Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter had worse voting records."

It's time to renounce that Sorry Ole Bonehead McCain and support a real conservative.

[Grunthor]

The GOP is destroying conservatism, and we should withdraw our support for this corrupt organization.

---

Cannot be said enough.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Make your case that McCain is significantly better than the Democrat. Just shouting ain't gonna hack it.

To me it's an open question. With President McCain in office, that splits the Republican Party and Mr Bipartisan McCain reaches across the aisle and signs all the liberal nonsense spewed by the liberals.

On the other hand, with President Hillary or Obama, the Republican Party united finds it easier to stop liberal legislation.

In practice, I'm not real sure, how different McCain will be than a Democrat. Call me uninformed. The solution there, is then to inform me.

[Yosemitest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, ... but by Defcons, you mean defense conservatives, and by Socons, you mean social conservatives, and by Ficons, you mean financial conservatives?

I'm confused how McCain can be considered pro defcon when he refuses to protect our borders. Illegal immigration can't be ignored.

You and I agree on alot. But I don't care if Barr loses, I just can't vote for McCain, I can only vote against McCain.

This decline into socialism in the Republican Party must be stopped and McCain is leading the charge towards socialism, i.e. global warming, stopping drilling in ANWR, and attacking the First Amendment with Campaign Finance Reform.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks.
I cannot say this enough.

When the GOP or McCain ask for money to support McCain,
print and send them ... one of these.


I've found someone I can support!!!

[Just another Joe]

counterpunch, when is enough too much?
At what point, according to your thinking, are we allowed to say, "NO MORE"!

I'm not trying to rag on you, this is a serious question.
I have become more and more disgusted by both parties that, since Reagan left office, I now see very little difference, internally, between a Democrat and a Republican.
The two parties still have some differences when you go outside the nation's boundaries but inside?

When do the nations voters send a message to both parties letting them know that they are no longer viable?

[counterpunch]

It becomes enough when there is another VIABLE option.
As it stands right now, if you do not elect the Republican, then you get a Democrat instead. And the Democrat Party, as it is currently constituted, is too dangerous for America at this point in time.

Remember, Ronald Reagan did not approve of working against Republicans. Yes, REPUBLICANS, not “conservatives”. t was his 11th Commandment. A lot of people have forgotten Reagan’s 11th Commandment here.

If the current Republicans are not conservative enough for you, then the time to defeat them is in the primary. That’s what Reagan would tell you. That is what Reagan did. He lived it by example. He ran against Ford, and then he supported Ford in the general election.

[Just another Joe]

It becomes enough when there is another VIABLE option.

Doesn't that become one of those nasty circular logic rings?
How does a third party, of ANY type, become viable if no one votes for them?
If no one votes for them how do they become viable?

Just so you know, I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat.
I am an independent and have been so since I could vote.
As it stands right now, I see very little difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party.
How does a liberal Republican, McCain, become the standard bearer for the, supposedly, conservative party?
I don't think that McCain will do anything differently, domestically, from either Obomba or Hitlery.
Sorry to say that but that's what I believe.

The only difference I see between the two partys is on the international front.

[counterpunch]

Is McCain liberal on national defense?
Is he liberal on spending?
Is he liberal on abortion?
Is he liberal on judges?
Is he liberal on the free market? (OK, there you actually want to be a “free-market ‘liberal’”)

I too am independent and have been ever since I first registered to vote.
But I also have never supported a Democrat or acted in any way that could contribute to the election of Democrats.

Do you believe Obama would be better than McCain on Iraq, on the economy, on healthcare, on taxes, on spending, on judges?
Do you believe Obama would be anything short of a nation-ending disaster on any of these issues?

[Just another Joe]

Do you believe Obama would be better than McCain on Iraq, on the economy, on healthcare, on taxes, on spending, on judges?

No. Well, maybe Iraq.
On the rest, no, I don't believe McCain will be any better than Obomba on these things.
He might be worse because at least the Republicans might fight Obomba on them. They won't fight McCain on them.

Do you believe Obama would be anything short of a nation-ending disaster on any of these issues?

No.

Is McCain liberal on national defense?
Is he liberal on spending?
Is he liberal on abortion?
Is he liberal on judges?

No
Yes
I don't know
I think so

Like I said, I see very little difference.
People keep talking about judges. I don't think McCain will appoint conservative judges.
Spending? as long as we have the WOT going on, spending is a foregone conclusion.
Abortion? I think this is the one sop that McCain has for conservatives, and it shouldn't even be a federal issue.

National defense is the ONLY place, imo, that McCain has the rest of them. And this is only when speaking of international affairs.
Domestically, he hasn't a figs difference between him and the rest.

[roamer_1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, ... but by Defcons, you mean defense conservatives, and by Socons, you mean social conservatives, and by Ficons, you mean financial conservatives?

Yes, those are the three pillars of Conservatism.

I'm confused how McCain can be considered pro defcon when he refuses to protect our borders. Illegal immigration can't be ignored.

I see that as a critical error in judgment as well, but the defcons primary concern is for troops in the line of fire, and the greater objective of the GWOT. As such, they are among the most vehement of McCain's supporters, as nothing else is as important to them, and they will overlook any number of flaws in an attempt to deliver a supposed warhawk as CiC.

But I don't care if Barr loses, I just can't vote for McCain, I can only vote against McCain.

I can see your position, though if another conservative is raised up, one who more perfectly fits the Reagan Coalition mold, I would ask you to change allegiance at that time, as I would rather win than block...

This decline into socialism in the Republican Party must be stopped and McCain is leading the charge towards socialism, i.e. global warming, stopping drilling in ANWR, and attacking the First Amendment with Campaign Finance Reform.

I agree absolutely. It is the most imminent threat to America.

[Yosemitest]

Allow me to refocus the debate. the subject is McCain versus Bob Barr ... not Hillary or Obama.

McCain is as much a Democrat as Hillary or Obama, as far as I'm concerned.

Now to address your questions.

"Is McCain liberal on national defense?"
Yes ... if he won't build the physical wall to stop illegal immigration, which includes terrorist crossing the border illegally.

"Is he liberal on spending?"

Yes ... if he supports Global Warming ... ripping off the taxpayers with more higher taxes.

"Is he liberal on abortion?"

I don't know, but if he supports an exception for the mother and allows partial birth abortion, then YES.

"Is he liberal on judges?"

Most definately!!!

Read the following.

---

I recommend this blog.

McCain, Judicial Nominations, Sleeves, and Warts
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 by Beldar at 07:43 AM

I don't much care about Wall Street Journal political reporter John Fund's report yesterday that's roiling the blogosphere and cable news talking head shows. Fund reported that Sen. John McCain

"has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because
'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

Since Sen. McCain led a gang of other Republican renegade senators in deserting their party's sitting president and colluding with the opposition party to throw some of that president's pending judicial nominations down the toilet — jettisoning along with their confirmation chances the chance for a constitutional showdown that could have ended senatorial filibustering of judicial nominees — there is nothing that Sen. McCain can do, and certainly nothing he can say or write as a campaign promise, to restore his credibility with me on the subject of judicial appointments.


Oh, yes, he did vote to confirm Roberts and Alito. But could we possibly set a lower bar than that for someone who's supposed to be a leader of his party and a contender for the opportunity to fill as many as three SCOTUS seats in the next term?

There are a lot of good things that can be said about Sen. McCain by good conservatives — but not on this issue. By taking the "constitutional option" (a/k/a "nuclear option" in Dem-speak) off the table, McCain and his fellow "maverick" GOP cronies doomed not only a handful of worthy circuit and district court nominees to non-confirmation, they ensured that the White House would thereafter dare not make any more controversial nominations to those vitally important lower courts. For "controversial nominations," read "demonstratedly and predictably conservative nominations just like Roberts and Alito would have been, but for the higher profile of SCOTUS nominations."

The only way that the Dems could justify stonewalling Dubya's circuit and district court nominations was that the stonewalling happens mostly out of sight, and rarely if ever makes a blip on the general public's radar screens. They couldn't get away with denying a floor vote to a SCOTUS nominee. But John McCain led the deal that let the Dems guarantee that they could continue to exercise an effective veto on circuit and district court nominations for the remainder of George W. Bush's term, regardless of the outcome of the 2006 elections. The unquestionable result of the Gang of 14's "compromise," as brokered by John McCain, will be two-fold:

There will be more judicial vacancies at the end of the Bush-43 term than there ought to be;
and such district and circuit judges as have been nominated and confirmed by January 2009 will be mostly bland ones whom McCain's Democratic allies permitted to go through because the Dems couldn't dredge up or even manufacture remotely plausible objections.
Some of them will nevertheless turn out to be very fine judges despite their lack of histories around which the Dems could weave their objections. But if your goal is conservative judges, giving the Dems a near-secret and unaccountable veto, which ie exactly what McCain did, is a very, very bad idea.

No sir, the day John McCain led the Gang of 14, he forfeited all of my trust — irrevocably — on judicial selection issues. No ma'am, I don't care what words he mouths now on that subject.

In fact, I'm slightly more inclined to believe Rudy Giuliani's promises about appointing conservative judges than McCain's. Sure, it's contrary to Giuliani's own stance on many social issues; and I'm far from entirely comfortable about Giuliani's campaign promises on this and other subjects. But at least Giuliani hasn't already betrayed this particular trust, and then equivocated about that betrayal. already shown himself to have no backbone, and to be a willing collaborator with the Dems, specifically when it comes to appointing judges at the circuit and district court levels. To the limited extent that I care at all what McCain says now, the mere fact that McCain continues to defend the Gang of 14 deal out-shouts anything else he says. And saying now that he "fought for" the abandoned nominees is just a palpable lie. The way to fight for them was to continue at least threatening to use the "constitutional option." There was no other way to fight for them. There was no other way to even get their nominations to the floor for a vote! To even pretend that those abandoned nominees had a chance once the Gang of 14 struck its deal is comparable to the Brits and French saying in September 1939,

"Well, we did still root for the Czechoslovaks after we forced them to give Hitler the Sudetenland last year. Gosh, we really thought they still had a good chance, but we just ran out of time. How could we know he'd go on to gobble up the rest of their country, and Poland too?"

Stepping back and looking at the big picture:

Collaborating with the Dems to defeat the Bush Administration's most conservative circuit and district court judicial nominees isn't remotely the same as collaborating with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese while American POWs (including McCain) were imprisoned. John McCain is not John Kerry, and the Dems are only misguided political enemies of the GOP and conservatism, not profound and literally mortal enemies of western civilization. And I'm sure that in his own mind, McCain has thoroughly rationalized what he did, just like he's rationalized (and now is soft-pedaling) his prior stands on campaign finance reform and immigration.
I'm not one of those self-destructive conservative idiots who is going to sit out the 2008 election if McCain turns out to be the GOP nominee. Indeed, if he is nominated — which I still think is unlikely, but I no longer can rule out as a possibility — I'll support him, and defend him, and promote him, and vote for him against whoever the Dems nominate. I will accentuate the positive, for him or any other GOP nominee.

But just don't insult my intelligence by pretending that John McCain is a reliable conservative on the subject of judicial nominations. From the point of view of any knowledgeable conservative, this is one of the huge warts on this particular candidate. And he doesn't have to "wear" that particular lack of conservatism "on his sleeve," because it's a wart that's as plain as his nose. You can secure my enthusiastic agreement that the Democratic alternatives are uglier, that they're practically "all-wart." But quit trying to pull my leg about McCain and this particular subject, okay?

Maybe if McCain is making a SCOTUS nomination, he really will pick another Roberts or Alito. What concerns me, though, is that at best, he'll gladly let the Dems pressure him into packing the circuit and district courts with Kennedys, O'Connors, and occasional Souters. I have no doubt that John McCain would be willing to take on the Dems on matters of national security, even if it means a bloody, long-term dispute. But I also have no doubt that if pressed (and he will be), he would make his picks, and then cut quiet deals left and right, to avoid such fights over judicial nominees below the SCOTUS level. Since he's already abandoned conservative principles and cut a deal with the Dems on nominees to those courts even when the GOP controlled the Senate, why would he possibly stand up to them as president, especially if they continue to control the Senate?

---

"Is he liberal on the free market?"
Yes, because he stopped legislation allowing drilling for oil in ANWR. As well as wanting more restrictions on business over the Global Warming Hoax.

In short, I'll never, ever, NEVER ... vote FOR McCain.
Can you spell NEVER???

[Yosemitest]

"if another conservative is raised up,
one who more perfectly fits the Reagan Coalition mold, I would ask you to change allegiance at that time,
as I would rather win than block... "

That's a BIG if.

.. (thinking) ... (considering) .... Done.

[JDoutrider]

Bump for a good discussion!

[rabscuttle385]

The VP choice is generally meaningless.

Apologies for the necromancy of this thread but...

It's good to look back, while the rest of FR is now fawning over Sarah Palin as if she's Reagan reincarnated.

[Sunnyflorida]

Did illegal immigration come up in this Convention? Do people realize that if we vigorously enforced all are immigration laws we would not have had 9//11, our taxes would be lower, we would not have Mexican citizens voting in our elections, our streets would be safer, and on and on.

Not enforcing the laws we have on the books today is the biggest failing of this Country and until the laws are enforced we are in a world of hurt.

[BufordP]

Did illegal immigration come up in this Convention? ...

Yes.

...We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendents arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans. ...

[AmericanInTokyo]

It is EXTREMELY DISCONCERTING that Illegal Immigration and our OUT OF CONTROL BORDERS did not come up that much in this Convention, if at all, and particularly in the two acceptance speeches. It makes me nervous as all hell and my instincts tell me, something is UP and somebody is about to get used and discarded. I wish I were a fly on the wall in the office of Juan Hernandez, chief aide to McCain. Is he pissed and muzzled? Or is he sitting pretty--knowing the full story, but just lying low until this blows over and they are out of the woods, then at the opportune time, BANG!, will he be there with that bearded smirk just ready to prepare the gold plated pens for the signing ceremony of the Executive Order in the Rose Garden, complete with background mariachis?

Seriously folks. CHECK THEM AND CHECK THEM AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

I could be wrong, but the minute we stop questioning things and confirming things and verifying things, we cease being diligent, vigilent Conservatives IMHO.

Never get swept up in the moment to the point it blinds you to doing your required homework. Sarah Palin is GREAT, but we still have fact checking and due diligence to perform on this issue of Ilegals, otherwise if we dont have all our "i"'s dotted and "t"s crossed, I fear we are in for the royal screwing of a lifetime.

Come on you Immigration Ping list Freepers out there, you know who you are. Aren't you getting some bad vibes?

BOOKMARKED

If I get flamed for being a "troll visiting from D.U." even after nine credible years here of solid conservatism, well, then so be it.

[rabscuttle385]

to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans.

Juan is at it again!

I have a bad feeling that, behind Sarah Palin's untarnished conservative skirts, it's just the same ol' RINO Juan Sidney McQueeg hiding there.

[rabscuttle385]

Not enforcing the laws we have on the books today is the biggest failing of this Country and until the laws are enforced we are in a world of hurt.

So let me throw this question out to any Freepers reading this thread: if McCain favors either not enforcing laws (and has even attempted to push through legislation granting amnesty after the fact) or, worse, favors selectively enforcing laws, then how can we trust him to do so as President? And, enforcing the law is an essential feature in the job description for President of the United States.

Usually, about this time, McCainiacs chime in that "But Bambi is worse!" to deflect the fact that their candidate is still a pathetic and a treacherous liberal RINO.

[mountainbunny]

A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

Do you ever wonder if, after fence sitters read things like that, you aren't convincing them to vote for Obama?

I ask because a neighbor said something like that the other day: "May as well vote for Obama. He's going to win anyway" in response to a third person saying almost exactly what you did.

Provoking and antagonizing people away from your goal is no way to reach it.