ad banner for Security Solutions International
Advertising Email FAQ Home RSS Search Speaking Townhall YouTube
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.
« Conservative Grapevine Promo | Main | We're Entering The Wilderness »
May 23, 2008
John Hawkins Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President

I've never been a fan of John McCain. Not only is he not a conservative, he may have done more damage to the conservative movement than any other Republican over the last few years. Look back at the Gang-of-14, global warming, McCain-Feingold, coddling terrorists at Gitmo, illegal immigration -- on and on and on, and you'll remember John McCain working feverishly with liberals to defeat conservatives.

For that reason, John McCain was not someone I backed for the Presidency. My order of preference for President was Duncan Hunter (whom I consulted for), Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and then, John McCain. That's why, right before his big win in Florida, I wrote an extra column for Townhall called A Conservative Nightmare: Republican Nominee, John McCain.

Still, even in that column, which was meant to discourage people from voting for John McCain, I wrote,

Now, am I saying that Republicans should vote for a third party or stay home if John McCain is the nominee? Absolutely not. I don't believe in protest votes and besides, the presidency is bigger than any one issue.

After McCain took Florida and was practically a lock to capture the nomination, in keeping with my belief that it benefits conservatives to support the most conservative nominee, I wrote two columns called, Why You're Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It! & There's Nothing Conservative Or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November.

I also got myself invited to McCain's teleconferences, raised money for him through Slatecard, and believe it or not, even contributed $25 to his campaign.

Admittedly that was tough for me because I wasn't a fan of the guy, but I believed that I had a responsibility, for whatever it was worth, to try to set an example. That was despite the fact that fighting amnesty is extremely important to me and John McCain was the chief Republican proponent of amnesty.

Of course, McCain claimed that he had changed his tune. Yes, he still supported amnesty, but he said he had heard the message that the American people were sending him and that he had been convinced that we needed security first, before we pursued an amnesty.

McCain said this over and over and over and over again. For example, here's John McCain in November of 2007,

John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.

Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.

"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."

Here's John McCain in February of 2008,

On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

Here's John McCain, answering a question that I posed to him about illegal immigration on April 28, 2008:

As the recent immigration debate demonstrated, Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make our border secure. As president, I will honor that pledge by securing the border, thus strengthening our national security. I will also require that, among other things, border-state governors certify that the border is secure before proceeding to other reform measures. However, I also believe that our immigration system must recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism. Once we achieve border security, we must ensure that we approach our remaining immigration challenges with constructive dialogue and solutions that reflect a compassionate approach and the needs of our economy.

So, what you see here is that McCain has said, again and again, that he no longer supports comprehensive immigration reform. To the contrary, he has been saying that we need security first and then -- and only then -- could we consider moving forward with an amnesty.

Granted, I didn't trust McCain on this issue and I'd prefer never to have an amnesty, but still, a security first position beats comprehensive immigration reform.

On the other hand, after spending more than 6 months touting a security first position, winning the nomination only because he abandoned his pro-comprehensive immigration position, and running as "Mr. Straight Talk," I thought McCain would be reluctant to break his security first pledge once he got into office.

That's why I was more than a little bit disturbed when John McCain said the following last week,

"We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States and the lesson I learned from it is we've got to have comprehensive immigration reform."

Although the campaign didn't follow that up with any releases saying that McCain slipped up, I noticed that McCain seemed to be going back to his security first position when he was asked about immigration. So, I decided to ask the campaign about it and yesterday, I posted on the issue.

Here was my conclusion,

"What that leads me to believe is that McCain just screwed up, slipped into his old comprehensive illegal immigration rhetoric, and then, because the issue is so radioactive for him, decided he would be better off just leaving it alone rather than trying to explain it."

Incidentally, that conclusion? It wasn't just a guess. It was backed up by off-the-record comments that I'm not going to discuss in detail right now.

So, with that in mind, imagine my chagrin when I saw these comments in the New York Times last night (emphasis mine).

After several of the business leaders complained about the difficulty in obtaining temporary H1B visas for scientists and engineers, something the Senate immigration bill was supposed to address, Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal "failure," as well as one by the federal government.

"Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States," he said. "It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we're seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing."

He added: "I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it's a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don't do it before, and we probably won't, a little straight talk, as of January 2009."

Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to "better mobilize American public opinion" behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.

Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.

Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.

Moreover, I genuinely regret having to do this because I do still believe the country would be better off with John McCain as President as opposed to Obama or Clinton. However, I just cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who has told this big of a lie, for this long, about this important of an issue.

That being said, although I cannot back John McCain, encourage others to vote for him, or contribute any more money to his campaign, I'm not going to tell you that you should do that same thing. What McCain has done here is a bridge too far for me, but others may not have as big a problem with being told this sort of lie. That's their decision.

Furthermore, I will defend John McCain when I think he deserves to be defended, excoriate Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton at every opportunity, and I will continue to stand behind the sort of Republican candidates who actually deserve conservative support. But, what I will not do is vote for John McCain in November.

Also see,

A "I'm Not Voting For McCain" Follow-Up Post

Facebook MySpace Twitter del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Propeller Reddit Stumbleupon Technorati
    Share this article!
I like! I don't like. Score: John Hawkins | 04:59 AM | Permalink   Trackbacks (6)

Note: Comments and Trackbacks for this entry closed on May 28, 2008 04:59 AM
Comments (375)
This is consistent with http://www.eternityroad.info/i...mandatory_rebellion/"> my own policy of punishing the GOP for talking freedom while enacting ever greater statism. But merely defeating McCain will not be enough. We have to http://www.eternityroad.info/i...ions_and_inhibitors/">defeat the party overall, so it won't be able to wishful-think around its duplicity and the duplicity of its front men.
I'm glad you finally see the McCain the rest of us have been seeing.

When comes to McCain, just say no.
I've been waffling back and forth about voting for McCain in November. Like you, John, I viewed him as the lesser of two evils and was leaning toward voting for him. However, I will never vote for someone who outright lies in order to get what he wants -- a man like that cannot be trusted.

So in November, I will be voting for http://www.bobbarr2008.com/?gc...-tvJMCFRYLIgodNieUCg">Bob Barr. He might not stand a chance, but at least I can vote for him with a clear conscience.

I will still support the other Republican congressional candidates on the ballet.
Thank you, John Hawkins.

Frankly, I was hoping that when lowly ones such as I raised enough of a ruckus, that he would do as most politicians do, and rush to make tons of hard promises.

Yet, truthfully, you could see in the 90's that he has an unusual ego problem RARE EVEN AMONG POLITICIANS, because most politicians CATER BY NATURE - yet the Censure of him by the Arizona GOP in 2005 for alligning himself so tightly with Dim voters showed he was not inclined to cater to the GOP Conservatives at all.

Still, with the Dim Party making victory by a Conservative SUCH A PIECE OF CAKE, it has been hard to watch the GOP do this with John McCain and snatch an EASY VICTORY away from us.

But even I have been shocked at the way McCain has been outing himself this last two months - even though I thought he would as he mounted in strength as the presumptive candidate and felt more and more that he did not need us.

I cannot tell you how much I respect what a difficult decision this is for you, how hard I know that McCain pushed you, for you to do this - but that when he did, you stood by your principles and are standing ground for America.

Thank you for that, John Hawkins!

This is NOT to say that I am NOT as terrified of a Dim President as anyone at all with a brain is - just that sometimes, nothing can be done by HUMAN HANDS for it, and you must stand for what is right. Regardless of the consequences.

I leave you with THIS COMFORT:

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2 Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Psalms 118:8 [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

We still have Hope in the Lord.

And one last thought, that regardless of what some think of me, what they think I am, I am a Founding Fathers adherent, and a Conservative and Christian, and it was a cold shock to me the day in January 2008, BEFORE HE WAS THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE, to find a Spirit of Peace beyond understanding to settle in my belly, as a CLEAN CONSCIENCE, to NOT vote for McCain, to NOT feel any pressure to do so.

God bless and preserve America.
Welcome back, John.
Okay, so that's your case against McCain.

Now tell us which of the three viable candidates is the best choice for President and why.
It may be like being on the Titanic, but I'd rather go down with honor like the band, then support another unprincipled McCain type politician.

MCCain is the worst of the RINOs because he so deeply loves the role.

McCain is deeply flawed in character -it is spelled LOYALTY =he has none for his party of thier principles.

His cavalier attitude toward our country's basic needs is abhorant and obvious to anyone who has gotten past the anyone but hillary stage -whether is McCain/Feingold McCain/Kennedy or McCain/Lieberman the vast majority of those names if you count are from the left -including John.

Sadly it isn't just johnny - It is the party folks that has betrayed its base - this stuff doesn't happen by accident and without forethought and planning.

I'm thrilled you've finally seen the light -now- do we play in the band while the ship sinks or do we find a long range big time solution to defeat the ruling class?

Welcome aboard John, better late than never.
Man, I am torn. I REALLY do not like McCain; however, I am also terrified of an Obama victory in November. Recently Obama's speeches had successfully scared me into voting for McCain. Now, with his open borders flip-flop, along with ALL his other democrat principles, I don't know what the hell to do.

Dang it!
I'm torn.

On one hand the damage done to the country by unchecked illegal immigration from the third world is the single greatest threat we face as a nation. It's a far bigger and more direct threat that Islamic terrorism for example. John McCain's record on this subject is awful and he should be punished for it. he clearly has not learned his lesson.

But on the other hand the idea of Obama becoming president is an obcenity. I think at this point the chances of his being elected are much lower than they used to be. However if large numbers of conservatives stay home, that may be enough to put this repugnant human being in office.

This election is going to be the old cliche of "chosing between the lesser of two evils" taken to an extreme.

TR
Step 1 to bring forth True Conservatism
As bad as it is, McCain is still the best choice we have for POTUS. The Republican party has no chance of regaining a majority in either the House or Senate this year. An Obamanation presidency combined with a Pelosi and Reid controlled Congress equals Big Nanny crammed down our throats and ripped from our wallets. It also means the addition of at least one or more SCOTUS justices like RB Ginsberg or David Souter.

Face it, John. It's not a vote for McCain as much as it's a vote against Obama / Clinton. That's something I think most all of us can live with.
Posted by Ralph_Gizzip
May 23, 2008 7:29 AM |

The more we settle for the lesser evil the more the big party hacks will realize that they can do what ever they please without any consequences from the base. We need to step up, we will have to suffer but if thats what it takes to save America, im willing to do it.
Thank God you have seen the light. John McCain has NO HONOR and will finish the job the Bushs have done of destroying the Republican Party.

It may be the wilderness but we will have our honor intact.
You only now see what some of us have been wrestling with since he got the nomination?

Washington needs an enema.
John, -5 McCain Points for you for this blog post.


Seriously, it's a lot to consider.

>>The more we settle for the lesser evil the more the big party hacks will realize that they can do what ever they please without any consequences from the base. >>

But that's the way it always has been, is now, and forever shall be, to quote a familiar phrase. The extreme right and extreme left both have this in common, the feeling of never getting what they really want. They always feel their candidates are too moderate.

But in truth, what choice do they have - other than sit home, as many of you are going to do? America is by and large, a country of moderates; a bell-shaped curve is an apt illustration. Far right at one end....the vast majority in the middle...and far left on the other end.
WOw, thank you for coming to that conclusion so soon. McCain is a lying POS and an absolutely terrible choice for the right and definitely for Conservatives.
Dang it!

Posted by Rohan
May 23, 2008 6:55 AM |

Rohan,

I was waffling on McAmnesty for months and didn't trust him as far as I could throw him on the immigration issue, yet I was still determined to vote for him because anything would be better than the other two stooges, however once he jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon that was the straw that broke the camels back.

I'm probably going to write in Duncan Hunter. He's good on the boarder, probably good as far as supreme court nominees, hopefully good on spending, ect. Anybody but McAmnesty.

What we need to do as conservatives is try and get the bloggers push a massive write in campaign. We still have at 5 1/2 until the election to get something like this going.

I know it would probably never work, however we could say at least we tried.
"It may be the wilderness but we will have our honor intact.

Posted by gnqanq
May 23, 2008 7:43 AM |"

Oh great.

Intact honor.

Wrecked country.

Wrecked country.

Intact honor.


Put them on the scale.



Put them on the scale.

Posted by n_obrain
May 23, 2008 8:06 AM |

Mornin N_Obrain,

Question is will he really do less damage than the other two stooges? We have two hardcore libs and one maybe lib-lite? How do we know he isn't just as liberal as Obammbi or the Hildabeast?

I just don't trust the man on anything, because he keeps shifting his positions on a few things.

The only thing I agree with him on is the war in Iraq.
Geez, one of Hawkin's most schizoid posts ever.

The war is still on remember?

You may be inured to that fact and put it on the backburner and that is precisely why you should vote for McCain.

He won't forget the vets and just as importantly he won't forget the war!

But, if what you're saying is, it doesn't matter who is in office in this regard then fine sit home and stew in your disillusionment.

You remind me of a child who doesn't get his way and instead of dealing with it runs off into the woods and cries like a baby.

Mr. Hawkins, a 3rd party (the New Republican Party - NRP?) must be formed and ready to field candidates come the 2010 mid-terms. The GOP is gone! Finished! The scoundrels like McCain, "W", Rove, Mehlman, Martinez have successfully squeezed true conservatives out. And they're out for good. Its over, man!
I agree that we conservatives "must" support McCain '08. Those who don't are simply - STUPID! Do they want the likes of Bill Ayers appointed to the supreme court?? Or some other important government position?
Its too late to field a viable 3rd party candidate.
Our new party must be serious. We don't want to go the way of the Bull Moose or Reform parties. Both only ended up being spoilers and responsible for the victory of 2 horrible presidents - Wilson and Clinton.
Darvin Dowdy
President Barack Obama.


Think about it.

Think about it long and hard.

John,
check out my blog to see my thoughts on our boy John McCain
Now let's all sing together

I'm Beginning To See The Light
Wow, I feel like this is something just recently mentioned in a Q&A Friday...hmmm...*cough* Q&A 89 *cough*

Seriously, though, my continual question to those who think that McCain is better than the others - why? What, exactly, has he shown you that makes you think "Yeah, okay, I can trust him to stand his ground on this issue"? As Mr. Hawkins points out, he isn't even waiting for the election to become more liberal; what happens when he is actually in the White House?
gfchicago - I had forgotten about his climate change/no drilling in ANWR beliefs. Whoa, this just gets worse and worse. I think I am like a LOT of other people. I love and support our troops AND their mission, which is the only thing holding me back from completely dumping McCain.

I respectfully disagree with bcb 1 in the bell shaped curve of this country with moderates the highest point. I think the whole bell has shifted far to the left which has bad consequences for the USA.
There were many of us John who never believed McCain was abandoning amnesty. Just because his new line was, "secure the borders first" never meant to me that he was giving up on his amnesty plan. Since then, he's joined Al Gore in a quest to eliminate man made global warming that doesn't exist while bankrupting business and probably the country in the process.

If anyone will carry the water for amnesty, let it be Democrats. The only way that people who were stupid enough to vote for McCain will ever see the light is if the Democrats all but ruin the country in the next four years. We can only hope that there's still something left to salvage when they're done with it.
The scorpion and frog story about one's nature comes to mind.

The comment I left on the Jawa Report:

I MUST vote for John McCain? No I don't. I may in fact vote a straight Democrat ticket in an attempt to destroy our current GOP as an established party. Why? Because there are times you must break things enough before the thing will be fixed.

I have played the good Republican voter for years and it has not improved the party for the conservative thinker. In fact, the party has constantly slipped into a more liberal mind-think.

But the judges...what about the judges? What about the judges? When McCain had the opportunity to stop the Senate from using rules to hinder a Constitutional selection and vote for judicial nominations he failed. Why do I think he won't appoint populist nominees in the future?

It took Jimmy Carter's miserable administration to usher in Ronald Reagan. Maybe it will take an Obama to bring Conservatism back to our country and party.

What about our soldiers? What about our war on terror? Why continue to allow our country to half-ass the war and our soldiers? If the Towers were not enough to keep America's attention on the true objective, then maybe we need to be hit again. Maybe we need to see Europe fall toe tide of Islam.

Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold, Global Warming, Gitmo, Bush tax cuts, Pro-Illegal Immigration, La Raza talks, etc. etc. etc.

Do I have the courage to step forward and take the hit? Can I face the harm that will come to America with a Democratic controlled Federal government. I don't know. I do know that there is no 'must' vote for me.
We all have to live with our decisions but my daughter begged me not to leave her children with the Obama legacy.

I will vote for McCain. "Punishing the GOP" is fantasy. We will be punishing generations to come if we allow the Dems to win the Presidency.
What is particularly illustrative is that all it took for McCain to revert back to his "comprehensive immigration" reform position was a few business leaders complaining about H1B Visas -- the absolute least odious component of our current immigration crisis. If we need more highly skilled temporary immigrants then let's deal with that on its own merits. Why do we then have to also bring along an amnesty for 20 million plus mostly uneducated, unskilled, lawbreaking, English-challenged illegals as well as continuing with our current legal immigration system that is comprised largely from the same pool as the illegals?

The various initiatives from state and local governments that McCain criticizes have worked a hell of a lot better than anything the Feds have put in place. These dog and pony show raids on meat processing plants have resulted in only a few arrests and a few deportations. I guess they're better than nothing but we need a much larger effort that attacks more industries large and small so that no employer of illegals feels safe. And in the end we have to have arrests and deportations. Until then, these local initiatives are far better than anything McCain has ever offered.
Posted by jasamc
May 23, 2008 8:44 AM

So, do you think Obama will do better than McCain in regards to Iraq?
Or about the same?
Iraq is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. McCain may not win because of it despite his moderate to liberal views on just about everything else.
Why?
First, the war is terribly unpopular.
Second, the country is moderate. It isn't conservative. This reality 'seems' to be a point that many here refuse to grasp and think erroneously if they start a new party that somehow that is the answer. The problem is you still have to fill the ranks with true conservatives and there just aren't the numbers for that.
You can talk all you want about a third party but if you don't have the base to support it it will never happen.
So, your only reasonable, rational course, is to work within the present party and protest vigorously via mailins, phone calls etc when McCain steps on conservative values which he will.

The war is not a done deal and it won't be if Obama is President!!!!!!!!!!
I very much dislike McCain as well.

I feel like we've got the three stooges running for POTUS. It's ridiculous how unqualified these three people are. They all manage to make Bush - Bush! - seem like a highly experienced, wise, and discerning individual.

Frankly, which ever one wins, its a disaster for the country.

Obama seems the most likely at this juncture. Basically, he's Jimmy Carter all over again, only this time with a liberal elite schtick rather than a simple Southerner schtick. But both do nothing but repeatedly demonstrate thier poor judgment. He has absolutely no real world experience at all. No work experience. No executive experience. He has no qualifications at all. He has absolutely no feel for American values, American geography, or even the American people.

McCain is neither by temperment nor judgement suited to the office of the President. He's an inconsistant shallow thinker. He's prone to making rash judgments. He's prone to thinking with his feelings. He's prone to shooting his mouth off without thinking about it. He's a repeat sponcer of bad legislation, and he never seems to learn anything from the experience. His termperment is to think that the solution to everything is more laws. I don't think he's lying to John or anyone else. I just don't think he puts much thought into what comes out of his lips.

Hillary is self-centered, ambitious, arrogant, vicious, and ill-tempered. Her qualifications for the Presidency consider solely of having slept once with Bill Clinton, something which is ultimately not that unique of a distinction. She has no morals, no ethics, no virtue, and no beliefs save those which further her own interests. She believes the country exists to further her interests and serve her. She's loosely aligned with European style socialism, but only in as much as those beliefs can be used to serve her. She'll abandon them or anything else to further her own ambitions.

I can't get excited about any of these three. I certainly don't see how four years of any one of them - revolting as the thought may be - is going to be so much worse for the country that I will regret where my vote went.

I've held my nose for the last two elections to vote for Bush because the guy running against him was so obviously worse. I'm getting tired of holding my nose.
"I respectfully disagree with bcb 1 in the bell shaped curve of this country with moderates the highest point. I think the whole bell has shifted far to the left which has bad consequences for the USA."

Rohan, I absolutely agree with you. I frequently hear conservatives spout that this is a center right country, yada yada yada. The fast changing demographics of this country is one reason that the above statement no longer applies (if it ever really did).

Another reason is that as the size of Government has exponentially grown over the last decades virtually everyone has some stake in big Government -- whether it is a job, or some sort of tax break, or some kind of entitlement, or some form of welfare. To vote against any of these "freebies" for far too many means taking money out of your own pocket. Who is going to vote to take money or a job away from themselves?

As for Iraq, after finally finding the right generals, it seems Bush will largely have the war won by November. Even if Obama moves to get the troops out the first day he's in office (as I have no doubt that he will), the US will still be there until early 2010 according to any reasonable schedule (he can publicly overrule the advice of his generals, but that would be political suicide and he knows it).

Iraq by then may be to a point where even Obama can't screw it up that bad.

And frankly, I'm not convinced that McCain wouldn't try to have us largely out of Iraq by 2010 as well.

And frankly, considering how well things are going right now on the war front, I'm not even convinced it would be a bad idea. This isn't 2006 anymore. We 'stayed the fight' and those that argued for staying were proved in the right. Now in 2008, it looks to me like the war is largely won and its time to transition to a new phase. I'm certainly not in favor of rushing out according to time tables, but I think there is definately emmerging signs of political and military viability on the part of the Iraqi government, Al Queda is defeated, and even the Iranians are now somewhat in retreat or at least laying low. So after Bush's courage and fortitude, I think we (and Iraq) can survive a little cowardice and political expediency if it comes to that.
I think it is a mistake to either vote for a third party candidate who cannot win or to not vote for president at all.

I think you should at least wait until you see who McCain's VP choice is. Because of McCain's age, there is a good chance the VP will become president. If the VP is a conservative, that would be the best chance to get a conservative into the White House in the foreseeable future.

By declaring you won't support McCain before he even picks a running mate, you are decreasing the possibility that he will pick a conservative to mollify you and others and to get your support.

Please rethink this angle of it all. I can't stand the idea of an Obama or Clinton presidency.

So, do you think Obama will do better than McCain in regards to Iraq?
Or about the same?

Posted by libliever
May 23, 2008 9:00 AM


See, that's the problem - I don't honestly know.

Here's an example of my problem - Three years from now, the president decides to pull out of Iraq and have them handle it on its own. Can I see McCain doing that? Yes. Can I see Obama doing that? Yes.

So, if I am unconvinced about that issue, if my most important issue (I was one of the few who voted that way on the poll, it appears) is a toss up, then I have to go to the next level down - illegal aliens.

Three years from now, the president decides to grant amnesty to 20 million illegals. Can I see McCain doing that? Yes. Can I see Obama doing that? Yes.

Next level issue - judges. As much as I would like to believe that conservatives appoint conservative judges, I am reminded that Reagan appointed O'Connor, and Ford appointed Stevens.

This is how I vote, and, clearly, I don't see much daylight between the two. So, when people five years from now look back at some of the horrible decisions rendered in the Oval Office, I would rather the term "conservative" not be linked, however tenuously.
At least McCain is still talking about immigration reform and border security. House GOP members don't even feel it's important enough to rate a mention in their new long-winded adgenda outline.

Whatever else McCain wants in his comprehensive reform, it can't be denied that he's always been for border security. Obama's hopelessly short record is mixed, and Hillary is already handing out driver's licenses to illegals.

Thomas Sowell's famous quote applies well to this election: "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."
I respect Hawkin's decision and echo his position. McCain holds conservatives in contempt, and when he lies he speaks his native tongue.

What conservatives need to do is use their influence to split the convention and draft someone else as the GOP nominee. All it takes is enough delegates to deprive McCain of the nomination. If he falls short, it creates an opportunity for us to slip someone in there like Gingrich (who I don't always agree with, but is obviously bright enough and conservative enough to defeat a lightweight like Obama).
Nixon's two cents for what is worth:

John, you have stated before your lack of belief in third parties, and I have also heard you discuss our obligation to vote as citizens in discussions on voter turnout. So unless you are changing your thoughts on third parties or changing your tune on our obligation to vote, are you voting for Obama or Clinton?
Since Huckabee went by the way side Iv'e been a die hard McCain supporter for the following reasons (they all boil down to the basic fact that McCain is "The Maverick" who does not pander).

1: He slapped down negative personal destruction campaign tactics by those within his own party.(i.e the SVBT attacks on his good friend Senator Kerry, the North Carolina GOP attacks on Obama, and the Tennesse GOP attacks on Obama's wife).

2: He bodly and correctly declared BushII's original Iraq war strategy to be a failure and fearlessly announced that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in history.

3: He refused to go along with the BushII tax cuts which lead to the biggest FY federal budget deficits in history absent accompaning spending cuts which McCain demanded in order to garner his support of those tax cuts.

4: He has refused to be lead around with a ring in his nose by egotistical GOP king maker wannabes such as Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson.

5: He moved quickly repudiate and shun Christain mega church right wing preachers John Hagee and Rod Parsley when he learned of their off the wall proclamations that the "Catholic Church is 'The Great Whore", that "God sent Hitler to drive the Jews back to the promised land", and that "God's DIVINE purpose for America is to irradicate all Muslims."



People will die if Obama is elected. When the jihadists brought the World Trade Center down you can follow their footsteps back to Jimmy Carter and his abandonment of the Shah of Iran.

People voted for Jimmy Carter because Gerald Ford was an awful Republican. Do you think Reagan would NOT have been elected after a Ford Presidency? I think Reagan would have been elected no matter what.

Those who vote for today's Jimmy Carter because today's Gerald Ford is an awful conservative should be ashamed of themselves.

Because you can't claim ignorance. You know what you're voting for, John Hawkins, and you'll be wading in blood because of your choice. Your arguments are trivial in the face of jihad. Everyone here who is going to vote for Obama should be ashamed of themselves -- and don't try any crap with me that you're abstaining, or voting third party. If you're not voting for McCain, you're voting for Obama.

And you are voting for death and bloodshed and murder. And I despise you for it.
"boil down to the basic fact that McCain is "The Maverick" who does not pander"

LOLOLOL! That's the funnie.....Oh wait. You're serious, aren't you?

Whatta maroon. He panders (and lies) all the time. He just panders to Democrats, the media, and businessmen who love to exploit cheap, Third World labor. Get a clue.
"you'll be wading in blood because of your choice"

You either need to lose the hyperbole or to have a reality check.
I will vote for McCain. "Punishing the GOP" is fantasy. We will be punishing generations to come if we allow the Dems to win the Presidency.

Posted by LibraryLady
May 23, 2008 8:55 AM


Yep. A President Barry would be an un-mitigated disaster for this country. His potential SCOTUS appointies alone would cause irreparable harm to this country - think of decsions such as the California gay marrige ruling on issues of even greater importance. Shudder.

Second, the country is moderate. It isn't conservative. This reality 'seems' to be a point that many here refuse to grasp and think erroneously if they start a new party that somehow that is the answer. The problem is you still have to fill the ranks with true conservatives and there just aren't the numbers for that.
You can talk all you want about a third party but if you don't have the base to support it it will never happen.
So, your only reasonable, rational course, is to work within the present party and protest vigorously via mailins, phone calls etc when McCain steps on conservative values which he will.

Posted by libliever
May 23, 2008 9:00 AM


I'm actually agreeing with this guy. We might be conseratives but the country (as a whole) is more moderate.


I think you should at least wait until you see who McCain's VP choice is. Because of McCain's age, there is a good chance the VP will become president. If the VP is a conservative, that would be the best chance to get a conservative into the White House in the foreseeable future.

By declaring you won't support McCain before he even picks a running mate, you are decreasing the possibility that he will pick a conservative to mollify you and others and to get your support.

Please rethink this angle of it all. I can't stand the idea of an Obama or Clinton presidency.

Posted by BethDonovan
May 23, 2008 9:19 AM


Yep. lets see who he picks. (S)he would have a very good chance of becoming POTUS at some time in the future.

Its OK for all of you to be principled fools-but why do it at my expense? Barack Obama will destroy us, he's a pussy, a socialist and weakling-it will take another Ronald Reagan to undo just 4 years of this piece of work. Understand this: I could lose my job, my home could be worthless, I'll have to sell my Mini Cooper and lots of other really unpleasant things if Barack Obama is elected-all because you clowns are taking it personally. If any of you lived through Jimmy Carter, please reflect on that time in our history-Obama is Jimmy Carter, he's just better looking.

Please, I'm begging you, in this case, vote for McCain if nothing else, do it to save America. Surely that is a principle you can live with!
"Lose the hyperbole"?

Try remembering 9-11 for a second or two. No written words like "wading in blood" can come close to what happened that day. And you people want to repeat it.

I'll repeat my words: You want a repeat of 9-11. You know you're going to get it with an Obama presidency and your desire for a "pure" conservative is more important to you than the blood of innocents.

Go read Hot Air and see what Ed Morrisey has to say about Hawkin's tantrum. I like hanging out at RWN but if Hawkins is going to go overboard into paranoia and confusion, this site is going to become worthless to thinking conservatives.
OK, here is my pessimistic side coming out. I think the demographics of the USA have shifted to such a great extent that the country will longer elect a conservative. (My choice was Fred Thompson, by the way.) As mentioned above by others, too many are now dependent on the federal government for their income/survival. They will always vote for more government control. I believe that now over half the population no longer pays federal income taxes. Put these two facts together and do the math.

McCain/Obama/Clinton don't mean squat against the demographics. With amnesty the situation will get geometrically worse.

I am actually sorry to say this but welcome to the club John. It just keeps getting worse doesn't it?
I am actually sorry to say this but welcome to the club John. It just keeps getting worse doesn't it?
I am actually sorry to say this but welcome to the club John. It just keeps getting worse doesn't it?
For me, if the day before the election it looks like a landslide for McCain (which if Obama and Hillary keep it up it will be) I'll vote third party. However, if it looks like the Socialist democrat party has any chance of winning I'll have to vote for McCain because I don't want to punish myself or any other American for the next 4 years. Of course McCain "reaches across the isle" and makes HRC his running mate I'll have to sit out.
Tigertail, we should all support McCain so you don't have to sell you Mini Cooper?

"Barack Obama will destroy us, he's a pussy, a socialist and weakling-it will take another Ronald Reagan to undo just 4 years of this piece of work."

That's what some of us are counting on and yes I lived through Carter. Then, we got Reagan. We have Bobby Jindal (the next Reagan in my opinion) staged to be the conservative candidate in '12.

"Please, I'm begging you, in this case, vote for McCain if nothing else, do it to save America."

Some of us don't think that McCain can save America. To the contrary, I think that Hillary would do less damage than him. The real power in Washington is in Congress. There's nothing a President can do to lower taxes or affect the economy. BTW, if you want help from someone, don't start out by calling them a fool.
"but why do it at my expense?"

Gosh, to be honest, you never even entered my thinking on the matter. I was focused more on the fact that I was being asked to vote for a liar who would do irreparable damage to the country (I remember a time when conservatives opposed that sort of thing). But, now that I know that staying home will adversely affect you, I'll make sure I vote for McCain at least TWICE, 'kay?
tigertail777,

Forget Carter. He was was long ago. We need McCain today to get us out of the present mess wrought on America by the incompetence of the BushII Administration and its supporters. That's why I'm for McCain. He does not pander and is not afraid to call BS on the failings of the BushII Administration (huge budget deficits), the pettiness of campaigns of personal destruction (SVBT attacks on Kerry), and the idiocy of the extreme elements of the Christian Right (John Hagee's pronouncemnt that God sent Hitler to force the Jews back to the Promised Land).
Hogg,

McCain only repudiated Hagee after the media connected the two. Your principled idol had no intentions of repudiating Hagee until he got caught.

I guess you are also for amnesty for illegal aliens, just like McCain.
"Go read Hot Air and see what Ed Morrisey has to say about Hawkin's tantrum."

Oh, you mean Ed "I base my support for [Harriet] Miers on a wish to avoid a destructive party schism" Morrisey? Yeah, he's exactly the sort of spinless, "let's not fight" advisor the GOP should listen to. Then we can live in a world where we get people like Miers appointed to the Supreme Court instead of people like Alito.
Since Huckabee went by the way side Iv'e been a die hard McCain supporter

Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 9:42 AM


That, right there, lost the election for McCain. If a liberal like hog likes him, he's no good for us.
I have one issue, the war on terrorism. Imperfect as McCain is he's the only one I trust on that issue of the remaining candidates.

I long for the day where I can proudly vote for a candidate but I suspect that day will not come again. Lesser of two weevils it is.
Mr. Hawkins I couldn't agree more. McCain is simply way to far to the left for me to ever vote for. Which is painful because I do really want to vote against Barack Hussine Obama or Hilary Clinton but McCain has simply been a screw up and has been damaging to the country too much
That should have been "spineless", not "spinless." Morrisey has plenty of spin when it comes to supporting non-conservative things for the sake of the Republican Party.
See, that's the problem - I don't honestly know.

Here's an example of my problem - Three years from now, the president decides to pull out of Iraq and have them handle it on its own. Can I see McCain doing that? Yes. Can I see Obama doing that? Yes. Posted by jasamc


That's a big gamble don't you think?
If you don't honestly know then you have no choice but to vote for McCain.

But, you did disarm me alittle with your honesty.
If there wasn't a war this old lib would vote for the democratic nominee.
I'm breaking ranks, reluctantly if you must know but since you're being honest I guess I will be too, and voting for McCain.
Reason numero uno is the WAR!
Pure and simple.

And yes, McCain is a liberal on so many other issues that it is a win/win situation for a moderate hawk dem like myself.

I hope you decide ultimately to vote for McCain!
your desire for a "pure" conservative is more important to you than the blood of innocents...

...if Hawkins is going to go overboard into paranoia...

Posted by Bonnie__
May 23, 2008 10:13 AM


Um....
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - http://thunderrun.blogspot.com...ce-for-05232008.html"> Web Reconnaissance for 05/23/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Again, the focus of conservatives should be on how to sway enough delegates to withdraw support from McCain and lead to a brokered convention. This would benefit conservatives, the Republican Party (who have a nominee chosen largely by non-Republicans in early open primaries), and the country.
Posted by libliever
May 23, 2008 10:30 AM


Yes, it's quite a gamble, but it's one I am fairly confident on. McCain is too much a politician - he will do what's good for McCain first.

You bring up a lot of good points, and I have always thought you were an honest debater - thanks for that.

And it's funny, isn't it, that a old school liberal is trying to talk a conservative into voting for a Republican? What a weird world it's become.

To be brutally honest, if Liebermann were in the race right now, I would be on his election staff. At least he's honest about his leanings (beating McCain), and I could trust him on the WoT issue (beating Obama).
John, I certainly agree with your opinion on McCain concerning immigration. He is an absolute snake on that issue. Hey, I'm in Texas. I'm on the front lines of the war here. You're unlikely to find anyone angrier about McCain's immigration stances.

But there are three things we CAN focus on that might make swallowing that bitter pill a bit easier. We need to keep our eye on the long term consequences of our actions.

Supreme court judges. The next president will likely replace 2, possibly more. We will be living with that legacy for 20 years or more. Do you really want Shrillary or Obamaosamayomomma doing the choosing? If you vote for either of them, or even for a third party candidate, you will essentially be voting for one of them anyway.

Fiscal conservatism/earmarks. On this point McCain is head and shoulders above the rest. He has never accepted an earmark. While he will have limited control over what gets stuffed into the spending bills, he can at least agitate against it.

Finally there is foreign policy. On this score, with the exception of Mexico, he has two big brass ones swinging. He is a Son of a B!tch, we all know that. That means he is not going to take crap off anyone and he has no compunction at all about defending this country from foreign interests (except again when it comes to Mexico for some reason.) When POTUS loses his or her temper, people die, and McCain has one heluva temper. This is not always a bad thing. The rest of the world has taken the US for a bunch of pussies, and they'd be right up to now. They don't respect us at all. We must regain that respect. The lack of respect has led to Iran and Syria and North Korea, among others, to assume that the USA is all talk and no action. They all need a 40 kt wake up call delivered with a sub launched TLAM-N.

Granted, McCain is decidedly a mixed bag candidate, but you really have to ask yourself, could you live with yourself if you voted for someone else?
Tigertail, Bonnie, and others,

Y'all don't understand. Voting for mcstupid is not going to prevent the disaster that is comming. mcshithead is as bad for this country as b_hussein, or the female could ever hope to be. The cowardly remaining republicans in the senate will back whatever leftist policy that mcstain spews for , just to show party loyaty, and the because it is the dims policies, they will glady accept them. With the blick candidate or the broom rider, at least there is the possibility that the remaining repubs may grow a pair and at least attempt to stop some of the things in the senate.
The other solution is to elect members of the house that will be on the right side America, by actually going to the polls. fergit about the presidency, the leftists have it, but we still have a shot at saving the country through the congress.
Reason numero uno is the WAR!
Pure and simple.


I can understand that, libliver, at one time I thought the exact same thing.
However, as time progresses and Sen. McCain & friends kept attempting to push the amnesty issue in Congress, I came to realize that this was actually more important. I mean, what's the point of winning peace in the Middle East if our country dissolves right out from under us? Securing the border, preserving the rule of law and our nation's sovereignty has GOT to be our #1 priority. McCain simply cannot be trusted to do that.
Posted by jasamc
May 23, 2008 10:39 AM

I'm curious and wonder would it matter who McCain picks as a VP?
If his pick was very conservative would voting for him be more palatable.

Anyways have to fly the wife has x chores and apparently they can't wait.

Later everybody...
The Republican party has no chance of regaining a majority in either the House or Senate this year.


No, the best hope is to retain enough Republicans to filibuster/blue slip the Left-wing legislation that will come down from a Democrat in the White House (meaning McCain or one of the others).

Face it, John. It's not a vote for McCain as much as it's a vote against Obama / Clinton. That's something I think most all of us can live with.


Well, the last time I checked there was no "against" lever in the voting booth. Any vote for McCain will be seen as a vote for McCain.
As a liberal Democrat, I really have no business making any comments on the arguments and debates being put forth in this thread. I will only say that I see the value in arguments to vote for and against McCain. I respect a stand against McCain on principle. But I also find persuasive the arguments by conservatives that the lesser of two evils is always a better choice. In my case, I tend not to have a single issue litmus test for Democrats. On a more general note, I have been wondering what this all means for conservatism in the US. Is McCain's relative national popularity some indication of the waning of social conservatism in the U.S.?
I will not vote for any liberal country club Repub, RINO, or more liberal McCain. The Repubs give the Euro choice (Mark Steyn); vote Dem for left-of-left-of-center or vote Repub for right-of-left-of-center. I'll vote center if it's the lesser of 2 evils. What's the next Repub candidate gonna be if McCain can win - a plain left-of-center?
We conservatives are not going into the wilderness, we have been in it for a few years. A new party if the Repubs don't remember that running and working on conservative policies wins them congressional seats. Dem-lite makes them lose seats. They have chosen Dem-lite.
Now, who is the best bet as president? Not McCain. Hillary might have been okay because she would spend years distracted by the efforts to bite the heads off of all who betrayed her with Obama, but she is out unless she has some real evil convention tricks up her sleeve. Yes, the situation is desperate with Obama as president. If he really is a greenhorn selected out the the Chicago mud, maybe he will be so inept and his advisors so crazed that they too fight their own congress.
Pretty slim chances. All choices suck for the country, but McCain is truly the worst because he gives no future hope of the Repubs repenting. A new party would take 4 to 10 years to really organize, I think.
Either way, welcome back John.
Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT LIKE JOHN MCAMNESTY! But take a moment and think of somebody else, think abou those folks serving in Iraq/Afghanistan amd think about the next generation. HOW ARE YOUR GOING TO JUSTIFY YOUR VOTE FOR OBAMA (and don't kid yourself any vote not for the RINO) IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA!

I just got back from Afghanistan last night and am leaving for Iraq on Thursday, I will hold my nose and vote for the RINO over OBAMA because the damage that naive idiot can do to our Nation in 4 years is beyond comphrension.
Mr Nixon,

Yeah McCain could have been quicker in denouncing Hagee. But this is the first time that I am aware that a GOP Presidential Candidate has been willing to publicly repudiate or shun leaders within the GOP and conservative groups whom he feels have failed America or gone over the top (i.e SVBT, North Carolina GOP, Tennessee GOP, Rev Hagee, Rev.Parsley, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Donald Rumsfeld, BushII etc.). That, in my opinion, shows real guts and real independence on McCain's part. If elected President, he's not going to be anybody's "boy." He's going to do what he thinks is right for the majority of Americans. That will be refreshing.
John,
You can support comprehensive immigration AND enforce the borders first as part of a comprehensive immigration package. I think you're way off base, calling him liar, and that you're monumentally overreacting. One other thing. If you're in a battleground state, a non-vote for McCain is a vote for Obama, and the half-term Senator's positions on immigration are orders of magnitude worse.
A.J. Sparxx (at Polipundit's site) sums things up nicely:

"Clearly, having lied on this issue to win the primary, what else is John McCain lying about? John McCain also promised to not change the Pro-Life and Traditional Marriage planks in the National Republican Party agenda. Do you think he can still be trusted to not make changes at the Convention?

John McCain has promised Social Conservatives to nominate conservative judges. Do you think he can still be trusted to nominate judges like Alito, Scalia and Thomas[...]?

Answer: No, he can’t be trusted."
Sorry folks,
A democracy is at stake in Iraq, which is the top battlefield of radical Islam. Yes, illegal immigrants cause problems, but they are not Al-Qaeda suicide bombers. John McCain visited our troops and Iraqi allies in support of Petraeus and the surge, while many conservatives were either criticizing Bush over Iran, spending, or illegal immigation and even some conservatives like Chris Ruddy of News Maxx opposed the surge. Rush Limbaugh and others constantly say that the Left will not leave Iraq; I hope they are right, but they left Vietnam and I think they will do it again. What we got was a bloodbath in Cambodia and an expansion of Soviet oppression and war across the world until Reagan stopped it. John McCain is already getting hell for his support of Bush and the Iraq War and I am not going to weaken him anymore. I am voting McCain.
Is McCain's relative national popularity some indication of the waning of social conservatism in the U.S.?

Posted by huckupchuck

I don't see McCain as having much national appeal, since all the polls show the Democratic candidate dusting him straight up.
We will be punishing generations to come if we allow the Dems to win the Presidency.


How is McCain better? Because he pretends to be Conservative when on the campaign trail? Because he has that "magic R" after his name? As http://guardian.blogdrive.com/...d-07_y-2008_o-0.html">I've said may times, McCain will give us "amnesty and citizenship for criminal trespassers, global warming alarmism, punitive tax hikes labeled 'no tax cuts for the rich,' anti-business legislation aimed strictly at American corporations and judges who will have to be vetted by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi." How is that better than anything a Democrat would do? At least under a Democrat, we have a small chance of convincing Republicans that they'll lose their seats if they go along with the Dems.
Can we trust mcCain? Maybe not, but I'd rather roll the dice with a set of dice that MAY be loaded in my favor than roll the dice with a set that I KNOW are loaded against me.
But take a moment and think of somebody else, think abou those folks serving in Iraq/Afghanistan amd think about the next generation.


The next generation of Americans who will have to learn Spanish to live in their home country, you mean? The vets who will have to get a translator to speak to their doctor at the VA hospital?
that a GOP Presidential Candidate has been willing to publicly repudiate or shun leaders within the GOP and conservative groups whom he feels have failed America or gone over the top (i.e SVBT, North Carolina GOP, Tennessee GOP, Rev Hagee, Rev.Parsley, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Donald Rumsfeld, BushII etc.).



Unfortunately for you, all but Bush are not leaders of the Republican Party. And how the fuck did the SBVT fail America? By telling the truth about John Kerry? WHy won't Cindy McCain release her financial records? What do the McCains have to hide there, and why are so many lobbyists involved with his campaign? Face it, McCain is a crook, a liar, and a distinguised Amercian Veteran. Nothing more.
Look everybody, McCain's duplicity on immigration tells us everything we need to know about the man. BTW, on that issue he is even worse than Bush, because at least Bush was 3 years into his first term before he started to push hard for it (and yes, I know 9/11 had something to do with that). McCain will start trying to force this on us immediately, I presume it will be agenda item #1 in his inaugural address.

But for anyone who is still not convinced, who says "what about judges?" do any of you think he won't betray us there too? How about on his pledge to keep taxes low? Nixon was probably our most untrustworthy president, and I think McCain is in that league.

McCain will stab conservatives in the back over and over, all while smiling and invoking Ronald Reagan's name...or better I should while profaning Reagan.

I know some of you may not want to here this, but we might be better off with either Obama or Clinton in the Oval Office. A frontal assault from a known enemy can be resisted - we can live to fight another day. Putting a traitor in charge is suicidal.
Here is another reason to think about this a bit more.
http://cornyn.senate.gov/publi...ad-436a-bca5df08f153
A democracy is at stake in Iraq, which is the top battlefield of radical Islam.


I'm not willing to sacrifice America to save Iraq, if that's the choice you want me to make. I will not give McCain the power to grant amnesty to milions of criminal trespassers and bring in a wave of tens of millions more as new citizens.
Huckupchuck, you sound way to intelligent to be a liberal. What's up with that?
He's going to do what he thinks is right for the majority of Americans. That will be refreshing.

Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 10:51 AM |

Please explain how adding 20 million illegal aliens to the citizen rolls is beneficial to anyone in this country.
I just got back from Afghanistan last night and am leaving for Iraq on Thursday, I will hold my nose and vote for the RINO over OBAMA because the damage that naive idiot can do to our Nation in 4 years is beyond comphrension.


If you want to talk about damage to the country, better learn Spanish before you get back. Of course, with tens of millions of disease-ridden, ignorant, unskilled workers flooding over the borders with their hands out over the next decade or so after McCain's amnesty, I don't know what you'll have here to come back to.
Why would many influential conservative leaders be unsupportive of McCain? Follow the money. They know that even though McCain will not be their puppet on a string, it will be hard to rally the troops (raise funds)to oppose McCain's policies since he is GOP. That puts a crimp on their old pocketbooks. However, if Obama or Clinton becomes President, its PAYDAY! The conservative leaders will send forth the doom and gloom battle cry and the dollars will roll in from their paranoid followers.
Supreme court judges.


After his "Gang of 14" maneuver, how can anyone think McCain would nominate a judge of whom his "good friends across the aisle" would not approve? Not to mention that he'd never nominate one who would overturn McCain-Feingold, and he said Alito was "too openly Conservative" for him.

Fiscal conservatism/earmarks.


McCain's amnesty will see a flood of between 50 and 70 million new immigrants over the next couple of decades -- disease-ridden, ignorant, and unskilled -- all looking for their goveernment goodies. How is inviting millions of future welfare recipients (and loyal Democrats, of course) fiscally conservative?

Finally there is foreign policy.


McCain wants to close Gitmo and bring captured enemies here, where they will be granted Constitutional protections and rights. He wants to restrict our interrogators to those methods which cause little or no discomfort, and even publish exactly what they can and cannot do so the enemy can train to resist interogation. How is that good foreign/war policy?
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 11:14 AM |
Is it always a conspiracy with liberals?
Why would many influential conservative leaders be unsupportive of McCain?


Because he's not Conservative. Duh. Honestly, hog, do you post here just to get exercise for your fingers? It isn't for exercising your mind, that's for sure.
Why would many influential conservative leaders be unsupportive of McCain? Follow the money.



Probably because McCain is not a Conservative. And why is he hiding his wife's financial statements?
Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals - why we vote.

Some of you think it's ridiculous, but a person's honor, their integrity, their vote means more to them than continuing to vote against someone.

You may disagree with not voting for McCain. You may think that either the Obamamessiah or Hilldog would be worse. McCain "couldn't" be as bad as the other two. Some of us out here see it differently.

I am tired of having to vote against somone. Someone else on this thread already said this, but I too have been the good Republican and voted against our opponents. I finally felt good in 2000 in voting for Bush. In 2004 I voted against Kerry. And we all know what happened in 2006.

McCain is no Conservative. What I find troubling is that a good portion of conservatives out there pundits and otherwise, know this and are still happy to vote for the guy. And the biggest justification I hear and read is that he's better than the other choices.

If you believe that, fine.

But I think my principles, my intergrity, and yes, my Honor is more important to me. I am patient, understanding, forgiving, you name it. But I am sick and tired of being told that I'M the one who must do for the good of x, y, z.

I've been doing. It's time for those who want my vote to understand that my vote means more.

If I am willing to endure, if I am willing to suffer, it proves my vote is important. It proves my Honor is more important to me. If people (politicians, others, anyone) doesn't understand that, if you can't grasp the concept, if those in charge don't know or understand that, then you deserve what you get.

I will be angry with the results if a Dem gets in. But my conscience will be clear, my honor intact, and I will be able to endure the nightmares knowing that I didn't belittle myself for the sake of someone who doesn't understand the importance of that to begin with.

I am not a servant to the State. It is supposed to be the other way around after all.
First off - yes, there are conservatives in Chicago, though it can be quite lonely....

Thanks so much for this posting - it has re-affirmed my feelings about the conservative party (note - I feel today's GOP has failed to embrace my conservative beliefs, so I have a hard time embracing the GOP). I also do not plan on voting for McCain, though will vote for those people on the down-ballot that truly are conservatives with conservative (i.e., American) values.

People have said to me "how can you not vote for McCain? Do you really want to live in a country with Obama as president?". No, I don't. But I give them this sincere story, and it always changes their minds:

All while growing up, my father was a functioning alcoholic. He was able to hold a job, but his addiction wreaked havoc on my family life. Soon after I went to college (I am the youngest in my family), my parents split up, and my father's alcoholism got much worse. So much so that he lost his job.

My siblings were helping Dad out with money, paying his mortgage and home expenses while he looked for a job. Dad's drinking only got worse. And to compound matters, he refused to get help, saying he didn't have a problem, that it was just a "phase".

Serendipitously, while waiting for a business meeting, I started reading a story about alcoholism, specifically about parents. The article said the only way to beat this was through tough love. This was a lightbulb moment. Though it was heartbreaking to do, I met with my siblings, and we decided to holdoff on enabling Dad through payments of his house, etc. It was not until Dad's home (and the home I grew up in) was put into foreclosure, that Dad FINALLY admitted his addiction, joined AA, and has now "righted" himself (pun intended) back to a functional - and thriving - life. Mind you, this did not happen overnight - it took almost 5 years total.

Why do I tell this long story? Because I feel it directly correlates to our dysfunctional party. It is truly not until we offer up TOUGH LOVE, meaning discontinuing our enabling of the RINO's, that our party will rehabilitate itself. This is the only way. So just like my father, where it took the near-loss of his home to right himself (i.e., a Democratic president), will our party begin to repair itself, and thus take back our nation.

So I implore all of you, it is only through tough love that we take back our country through true conservative values. And to me, this means voting out all of our destructive RINO's (including McAmnesty), voting ONLY for our true conservatives.

Thanks for all in obliging me.

TOUGH LOVE to all,

Chicago Conservative
Greetings John:

I understand and sympathize with your frustration with Senator McCain's legislative record, and with his positions on a number of other issues; none-the-less, I simply cannot understand how any conservative could possibly view an Obama presidency as anything but an unmitigated national, and international disaster.

In a more perfect world, a great conservative like Ronald Reagan would always be there to save the American public, both from the socialistic depredations of the democrats, and, quite frankly, from the public's own historical ignorance and short-sightedness. Unfortunately, a leader like Reagan only comes along once in a lifetime. So, in the interim, we must make do with what we have.

The fact that John McCain gets so many things wrong, should not obscure the fact that he does get the most important thing right: winning the world war against militant Islamism in all of its various forms. This may well be the signal challenge of this generation; there will be no do-overs, and if we Americans get it wrong then all of Western Civilization will suffer probably for decades to come.

Our country's history during the last fifty-years is replete with examples of the price we pay --- in America's international prestige, in our credibility, and, ultimately, in our nation's real power to affect events outside of our borders --- when we allow naive and feckless leaders to govern our affairs. Is there any living conservative who really wants to see America's reputation stained by another tragedy like our betrayal of the South Vietnamese, or by our abandonment of another friend and ally like the Shah of Iran?

Actions have consequences. The failures of our leadership in Washington during the Viet Nam War, and again during the months when the Shah of Iran first came under political assault from a comparatively small group of supporters of a radical, virulently anti-American theocrat, still adversely affects the security of the world we live in today.

My youngest nephew will soon depart for Marine Scout Sniper School; I cannot stress how much more confident I and his parents will feel, if the next President of the United States is John McCain, and not Barack Obama. The democrats have already thrown away one hard-earned American military victory in Southeast Asia, let us not allow them to do it again in Iraq!

"Lighten up Francis"
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 11:14 AM


It used to be that you were an idiot. Now, you're a boring idiot.
You know what you're voting for, John Hawkins, and you'll be wading in blood because of your choice.


I just want to know how it's Hawkins' fault that the Republican party stands poised to nominate a democrat in disguise. I want to know why thse responsible for the GOP's repeated Leftward lurch are excused from wading in those bloody rivers and all.
"I'm not willing to sacrifice America to save Iraq, if that's the choice you want me to make. I will not give McCain the power to grant amnesty to milions of criminal trespassers and bring in a wave of tens of millions more as new citizens."

Lets see- illegal immigrants vs. Islamic radical murderers

Where is the comparison?

I simply cannot understand how any conservative could possibly view an Obama presidency as anything but an unmitigated national, and international disaster.


Oh, it would be. But not as bad as a McCain Presidency, which would destroy the country as thoroughly as Obama's, with the added "bonus" of destroying the Republican party in the process.
Lets see- illegal immigrants vs. Islamic radical murderers

Where is the comparison?


Well, for one thing, they can both walk across our undefended borders, which McCain's amnesty and mass immigration would do nothing to stop.
That is where you and me differ. Yes, illegal immigrants bring problems, but they are not suicide bombers.
Where is the comparison?


Let's see... tens of millions already hard at work undermining the rule of law in our nation, here at home, as opposed to a couple of million spread out all over the globe.
You're right, there's really no comparison.
That is where you and me differ. Yes, illegal immigrants bring problems, but they are not suicide bombers.


The point I was making is that there's no point in electing a man who (would stay in Iraq on one hand, if he throws our homeland to the illegals with the other. I'm not going to sacrifice America for Iraq's sake.
Lets see- illegal immigrants vs. Islamic radical murderers

Where is the comparison?

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 11:39 AM |


Illegal aliens are killing people in America every day.
Islamic suicide bombers are killers!
Yes, illegal immigrants bring problems, but they are not suicide bombers.


Pop quiz: How many Americans have been killed by suicide bombers in the US this year? Ok, now how many of our citizens were killed by drunk-driving illegals?
McCain has proven that he is the President we need to deliver America from the consequences of the incompetence of the BushII Administration.
Lets look at two major areas.

The Iraq War. It only turned around after the 2006 elections which forced both the resignation of Rumsfeld (whom McCain called the worst Secretary of Defense in history) and a change in strategy (more boots on the ground..the surge) for which McCain had long advocated over the strong objections of BushII since day one of the war. Long story short: McCain was right about the Iraq war from day one. American troops would have suffered far few casulties in Iraq if BushII had listened to McCain.

The federal budget deficit: Gone out of sight under BushII (the highest FY federal budget deficits in history). McCain opposed the BushII tax cuts unless they were accompanied by equal amounts of in spending cuts. Long story short again: The federal budget would be much closer to balance along with a reduction in taxes if BushII had listened to Mccain.
"Illegal aliens are killing people in America every day."

They do not blow up themselves along with 36 people in the process.
Pop quiz: How many Americans have been killed by suicide bombers in the US this year? Ok, now how many of our citizens were killed by drunk-driving illegals?

People are people, whether they are in the US or not. There is no moral comparison.
Islamic suicide bombers are killers!


Yes, we know that. And you don't care if we're overrun by illegals and their relatives and turned into a Socialist welfare state, as long as we stay in Iraq another couple of years? Because that's what McCain will do.
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 11:49 AM

You seem to think we have short memories, hogboy. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers how vigorously you attacked him while the Republican primaries were still undecided. You made insinuations and insulted the man in every one of your posts for several months. But now all of a sudden he's "The Man"? LMAO.
Please shut your yap and find some new mantras to repeat ad nauseum.
Enjoy our global surrender on the War on Terror then! I hope you enjoy the rein of President Barack Obama. Be prepared to switch to the "religion of peace".

Voting for Barr is idiotic.

Look at Obama:
He will literally open the borders and surrender to the Islamic extremists. He will increase spending and taxes.

McCain:
Secure the border and give some illegals amnesty (Not saying I agree). Defeat the terrorists. Stop spending. Keep taxes low.

Now please carefully reconsider your support.
Yes, we know that. And you don't care if we're overrun by illegals and their relatives and turned into a Socialist welfare state, as long as we stay in Iraq another couple of years? Because that's what McCain will do.

I differ with FDR and Harry Truman over many issues of domestic policy. That does not mean disregard international affairs and not vote for McCain.
"The federal budget deficit: Gone out of sight under BushII (the highest FY federal budget deficits in history). McCain opposed the BushII tax cuts unless they were accompanied by equal amounts of in spending cuts."


The tax cuts were documented to have been instrumental in taking us out of the recession Bush inherited from the previous administration and they led to a massive increase in tax revenues. To bring up "federal deficits" (which, by the way were below average as a percentage of GDP) and "tax cuts" in correlation shows profound ignorance.
The federal budget would be much closer to balance along with a reduction in taxes if BushII had listened to Mccain.

Posted by hogground

Then we would not have the funds to fight the war on terror and fight Al Quada in Iraq. Gosh you are a dumb one Hogg.
Look at Obama:
He will literally open the borders and surrender to the Islamic extremists. He will increase spending and taxes.


Look at McCain:
He will literally open the borders and surrender to the illegal immigrants. He will have to increase spending and taxes to pay for the social programs and handouts our new citizens will come seeking.
Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 11:53 AM


Hmmm, let me see. Illegal aliens broke the law yesterday, are breaking it today, and will do so again tomorrow. Therefore, there is not as great an impetus for them to obey other laws. Such as drinking and driving. Or to have their vehicles inspected. Therefore, they are a much greater risk to society.

Your "people are people" argument holds no water.
Secure the border and give some illegals amnesty (Not saying I agree). Defeat the terrorists. Stop spending. Keep taxes low.

Now please carefully reconsider your support.

Posted by gopftw
May 23, 2008 11:57 AM |

12-20 million is some?
12-20 million is some?


The important part is the 50-70 million relatives they would bring across the border legally over hte next decade or so, all looking for their free handouts. And the Democrats would be standing at the border passing out party registration forms along with hunks of government cheese.
Hmmm, let me see. Illegal aliens broke the law yesterday, are breaking it today, and will do so again tomorrow. Therefore, there is not as great an impetus for them to obey other laws. Such as drinking and driving. Or to have their vehicles inspected. Therefore, they are a much greater risk to society.

Your "people are people" argument holds no water.

I disagree, there is no comparison between illegal immigration and the mass killings that Islamic suicide bombers can do in Iraq. There is no moral comparison.
They do not blow up themselves along with 36 people in the process.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 11:51 AM


No but they collectively kill 12 Americans a day, 365 days a year.
I disagree, there is no comparison between illegal immigration and the mass killings that Islamic suicide bombers can do in Iraq. There is no moral comparison.


If you have a point, you'd better get to it soon. As far as I can tell, you're telling us to accept the destruction of America in return for staying in Iraq an extra year or so. And I'm not going to do that.
Did anyone ever seriously believe John McCain had a sincere change of heart on amnesty? Of course he's a liar. A skunk does not change his stripes. This guy needs to go down hard, we need to campaign against him, to teach the Republicans a lesson they won't forget. We got screwed by the media again with this turkey as the nominee, just like we got screwed with Dole, Bush II, Bush I, Ford, and Nixon. Now, with Ted Kennedy out of the picture, McCain won't know where to go for his core beliefs anymore. It's sad.
I disagree, there is no comparison between illegal immigration and the mass killings that Islamic suicide bombers can do in Iraq. There is no moral comparison.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:04 PM |

No moral comparison? American citizens are dying at the hands of non citizens. The difference is we can remove said non citizens from the USA, merely by enforcing existing law. hell of a difference if you ask me.
Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 11:39 AM |
It's not the comparison, but the combination of them: Islamic radical murdering illegal immigrants. Maybe with a dirty bomb or biological agents from Iran. That's how the open border fails with the War on Terror.
and Nixon



Other than my fascination with audio tape, and obstructing justice, I thought I had a rather decent run. My second term was to focus on education, health care, and the tax code, til other issues arose. And I got us out of Vietnam.
"No but they collectively kill 12 Americans a day, 365 days a year."

I guess this boils down to the lesser of two evils. Yes, illegal immigrants bring problems, but that is M&Ms compared to Iraq.



Late last night on conservative talk radio XM 166, the prediction and speculation beginning to surface is that McCain will nominate Joe Lieberman -- the Demo's 'maverick' as his VP.

We'll again have the reincarnation of the old western series -- "The Mavericks"
How prophetic has Rush been in using that theme music to characterize McCain.

The strategy seems to be that McCain will carve out a "middle" of Americans - while leaving the two supposed 'fringes' out of the game. His 'Gain of 14' during the SCOTUS hearings was his trial balloon (his incarnation): his test case to prove to those whom he would attract to a middle party that a middle-of-the-road party could have leverage far beyond what either side of a true two-party system could accomplish.

I wish some of our political theorists would analyze what is happening from this political/military approach. There clearly is a strategy in play to marginalize the supposed 'extremist' positions by build a middle-ground "can't we all just get along" party.

If McCain does win, expect him to elevate the Gang of 14 to a 'Gang of ???' His problem will be to hold them together. There problem will be to determine just what does 'middle America' want?

SO, WILL THE 'MAVERICK' STRATEGY WORK? MCCAIN HAS HAS BET THE GOP RANCH ON IT.

In either case (win or lose) the GOP as you've known it is no more.

Conservatism still lives on -- but no longer has a home in the GOP.

Our best bet now is to elect a bunch of 'conservatives' to whom McCain 'must cross the aisle' to get anything passed.
I disagree, there is no comparison between illegal immigration and the mass killings that Islamic suicide bombers can do in Iraq.


So, in essence, you are advocating exactly what CavX said earlier: You're willing to sacrifice America for Iraq. No thanks.

There is no moral comparison.


I agree with that. Islamofascists are evil, pure and simple. Look, I would love for all of them to die slow, painful deaths. That, however, does not change the fact that illegal immigrants are a more serious, immediate threat to America.
The point is that human rights on a massive scale if Hillary or Obama leave Iraq. Oh heaven help us with these potential Mexican suicide bombers. And conservatives wonder why they have problems with minority voters.
Yes, illegal immigrants bring problems, but that is M&Ms compared to Iraq.


If we don't stop illegal immigration without granting amnesty, there will be no USA as we now know it. We will become a third-world Socialist hellhole. Yeah, that's kind of a "problem." And I'm not letting McCain do that to us.
I think we have a real disconnect and state of denial amongst some conservatives on RWN. They are not willing to admit that BushII is the most incompetent POTUS since Carter. They do not wish to acknowledge that McCain is a true fiscal conservative who possesses the military understanding to lead us to both victory in Iraq/Afganistan and a balanced federal budget with low taxes.
Anytime someone calls Bush the most incompetent President since (insert time period/person here), you know you're dealing with a moonbat.
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 12:15 PM


Why don't you just STFU when the adults ar talking, you thread-jacking jerkoff?
"So, in essence, you are advocating exactly what CavX said earlier: You're willing to sacrifice America for Iraq. No thanks."

I can't believe you don't believe that the greatness, freedom, and prosperity of our own country can deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 12:15 PM |
Nope. Bush can run a war against our enemies. Not perfectly, but he is kicking their ass.
Well John, it's about time you took off your "there are only 2 parties" blinders.

Many of us here have been trying to convince of this "McCain is a dirty liar" thesis for a very long time.

I'm glad you finally saw the light.


I can't believe you don't believe that the greatness, freedom, and prosperity of our own country can deal with the problem of illegal immigration.


Now you sound like Obama. Or McCain. or Juan Hernandez.
"I can't believe you don't believe that the greatness, freedom, and prosperity of our own country can deal with the problem of illegal immigration."


Au contraire, I do believe that America can deal with the illegals. We can seal the border and deport them. The problem is that our elected officials, particularly McCain, are completely unwilling to do so.
Thats why I am supporting him! :)
"Oh, it would be. But not as bad as a McCain Presidency, which would destroy the country as thoroughly as Obama's, with the added "bonus" of destroying the Republican party in the process."

Have you seen anything out of the GOP in the last month that is worth saving, cav?

There's going to be even less come November. When veto-proof Congressional majorities are in play for the Dems, the backup plan of "elect the Democrat and filibuster everything" isn't a viable option anymore.

I see one plan that has a chance to rescussitate conservatism within a reasonable time frame.

1. Hold your nose and elect McCain. If President Obama surrenders to radical Islam the rest is moot. At least McCain won't do that.

2. Walk out of the GOP en masse January 21st 2009.

3. Form the Conservative Party and immediately begin finding candidates to run for state office and Congress in 2010.

The timing will never be more favorable since the Dems are likely to be in shambles after the Hillary/Obama dogfight as well. The Whigs died because of "moderation" on slavery and we got the Republican Party out of it. The GOP is failing because of moderation on spending and immigration. Kill it and form a new Conservative Party that will last another 150 years.
"Thats why I am supporting him!"

Who was this post in response to?

Hawkins, you want to make some change today? Ban Hogg permanently and name your price. He is obviously trolling. His arguments have been beaten down so many times he now resembles Tina Turner before she left Ike.
Thats why I am supporting him! :)


Which one? They all sound alike on the immigration issue.
"Au contraire, I do believe that America can deal with the illegals. We can seal the border and deport them. The problem is that our elected officials, particularly McCain, are completely unwilling to do so."

Yeah, lets just hand over Iraq to the wolves. Even conservative commentators speak against deportation.
Yeah, lets just hand over Iraq to the wolves.


To save America? Yeah. Sorry, but yeah. God damn the RINOs to hell for forcing this choice on us.
So, let me see if I'm reading your message correctly, dgdunca, you're saying f*ck America, focus on the Middle East. Does that sum up your point?

Jeesh' I'm never going to get to see Uma in a bikini with this thread going.
I understand all the liberal, Dem, RINO, Repub party members desire to get us to vote McCain. But your lies don't convince us. As McCain's lies didn't convince (most) of us before.
The man is self-interested only. He has wanted to jump to the Dems a couple of times. He is a lefty. We will not vote for any lefty. We will work towards strenthening this countries freedoms over loyalty to a party that doesn't care about us.
Are the choices bad? Yes. But no one for McCain can tell me how we get more conservative candidates in the future if we vote for this POS now. We conservatives have to find them ourselves, but voting for lefties isn't the solution.
Get over it you idiots.
"To save America? Yeah. Sorry, but yeah. God damn the RINOs to hell for forcing this choice on us."

Compared to most problems in the world, there are no problems in this country. I guess that is where we differ, the battle for Iraq is much more important than illegal immirgation.
Even conservative commentators speak against deportation.


First: who cares what talking heads say? Second: who said anything about deportation? Enforce the laws and they'll leave on their own. Crack down on employee verifications of social security numbers. Without jobs, they'll leave. Refuse government services to anyone who has no proof of citizenship. Without handouts, they'll leave. Empower cops to check the citizenship status of anyone arrested for a crime of any type. Without invisibility, they'll leave.
TomJW,
BushII did not kick any one's ass. Its our troops who do the ass kicking and are the ones who had to suffer too many casulties in the early years of the Iraq War because BushII did not listen to McCain's counsel to put more boots on the ground in the first place. As McCain's good friend GOP Senator Graham from SC has said, the problem with the Iraq War from the get go was that the BushII Administration tried to do it on the cheap. Only after the 2006 elections in which BushII was forced to adopt a strategy (the surge) more in line with McCain's original advice, did the situation in Iraq begin to turn around towards America's favor.
Can any conservative here honestly stomach four years of President Obama? And Michelle Obama for a first lady? *Hurl* *Gag*

McCain makes me ill, but compared to Obama? That's like choosing between brussel sprouts and dogshit. I'm no fan of brussel sprouts, but if these are my only two options, the choice becomes clear.
Compared to most problems in the world, there are no problems in this country.


Okay, now I am beginning to believe you're a Liberal troll.
Compared to most problems in the world, there are no problems in this country.



Millions of illegals destroying our health care industries, killing people, running drug and prostitution rings. Just what the hell is going on overseas that is worse than that?

Which sockpuppet are you, btw?
"So, let me see if I'm reading your message correctly, dgdunca, you're saying f*ck America, focus on the Middle East. Does that sum up your point?"

I believe 9/11 proves my point.

LOL. *shakes head* Alright, I've had enough of this discussion for the time being; I'm going to lunch. Conservatives, keep up the fight until I get back.
Even conservative commentators speak against deportation.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:24 PM


Link, please, because I am throwing the bullshit card on this one.
"BushII did not kick any one's ass. Its our troops who do the ass kicking"

And it's Bush who is leading and commanding them.

By the way, any evidence that Bush was vehemently against a surge?

Also, you keep referencing the 2006 election, are you aware that Democrats recently admitted to lying to the public in order to win those mid term elections?
Can any conservative here honestly stomach four years of President Obama? And Michelle Obama for a first lady? *Hurl* *Gag*


My position is not based on clever representations of bodily noises, but on a cold, hard, logical analysis of the facts.
Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 12:15 PM


Do you realize the stupidity you exhibit here? Do you think we pay any attention to a partisan liberal hack like you lecturing us on who is and is not a Conservative?

Hog, you need to STFU!
Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:10 PM

What???!!! Illegals are a much more serious threat to US CITIZENS than islamoturds killing themselves in Iraq. Drug dealers, gang members, slave traders, extorsion rings, dui, and a lot more crime than than any islamo facist is causing here. and WE can kill ifs over there, but what about here? can I legally kill that mexican that is stealing from me? no. They may never find its body, but it is not legal. mcamnesty is part of the problem and quite abit more dangerous than the other 2 turds.
"Link, please, because I am throwing the bullshit card on this one."

Micheal Medved

I believe 9/11 proves my point.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:32 PM |


Actually, it proves ours. Most of the hijackers/terrorists were here illegally.

hate the game, don't hate the Dick.
Link, please, because I am throwing the bullshit card on this one.


Betcha he tosses out a link to Michael Medved.
So Cav, you're ok with President Obama? And Michelle "Never been proud of my country before" as first "lady"?
I've been torn between voting for McCain in November or voting for a write-in ticket of Bill Bennett/Michael Steele.

The question remaining for all of us, though, is... do we want to make the perfect the enemy of the good?

In other words, because the choices from the get-go have been so poor (even Hunter & Thompson have been shown to be weak candidates) and there never was that "perfect" candidate to get everyone to rally around, do we then not vote for the better of the remaining candidates just for spite - thus handing over the position of leader of the free world to The Obamessiah?

As it gets closer to election day, this ultimate decision will come sharper and sharper into focus for us all.

On this date - May 23 - I'm undecided. But one thing I DO know for certain - I WILL VOTE come November. HOW I vote on that day is the question.
"What???!!! Illegals are a much more serious threat to US CITIZENS than islamoturds killing themselves in Iraq. Drug dealers, gang members, slave traders, extorsion rings, dui, and a lot more crime than than any islamo facist is causing here. and WE can kill ifs over there, but what about here? can I legally kill that mexican that is stealing from me? no. They may never find its body, but it is not legal. mcamnesty is part of the problem and quite abit more dangerous than the other 2 turds."

Link, please.

So Cav, you're ok with President Obama? And Michelle "Never been proud of my country before" as first "lady"?


Have you ever played chess? Sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece -- even an important piece -- to achieve your objective. You have to ask yourself: would you rather get an R in the White House, or have a chance to stop the Leftist agenda? That's out choice, thanks to the stinking Republican "leadership" selling us out.
I'm just saying that last time we conservatives tried to send a message to the Republican Party, we got 8 years of Clinton.
Even conservative commentators speak against deportation.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:24 PM |

Well bully for them!!! Do any of the conservatives that hang out on this board look like the talking head commentators? The illegal aliens need to be rounded up and deported. Or as CavX points out crack down on the employers and they'll self deport.
"Link, please, because I am throwing the bullshit card on this one."

Micheal Medved

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:35 PM


HA! Did I call that one, or what?
"Actually, it proves ours. Most of the hijackers/terrorists were here illegally.

hate the game, don't hate the Dick."

Not if it disregards Al-Qaeda's goal of forcing us out of Iraq.
I do play chess, and to me this would be like giving up your Queen. There better be some damn good payoff. Plus I think Obama getting elected would galvanize the left like they were in the early 90's.
BushII did not kick any one's ass.


Commander in chief, perhaps you've heard of the term.

Its our troops who do the ass kicking and are the ones who had to suffer too many casulties in the early years of the Iraq War


Compared to what war? You'll have to show me those stats, because you're flat out of your mind.

because BushII did not listen to McCain's counsel to put more boots on the ground in the first place.


Good thinking, let's put more targets in the environment, creating more casualties. Dumbass. Why do you hate the troops?

As McCain's good friend GOP Senator Graham from SC has said, the problem with the Iraq War from the get go was that the BushII Administration tried to do it on the cheap.


Wait. You're the one who is always complaining about how much it cost to run the war, and now you're saying we didn't spend enough. I was wrong, you're not just stupid, but your other personality is, too.

Only after the 2006 elections in which BushII was forced to adopt a strategy (the surge) more in line with McCain's original advice, did the situation in Iraq begin to turn around towards America's favor.

Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 12:31 PM


You're right, until 2006, we were losing the war, and defeat was on the horizon. Hold on, there, that's the Dems line...Hog is Harry Reid!
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 12:31 PM |
Because taking down 2 countries and evolving tactics nevr happened in war before, so Bush isn't kicking ass?
Oh yeah, Carter with his too few helicopters and pulling them out before they did anything was much more effective.
Your a retard.
Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:35 PM

Why do I get the feeling that this pos is mrb.
A mcainiac without a brain.

The difference between the muslim apostate and mccdispatick? nothin.
Link, please.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:38

Above you were asked for one and did not provide it.
I do play chess, and to me this would be like giving up your Queen. There better be some damn good payoff. Plus I think Obama getting elected would galvanize the left like they were in the early 90's.


I really do think that our only hope of slowing the Liberals down is to focus on Congress. Republicans will band together to fight a Democrat President's agenda just to keep their seats, while they would support a Republican President pushing the same agenda for the same reason. We're going to have an an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying President no matter what happens in November. If he has an R after his name, most of the Repubs won't fight him.
This is very dreadful. I too did not pick McCain as my choice for candidate but he is, for better or for worse, the nominee. As much as I disagree with McCain on some issues, I certainly abhor the idea of Obama (or Clinton) being President and in charge of our troops, responsible for placing the next two Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and further socializing our country. I do not believe there is any one issue I disagree with McCain with enough fervency to allow myself to cast my vote in such a way that could allow Obama-nation to become President. That includes voting my conscience for a more conservative 3rd party candidate. If I felt like that candidate had a shot, that may change my mind but anything less than a fully supported candidate, we might as well hand Obama the keys to the White House and that is something that turns my gut and wrenches my soul.

You may say that you cannot vote for McCain out of your good conscience, well what about allowing Obama take the reins of our nation, how does your good conscience like that idea? Think long and hard about that very real possibility.

Now is not the time for Conservatives to be divided and allow an ultra leftwing socialist radical into the office. We need to be united behind one candidate if we’re to keep the liberals from having complete and unfettered control of our government. Think about that….
Micheal Medved

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:35 PM


Odd, I clicked on those words and nothing happened. Do you have a link (it starts with http...) to a specific speech where he denounces deportation?
"Why do I get the feeling that this pos is mrb.
A mcainiac without a brain.

The difference between the muslim apostate and mccdispatick? nothin."

See, now you are not reponding to my argument, you are calling me names. And if there is a way to change my mind, it is crude insults!

Micheal Medved

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:35 PM |
I stopped listening to him a long time ago. Thanks for the reminder of why.
Why do I get the feeling that this pos is mrb.


I was thinking the exact same thing.
"Link, please, because I am throwing the bullshit card on this one."

Actually he's right. http://blog.vdare.com/archives...limp-on-deportation/">Rush has spoken to the impracticality of mass deportation. I heard that comment live as a matter of fact.

Mass roundups and deporations are not the answer. They would cause an increase in crime by forcing people underground, as well as costing huge sums of money and manpower. Employer enforcement actually solves the problem by removing the incentive for illegals to be here instead of just removing their presence, which is the symptom.
"I see one plan that has a chance to rescussitate conservatism within a reasonable time frame.

1. Hold your nose and elect McCain. If President Obama surrenders to radical Islam the rest is moot. At least McCain won't do that.

2. Walk out of the GOP en masse January 21st 2009.

3. Form the Conservative Party and immediately begin finding candidates to run for state office and Congress in 2010.

The timing will never be more favorable since the Dems are likely to be in shambles after the Hillary/Obama dogfight as well. The Whigs died because of "moderation" on slavery and we got the Republican Party out of it. The GOP is failing because of moderation on spending and immigration. Kill it and form a new Conservative Party that will last another 150 years."

Posted by Mike_M


AMEN! Let's just take over the existing Constitution Party - it's 95% conservative plank-wise as it is already. It just needs leading members with name recognition to make it enticing to voters and other candidates. I know it's "pie in the sky" but I would love to see the likes of Jindal, Steele, Palin, etc. just switch to the new party designation while they're already being successful in office.
You may say that you cannot vote for McCain out of your good conscience, well what about allowing Obama take the reins of our nation, how does your good conscience like that idea? Think long and hard about that very real possibility.


http://guardian.blogdrive.com/...d-07_y-2008_o-0.html">Did that.
"Odd, I clicked on those words and nothing happened. Do you have a link (it starts with http...) to a specific speech where he denounces deportation?"

It was a while ago, even the people on your side of the argument agree that Medved was against deportation. I don't have a history of visited web sites in the back of my brain sorry!

Actually he's right. Rush has spoken to the impracticality of mass deportation.


Good thing no one's advocating that here. We simply need to convince them to leave.
StanW and others,

You cannot intimidate me. I'm voting for McCain because unlike BushII:


1: He will HAVE our troops best interests in mind when he sends them off to war.

2: He will find a way to keep taxes low without running up huge budget deficits which put undue burdens on the children and grandchildren of America's middle class.

3: He won't pander to the right wing religious, political, and media nuts.
Hold your nose and elect McCain. If President Obama surrenders to radical Islam the rest is moot. At least McCain won't do that.


No, he'll just destroy this country. That okay with you?
I don't have a history of visited web sites in the back of my brain sorry!

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:50 PM |



Translation: I'm getting called on my bullshit and am starting to feel afraid.
Mike_M has a great idea!
"And further more I will not support McCain and i will allow the Democrats to take over and let them do even MORE damage to this nation because I am pissed that the Republicans haven't nominated a more conservative canidate! SCREW YOU AMERICA!"

Yeah this is good for the nation.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!
Rush has spoken to the impracticality of mass deportation. I heard that comment live as a matter of fact.

Posted by Mike_M
May 23, 2008 12:47 PM


Who said anything about mass deportations? What he said was Even conservative commentators speak against deportation

We don't need mass deportations; we need to deport some, while confiscating everything they own. The rest would self deport.
Translation: I'm getting called on my bullshit and am starting to feel afraid.

You are a liar.
Posted by Riteaidbob
May 23, 2008 12:55 PM


I can always tell when people know they're wrong, because they argue from emotion rather than reason.
Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 12:51 PM


While McCain will not "pander to the right wing religious, political, and media nuts" he certainly WILL pander to the "LEFT wing religious, political, and media nuts". And you'll have no problem with that, will you Hog?

My comments were not to intimidate you, Hog, as I do not consider you that important. My comments were simply to tell you that you are an idiot and that your opinion on this subject matters to exactly no one.

2: He will find a way to keep taxes low without running up huge budget deficits which put undue burdens on the children and grandchildren of America's middle class.




Umm, he already has implied raising taxes, which are already too high in this country. You are nothing but a f'n troll. You do realize that as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is not out of line. Of course you don't, you are a f'n troll.
You are a liar.

Posted by dgdunca May 23, 2008 12:56 PM


As a returning troll, you know the drill. But I'll repeat it for you just this once.

You made a statement and it is your job to provide proof. A link was requested and you failed to provide it. Either post a link to back up your assumtion, or apologize for wasting John's bandwidth with your obvious BS!
See ya'll, I have to got to work. Nice debating with you all and happy Friday.
You are a liar.

Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 12:56 PM |


Proove it sockpuppet.
1: He will HAVE our troops best interests in mind when he sends them off to war.


So does Bush. I've served under his command for 5 years, how about you?

2: He will find a way to keep taxes low without running up huge budget deficits which put undue burdens on the children and grandchildren of America's middle class.


How odd. I thought that the president only signed off on the budgets that are sent up; yet, hog here just showed me that the president is responsible for it. Huh, learn something new every day!

3: He won't pander to the right wing religious, political, and media nuts.

Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 12:51 PM


Of course he won't, he's a liberal, just like you, why would he?
Cav,

How many Supreme Court justices do you predict will retire in the next four years?

Would you rather have McCain or Obama appoint them?
Posted by dgdunca
May 23, 2008 1:00 PM


Are you really giving up that quickly? Man, all I did was ask for a link.
But it doesn't look like we are going to win back congress, in fact we may lose seat or two. So you'd be ok with President Obama and a Donk majority in Congress?

Like I said, I dislike McCain, but he is preferable to Obama.
See ya'll, I have to got to work. Nice debating with you all and happy Friday.

Posted by dgdunca May 23, 2008 1:00 PM


::sniff sniff:: You mean old Conservative won't let me make claims without proof and you talk mean to me when I blow you off.

So I'm just going to run away! There! That will show you!

{/DGDunce Off}
I see fwankie washed up again.
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
May 23, 2008 1:03 PM


As I pointed out upthread, SC justices are a crap shoot. Look at Ford and Reagan.
Posted by 0522martha2008
May 23, 2008 1:04 PM |
Which sock puppet are you replacing?
Posted by 0522marth@2008
May 23, 2008 1:04 PM

The WOT doesnt exist? What do you call it when we kill a muslim that fights along side of and for the same beliefs as OBL and the 9/11 type hijackers? It aint police work.
Vote for McCain if you want a President who will do his best to remedy the adverse consequences brought upon this nation by BushII who is the most incompetent POTUS since Carter.
Vote for McCain if you want a President who will do his best to remedy the adverse consequences brought upon this nation by BushII who is the most incompetent POTUS since Carter.

Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 1:13 PM


TRANSLATION:

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: "I Hate Bush" :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
>As I pointed out upthread, SC justices are a crap >shoot. Look at Ford and Reagan.
>
>Posted by jasamc
>May 23, 2008 1:09 PM

jasamc, it may be a crap shoot for us but for the liberals, you'd better bet your life that they will, with them in control of congress, get another RBG in the SC if Obama is elected....guaranteed....
Vote for McCain if you want a President who will do his best to remedy the adverse consequences brought upon this nation by BushII who is the most incompetent POTUS since Carter.

Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 1:13 PM


Translation: Please believe me when I say that I'm a moderate! I hate being a liberal.
jasamc, it may be a crap shoot for us but for the liberals, you'd better bet your life that they will, with them in control of congress, get another RBG in the SC if Obama is elected....guaranteed....


What on Earth makes you think John "Gang of 14" McCain will nominate Originalists? Because he says so on the campaign trail? Sheesh. McCain will never nominate anyone who a) would overturn McCain-Feingold and b) would not pass muster by Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.
Like I said, I dislike McCain, but he is preferable to Obama.


If the President ran the government single-handedly then I would agree. But they don't -- they work through Congress to pass bills. Which of those two would have an easier time getting the Republicans in Congress to play along with their Liberal agenda? Don't tell me you don't think they'd both push amnesty and citizenship for criminal trespassers, global warming alarmism, punitive tax hikes labeled "no tax cuts for the rich," anti-business legislation aimed strictly at American corporations and judges vetted by Nancy Pelosi. You know they both would. So which one would the Republicans fight? You tell me.
The first does not exist and the second can be controlled with moderate difficulty.

Posted by 0522martha2008 May 23, 2008 1:04 PM


The War on Terror does exist, you simpering coward.

And we don't want to 'control' illegal immigration, we want to stop it.

The problem is the GOP will most likely not win back Congress in November. So you will have a Donk Congress and President Obama. Isn't that scary as hell?


And like I said, we tried this back in 1992 and look where it got us.
The problem is the GOP will most likely not win back Congress in November.


No one thinks they will. All we need is enough Senators to filibuster the worst of the Lib agenda that McCain, Obama or Hillary would push.

So you will have a Donk Congress and President Obama. Isn't that scary as hell?


When are you Republican apparatchiks going to stop trying to get our votes through fear?
Hog,
Are you really trying to sell McCain as a fiscally responsible conservative? His goal is to import an entire class of serfs!!!

I don't know how much you know about the feudal system, but here's one major requirement of a feudal system: The feudal lord (the federal government in this case) has to pay to take care his serfs . That includes health care, schools, food and shelter.
I think $20,000 / serf is a fair estimate to provide the services necessary to keep the serfs alive, happy and working for a year. That's (conservatively -no pun) $200,000,000,000 per year -hardly fiscally responsible and a major set back to the automation and technological solutions to the labor issues we have!

CavalierX expresses it best. The real reason many conservatives don't support McCain. They fear that they cannot intimidate him and control him like a puppet. With Obama or Clinton in the White House, they believe that they will retain power to control the puppet strings of GOP Congressmen because of the natural competitive political tension which exhists between the two major parties. That describes the situation in a nut shell. Conservatives and liberals are insecure and all about power. Moderates are secure and are all about successful governance which provides the most good for the public.
I am not so sure the illegal problem is as intractible as it seems. If the cost of gasoline keeps rising and with the subsequent effects to our economy, i.e. job losses, inflation, etc., the illegals will self deport. They will self deport because the United States, this land of opportunity, will not have so much opportunity left for them. I also believe the illegals will self deport due to the vigillantism that they will experience as they try to obtain jobs, at lesser wages, that out-of-work US citizens will try to obtain. It has happened many times in our nation's history. It will happen again.

As far as McCain goes? I understand both pro and con arguements for McCain. I don't know how I will vote untill I stand in the voting booth.
What a bunch of cry babies... Let's see, you've had it your way for 8 years and it has us in not the best of spots. The DEMS are taking over, and yet we still have chance to have the White House in friendly hands and you guys are still whining about the fact that Mac isn't one of the "blind followers." By not voting, you are voting for Obama. Shame on you!
Your immediate need to resort to personal insult shows your lack of conviction in what you say.

Posted by 0522martha2008 May 23, 2008 1:54 PM


I suppose you are not able to recognize "RIDICULE" when you see it, FWankie. Imagine my surprise.

Thankfully, willfully blind fools like you are not in charge of protecting our nation. You would be denying any terrorist thread, even as your head was being slowly sawed from you body.

And be sure to thanks to all the military heros on Monday for giving you the unique opportunity to live in your own personal State of Denial!
Oh, for God's sake! Moderators, we need another clean up!

Fellow posters: Please Don't Feed the worthless F'n Troll(s). Thanks.
So a Marxist is the choice? Isn't Obama going to do much the same as McCain on immigration and the border? Is the damage that will be done by a clueless empty suit somehow better than anything McCain does? Is "revenge" on the Republican Party for nominating someone we don't entirely agree with an excuse for electing someone who will likely do irreparable damage to the country?
Fellow posters: Please Don't Feed the worthless F'n Troll(s). Thanks.

Posted by Good_Ol_Boy May 23, 2008 2:01 PM


There is a method to my madness, GoB. Write me at vimaje@yahoo.com and I will be happy to explain!

How's the littlest one doing?
Posted by simulacre
May 23, 2008 1:49 PM |

Simulacre,

This was posted over at PoliPundit,

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008
McCain Backs Plan To Pay Illegal Immigrant’s Hospital Bills


Gee I didn't think he was for National Health Care.

It just keeps getting worse and worse. One more reason not to support McVain.

That being said, although I cannot back John McCain, encourage others to vote for him, or contribute any more money to his campaign, I'm not going to tell you that you should do that same thing. What McCain has done here is a bridge too far for me, but others may not have as big a problem with being told this sort of lie. That's their decision.


This has been my position on John McMoron for a long time.

Even the McCain campaign website has its blatant whoppers. Dig these:
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

- JohnMcCain.com
Then this, further down the SAME PAGE:
He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

- John McCain.com
This legislation was a mere ploy to make guns more expensive and harder to obtain and use - not to mention clearly opposed to the above statement on the Second Amendment.

Oh and check out THIS blatant lie, also at JohnMcCain.com:
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. (my emphasis)
This coming from a guy who supported a 1999 ban on "certain assault weapons".

A further have an issue with a guy who pretends to support the Second Amendment while doing advertisements for Americans for Gun Safety, an anti-gun group advocating, among other things, registering every gun owner in America.

The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Thanks, John, for finally seeing it.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I'm not a right-winger, but a middle-of-the-road Democrat who'd be happy with either Clinton or Obama, but probably more with Obama than Clinton. I saw this column on memeorandum, a website that pulls in commentary and news from all directions.

It seems to confirm what I've been thinking for quite some time, which is that for all the talk of a split within my party that the divisions on your side are deeper and more serious. After all, Democrats do nothing BUT bitch at each other, but Republicans generally aren't as inclined to mix it up internally. Not like we are, anyway.

So, John, who do you plan to vote for? A third party? Back in 1992, I came close to voting for Perot and probably would have done it had he had a real running mate. That Stockdale guy, while genuinely an American hero, was obviously unfit for the presidency, so it told me that Perot wasn't serious about wanting the job.

Anyway, John, do you figure you'll sit it out or will you go third party? What if Obama picks Clinton as his running mate? Will you swallow your dissatisfaction and return to the fold? I'm curious, because I figure you're something of a barometer. What about Ron Paul? From a distance, he seems like someone you'd like.
decypher:"we tried this back in 1992 and look where it got us"

Yes, you were so deflated by the election of Clinton that you fell for the "Karl Rove" sleaze in 2000 which demonized McCain and put BushII into the White House who turned out to be the most incompetent POTUS since Carter.

Imagine if McCain had been elected POTUS in 2000.

1: No massive federal budget deficits and huge decline in the value of the US Dollar.

2: Capture or confirmed death of Bin Laden.

3: Far fewer American Troop casulties attributable to the Iraq War. In fact it would not have turned into a war. With McCain at the helm, it would have been game-point immediately after the invasion soon followed by a prosperous Iraqi economy at peace with itself and its neighbors.
"When are you Republican apparatchiks going to stop trying to get our votes through fear?"


Uhhh....If I have to convince you to be scared of President Obama and a Dem Congress, then you're the problem, not me.
"Yes, you were so deflated by the election of Clinton that you fell for the "Karl Rove" sleaze"


And you were so deflated by the legitimate win of George W Bush in 2000 that you became the ultimate sore loser. Calling anyone who disagrees with yu a "sleeze" and constantly parroting the same rhetoric. Do you even think for yourself?
2: Capture or confirmed death of Bin Laden


Proof or retract.
Imagine if McCain had been elected POTUS in 2000.

Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 2:07 PM


Please stop with the mind-reading and fortune telling. That game is boring and meaningless.

And if you are going to play, why not imagine what this entire situation would be like if Clinton has actually responded to all the terrorists attacks on his watch instead of getting Lewinsky's.
Massive budget deficits? Do you realize that 1) the deficits were smaller than average as a percentage of GDP, and 2) the deficits are incredibly small now.
It is a shame when military heros become military dupes.

Posted by 0522martha2008 May 23, 2008 2:19 PM


That statement, made in my presence, would guarantee that you would never eat solid food again.

My amusement with you is at an end.
It's a shame when frequently banned trolls are still allowed here.
Mr Nixon: "Proof or retract"

It sure did not take us no damn 7 years to take out Hitler and Tojo after December 7 1941 even though we were also fighting a war at that time on two fronts (the Europe and Pacific Theaters).
Hey, Stan, check your email; I dropped you a line.
>What on Earth makes you think John "Gang of 14" >McCain will nominate Originalists? Because he says >so on the campaign trail? Sheesh. McCain will never >nominate anyone who a) would overturn >McCain-Feingold and b) would not pass muster by Ted >Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.

>Posted by CavalierX
>May 23, 2008 1:29 PM |

CavalierX, please don't make me question your reading comprehension abilities but at what point in my comment did I state that John McCain would nominate Originalists? Will he or won't is a matter of debate, but what surely isn't a matter of debate with respect to Obama, as my comment pointed out. Obama will nominate liberal activists, most assuredly, on the level of Ruthie...that sir is enough to vote for McCain alone.
Hey, Stan, check your email; I dropped you a line.

Posted by Good_Ol_Boy May 23, 2008 2:24 PM


Will be able to check that line tonight, GoB. I look forward to hearing from you.
I'll go with huck on this one and sit this discussion out. Any commments would seem like gloating. I did want to comment on just one item in the post:

more damage to the conservative movement than any other Republican over the last few years


That honor belongs to President George W. Bush, not McCain.
It sure did not take us no damn 7 years to take out Hitler and Tojo after December 7 1941 even though we were also fighting a war at that time on two fronts (the Europe and Pacific Theaters).

Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 2:24 PM


Where we fought against countries with established militaries that fought in uniform.

Where we fought to win, firebombing cities and destroying infrastructure.

Where we incurred many times the casualities of personnel and civilians than this war.


Hog, do you work at being this stupid, or does it just come naturally to you?
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 2:24 PM |

Thanks for the strawman. You lost the argument. Brutally.

Hogg=Troll, nothing else needs be said on the subject.
Nixon, nice one! :)
Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 2:07 PM |


To those of you responding to this:

These are exactly the things McCain is promising in one of his lie-laden campaign commercials. There's nothing to retract or dismiss as "fortune-telling". I've seen the comercial.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
decypher: "percentage of GDP..yadda yadda"

Oh yes, the old liberal smoke and mirrors apology for budget deficits when they were challanged by true fiscl conservatives. Yeah, I remember when the Nixon Administration folded and finally declared "We are all Kenseyians now." Milton Friedman must have been spitting nails on that day. Its somehow just plain shameless for self proclaimed conservatives to fall back on the old liberal "percentage of GDP" excuse when one of their own presides over huge federal budget deficits.
Fine, then don't cry when soldiers like me vote for Obama in 2012 and do all we can to see Republicans go down until at keast 2016.

Fuck me now, I promise I'll fuck you later.
Its somehow just plain shameless for self proclaimed conservatives to fall back on the old liberal "percentage of GDP" excuse when one of their own presides over huge federal budget deficits.

Umm ... as a "self-proclaimed conservative", I'm trying to figure out how "one of our own" is presiding over anything. There's no conservative in the White House, and there hasn't been for nearly 20 years.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Its somehow just plain shameless for self proclaimed conservatives to fall back on the old liberal "percentage of GDP" excuse when one of their own presides over huge federal budget deficits.

Umm ... as a "self-proclaimed conservative", I'm trying to figure out how "one of our own" is presiding over anything. There's no conservative in the White House, and there hasn't been for nearly 20 years.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
"Oh yes, the old liberal smoke blah blah blah"

Leftese for "I have no way to refute what you are saying so I will just deflect and ignore the fact that I just got owned."


Sorry kiddo, but facts are stubborn things. You may wish that deficits were bigger. But wish in one hand and shit on the other. See what fills up first.
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Folks, time to ignore hogg's fevered ramblings. He lies, provides no facts, and gets really upset when you prove him wrong. Ignore him, just like fwankie. I wonder if they are related?
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
We've become a nation of Mexico, by Mexico and for Mexico.

Mexico wants open borders and to transfer 30+ million of their peasants into the USA, we bend over and accept it.

A new "visa/travel" card will be issued before long to move within North America. Borders don't matter, sovereignty doesn't matter, laws don't matter; we just want cheap labor.

The notion of the USA as a proud, indepedent, self-reliant, sovereign country is all but kaput, thanks to excessive "free trade", outsourcing, mass immigration, lack of English as our official language and lack of US civics education.

Kaput.
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Well, never thought I'd be back, after your deleting my point-by-point on why conservatives need to not vote McCain. Even though I had backing for each point, showing in the last two that McCain *is* a lier.

I emailed you asking what guidelines I'd violated, and you didn't even grant me a "drop dead" email -- I guess accusing Mighty McC f lieing, even with evidence, was over the line -- when you had your man-crush on him. Ya, I know what you said above. I wouldn't have used such strong wording, but quelling debate, or stifling the people yelling "the British are coming" just to help your chosen savior -- instead of using counter example or counter argument isn't conservative.

It makes me wonder if, in your heart-of-hearts (as it were), you knew you were shilling for a lier.

Well, as w/McC's past allowing prediction of his attitudes future, (which made McC's "flipflop" obvious), your past says this comment is on its way to deleting.

Oh, well -- some people don't like questioning voices in the room, and it is your room.

Enjoy while it lasts. If McC's elected, I'm *certain* we'll see more stuff like CFR, only more so.

- martin.musculus
Let's see, you've had it your way for 8 years


Where have you been, Mars?
Isn't Obama going to do much the same as McCain on immigration and the border?


Don't you think the Republicans in Congress would fight Obama at least a little bit? Just to keep their seats, if nothing else?
Posted by martinmusculus
May 23, 2008 2:48 PM

I got your point in your first post. No need to keep repeating yourself.

Hogg, you are truly an idiot. Amoebas are more intelligent than you and they don't even have a brain.
Uhhh....If I have to convince you to be scared of President Obama and a Dem Congress, then you're the problem, not me.


The point, decypher, is that I'm sick of the Republicans trying to manipulate me through fear. If they won't put up a candidate worthy of ny vote, then they don;t get it. Period.
StanW,

In WWII we also did not let our focus on Hitler and Tojo get diluted by trying to take down who was just as much of a bastard (if not worse) than Sadamm ever was. Do you suppose Bin Laden might just still be hanging around these days because BushII took his eye off that ball in order to go after Saddam?
Don't you think the Republicans in Congress would fight Obama at least a little bit? Just to keep their seats, if nothing else?

Posted by CavalierX
May 23, 2008 2:54 PM |

Cav,

That is to assume the Republicans in Congress are willing to grow a pair. It seems to me over the last few years they go along to get along. Nothing over the last several years have convinced me that they have the political will to fight.
Its somehow just plain shameless for self proclaimed conservatives to fall back on the old liberal "percentage of GDP" excuse when one of their own presides over huge federal budget deficits.

Umm ... as a "self-proclaimed conservative", I'm trying to figure out how "one of our own" is presiding over anything. There's no conservative in the White House, and there hasn't been for nearly 20 years.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Obama will nominate liberal activists, most assuredly, on the level of Ruthie...that sir is enough to vote for McCain alone.


I repeat: what on Earth makes you think McCain would do different? Because he tells you so? What in his history leads you to believe he would nominate judges who won't be approved -- even hand-picked -- by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy?
In WWII we also did not let our focus on Hitler and Tojo get diluted by trying to take down who was just as much of a bastard (if not worse) than Sadamm ever was.




F'n douche, we were at war with two relative strong powers in Germany and Japan, not just looking for one man. Countries that had serious territorial ambitions, large well trained militaries, and the will to use their population for cannon fodder. If you honestly think that is remotely related to the hunt for Bin Laden, please, do the world a favor and end your life. After you have yourself sterilized so you cannot breed.
In WWII we also did not let our focus on Hitler and Tojo get diluted by trying to take down who was just as much of a bastard (if not worse) than Sadamm ever was. Do you suppose Bin Laden might just still be hanging around these days because BushII took his eye off that ball in order to go after Saddam?

Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 2:59 PM


Funny you mention Hitler, Hog.

See, it was Tojo and Japan that bombed us at Pearl Harbor and caused our entry into the war. Why did we not fight Japan only? They are the ones that bombed us. But we didn't. We went after Hitler as well, just like we went after Saddam as well.

WWII proves my point and shows you to be a historical and current events idiot.
Fine, then don't cry when soldiers like me vote for Obama in 2012


Now who's throwing a tantrum and swearing revenge? How about if you just do what we're doing: vote for the person you think best -- not "least terrible" -- to run the country? The lesser of two evils is still evil, you know.
That is to assume the Republicans in Congress are willing to grow a pair. It seems to me over the last few years they go along to get along. Nothing over the last several years have convinced me that they have the political will to fight.


Remember that to a politician, getting re-elected is the most important thing in the world. They'll fight a Dem President, all right, if they think they won't get our money or our votes. But if McCain wins despite Conservatives, or if Conservatives are seen to support him, the Republicans will largely follow his lead, passing the same bills they'd fight under a Democrat.
But if McCain wins despite Conservatives, or if Conservatives are seen to support him, the Republicans will largely follow his lead, passing the same bills they'd fight under a Democrat.

Posted by CavalierX May 23, 2008 3:11 PM


It remains to be seen of that stratagy will work. I hope all will vote their conscience, just like I will.

However, keep one thing in mind. Until the votes are actually tabulated, do not count out Hillary. She is just now to the point of seeing the writing on the wall that Obama is the people's choice. Expect her to begin calling in her markers and getting enough Super Delegates on her side to propel her to the nomination.
While I can't disagree with your assessment of McCain, either dem would be far worse. Two issues stand out ---the war on terror and Supreme Court judges. We owe it to those who have laid down their lives for the mission that we complete it so that their sacrifice is not in vain. How we complete the mission in Iraq will affect generations to come, as will the next justices we choose to sit on the Supreme Court.

Our country, as a whole, is much more important than our own individual needs or desires or our precious conservative principles. They will survive to fight on another day. But will our country? Allowing a Jimmy Carter-lite newbie (with a far more suspect past) to take the reins
at a time like this is suicidal.

We cannot be so selfish as to take our ball and go home just because the perfect conservative candidate was not presented to us. In fact, I doubt the perfect conservative candidate even exists. Perfect conservatism is in the eye of the beholder anyway. It means different things to different people.

While McCain is FAR from the perfect conservative, at least he does hold some positions which conservatives believe are important. We have nothing in common with Obama/Clinton.
sorry about the multiple posts. Palm LifeDrive went haywire, (had to hard reset), just kept seeing the post button as tapped.

- martin.musculus
Don't you think the Republicans in Congress would fight Obama at least a little bit? Just to keep their seats, if nothing else?
I wish I could be as convinced of the "congress blocks democrats" scenario as you are, Cav, but I'm not.

There's the possibility they'll just pander to everything Obama say just not to appear "racist". That'll be the presidential program of Mr. Change, if the campaign didn't make it clear: pass whatever garbage I say to pass or you're a Racist halting the Progress in Race Relations(tm).

And if the Reps in Congress do pander to Obama, they'll get their asses massively kicked in 2010 - which will likely put the Dem in majority, and we'll be as screwed as if there was McCain in the WH with a Republican controlled congress.

If not worse, because there's always the chance that McCain won't try to repel the 2nd Amendment and legalize same-sex marriage on a federal level within 100 days of his election. (Just the chance, I said.)

Far from me to say that voting McCain would be a wise decision; just that voting him and hoping he won't behave like a far-left loony doesn't seem any worse or any better than the alternatives.
younger,

For starters, if you're more happy with Obama than Clinton, then you're not a moderate Democrat, you're a progressive, collectivist, socialist, or communist...pick your label, but don't confuse yourself with a moderate anything by supporting Obama! Anyone who studies and employs Saul Alinsky's strategies is pretty hard core left...That describes both of your candidates and you're support puts you squarely in Alinsky's camp.

McCain is a populist with hawkish tendencies on foreign policy. His ideological brethren on your side is Joe Lieberman. If you're a moderate Democrat, that's your ticket.

The schism on the right is definitely more apparent and certainly runs deeper than the schism on the left as those who define themselves as Conservatives tend to stand on principle rather than jump off the bridge because its the popular or politically expedient thing to do. The left doesn't stand on principle, it stands on whatever (or whoever) it needs to to win and gain power. -as an aside, I cast that aspersion on the Left's leadership as the average 'democrat' doesn't know enough about politics or world events, or history to go beyond who the cool candidate is in the presidential election.

Those who see Iraq and the war on Terror as their number one issue believe McCain is our only hope in the future of that war. Others see the war against collectivism as the number one danger to America and believe McCain, Obama, and Clinton all will push us further down the path towards a socialist state, but McCain would do the most damage in that effort.

The conservatives who can't find it in themselves to vote for McCain (and believe he's the most damaging of the three candidates) feel that way because it will -in effect- be the end of the of Republican party as we know it. If McCain manages to win the general, he'll have done it with an R after his name and a voting block composed of 1 issue conservatives along with a whole host of crossover Democrats, Independents and Moderates. McCain will further damage the conservative movement by changing the US's demographics by granting amnesty to 10-20 million poor and government dependent illegal immigrants. That's a sizable voting block and worth at least 2 percentage points in a nation whose last presidential election was decided by less.

The Republican party will no longer be home to those who believe in individual freedom, capitalism, and small government and who fight against collectivism, rather they will have joined the collective.




StanW,
First, Japan and Germany had signed a mutual defense pact. Once we retaliated against Japan (Tojo) we were automatically in it against Germany (Hitler) too.

Second, my original point was that we did not take our eyes off the ball (Hitler and Tojo) by going afer Stalin who was just as much of a bastard (if not more so) than Saddam.

Same situation applies to the Bin-Laden-Saddam case. It was Bin Laden who attacked us. Saddam was just a sitting neutered duck whose ass had already been soundly kicked by our troops once before.
Posted by martinmusculus
May 23, 2008 2:51 PM |


Martin:

I can tell you why your point-by-point was deleted almost emphatically, and it had nothing to do with the content of your comment.

Hawk's software automatically deletes any comment with more than a certain number of links in it (I think the number is three). If you had more than that number of links in your comment, then it would have been deleted as spam.

I learned this the hard way myself.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

I repeat: what on Earth makes you think McCain would do different? Because he tells you so? What in his history leads you to believe he would nominate judges who won't be approved -- even hand-picked -- by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy?

Posted by CavalierX
May 23, 2008 3:02 PM |


Cav, Did Obama vote for Roberts and Alito? Did McCain?

once again, I never said McCain is assured to nominate the right one, but I believe he will, he would no doubt seek a 2nd term and one way to short circuit that would be to screw up the nominations. Secondly, Obama has stated as much that he would seek to nominate "socially conscience" judges. So, given just what the candidates have stated, McCain has said he would nominate the kind of judges we want. Obama the polar opposite. Whether or not you believe McCain is irrelevant, it whether or not you believe Obama. Because McCain will be the nominee, he will get the majority of votes, so if you do not vote for McCain, you are helping Obama....flat out reality...may suck, but hey there is always 2012 to get righteous with your vote, this one is far too important and too close to total liberal control of our country. Only a fool would think anyone but Obama or McCain will be President.

So vote your conscience, don't vote for McCain, and I hope once Obama raises taxes, fubars Iraq beyond all hope, socializes healthcare, gives amnesty to illegals, you can claim that you at least didn't vote for McCain. Bravo....brilliant....
Saddam was just a sitting neutered duck whose ass had already been soundly kicked by our troops once before.

Wow ... talk about head in the sand.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Posted by hogground May 23, 2008 3:43 PM


Wrong, Hog.

Your argument was that we were attacked by the Taliban and that we shoudl fight in Afghanistan ONLY. You argue that we 'took our eyes off the ball' by removing Saddam.

Yet in WWII we fought AND WON a war on multiple fronts, just like you and your treasonous ilk claim we cannot do now.

The valid comparision is the one I made in response to the exact same criticism you had. In WWII we fought a war on two fronts and won them both. Here we are doing the same and you claim we cannot win or have already lost.

Piss on you and your cowardise. You are undeserving of the freedoms that have been handed to you by those better than you!
Cav, I'm not trying to manipulate you. I'm really scared to shit of two branches of the government being controlled by the Kos puppets.

Do you realize that they will pass shitloads of legislation that the GOP will never have the spine to repeal? I don't want socialized medicine, open borders and surrender to terrorists.


Would McCain stop those things from happening? Maybe he would. Maybe not. But with Obama it's a definite that we will be fucked 6 ways from Sunday. Wouldn't you rather have risk than certain failure?
President Bush the elder didn't lie with his "no new taxes" pledge, he meant it at the time. He just got pressured into signing an increase in fees eventually by the Democratic congress. Saying something you believe and mean in good faith then doing something else later isn't lying, it's inconsistency and lack of integrity, which is at least as bad. But let's not call it a lie, eh?
Posted by JimC_
May 23, 2008 3:45 PM |


I don't share your beliefs about John McCain's judges. There's no way a guy who has behaved as he has will think twice about choosing leftist judges just to please his friends in the Democrat Party. As I've always said, he's one of THEM, not one of us, and Hawk's post (along with a gaggle of them about the blogosphere) provide more than ample reason to distrust McCain on this and just about every other issue.

If the Republicans want conservatives to support their candidates, they will have to do better than John McCain for president, especially with a virtually guaranteed win given the candidates the other side has fielded. I've all but left the party, many others already have, and there are more coming.

My prediction is that conservatives from the Republican, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties will eventually unite under one banner, perhaps even my Federalist party platform, and the Republicans and Democrats will get together on the other side. That's already happening now, and McCain is only one of many liberal Republicans kowtowing to the Democrats. They might as well go ahead and join them. It's going to be necessary for keeping any power at all once the conservatives have jumped ship, and the Donks are already baring their asses to be kissed (and have been for quite some time, givent the Republicans' willingness to open up and kiss them).

The only way the Republican Party is going to be able to hold on to conservatives is by having a brokered convention, and nominating someone else, perhaps even Thompson or Paul, more likely Mitt Romney.

As for me, enough is enough.

KEYES '08.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
While your disdain towards McCain is understandable, I find your line-up of acceptable candidates curious if you are committed to winning (given you can't promote ANY conservative principles if you don't win). This all or nothing mentality seems self-defeating, to say the least. It became painstakingly clear, early on, that it was highly unlikely that Hunter or Huckabee could ever secure the nomination, let alone beat any dems -- ever.

Also, if you are so committed to bashing McCain over things like immmigration, global warming, McCain-Feingold etc... it's odd you put his friend, Fred Thompson, as your #2 guy, since he supported very similar McCain-like immigration and global warming proposals and hung out with Gang-of-14-type friends while he was in the senate (and even co-sponsored McCain-Feingold-Thompson). Why bash McCain and give Fred a free pass on the same issues?

Additionally, putting Huckabee ahead of Romney on your conservative list makes no sense at all. Huckabee was soft on crime and weak on immigration enforcement while being big on nanny state spending while governor. One thing Fred was right about was when he called Huckabee a pro-life liberal. Romney's actual record as governor (not what he said a decade ago during a campaign) was far more conservative than Huckabee's record while in office.

I hate having to vote for McCain, but I'll do it. I'd hate to see President Barack Hussein Obama and his America-hating wife in the Oval Office even more.

The bottomline is most conservatives are unhappy about McCain and the smartest thing we can do is stop whining and turn our attention to the congressional and senate races to fight for and support the most conservative candidates running. How many of you have checked to see which conservatives need our support, not just in your own district, but throughout the United States? Most of us are withholding funds from the RNC now, but we should be sending financial support to individual conservative candidates in order to make a difference. We can't change our nominee, but we can work hard to assure that the next POTUS has a GOP (leaning conservative) congress to work with. Romney just started a new PAC for that very purpose. He has several conservative candidates (McCain notwithstanding) listed on his new website (https://www.freestrongamerica.com/pa/ge/54/about-us) who could use our support (especially Michele Bachmann with her 100% ACU rating!).
"My prediction is that conservatives from the Republican, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties will eventually unite under one banner, perhaps even my Federalist party platform, and the Republicans and Democrats will get together on the other side."

I hope to God you're right. If yu had told me 8 years ago that Bush would have outspent Bill Clinton, I would have laughed in your face.
Fuck me now, I promise I'll fuck you later.

Posted by RtWingNtCase
May 23, 2008 2:38 PM |
Whatever. No GOP for me. Time to find a new party. Have fun with your new overlords.
So vote your conscience, don't vote for McCain, and I hope once Obama raises taxes, fubars Iraq beyond all hope, socializes healthcare, gives amnesty to illegals, you can claim that you at least didn't vote for McCain.

Even though I'm not a right winger, I respect Mr. Hawkins's defection. You don't always get what you want in politics, but there are always, or at least there should be, limits to someone's willingness to compromise deeply held principles on behalf of a candidate.

As a Democrat, I support many of the things people here despise, like national health care, big government spending on alternative energy, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, a withdrawal from Iraq, and the appointment of "socially conscious" (i.e., pro-choice) Supreme Court justices.

I don't expect Obama (or Clinton, in the unlikely event she's nominated) to give me everything I want. For example, I really doubt we'll get the sort of health care setup that I'd like to see. I don't think Obama will keep his promise to leave Iraq in 18 months, and I'm very suspicious of the Democratic Party's mortgage bailout proposals because I think they'll give too much help to the banks.

But I can live with all of that, because a half a loaf is better than no loaf. I can't really name the specific issues that would cause me to leave the Democratic Party, but if Obama wins and the Democrats make big gains, and then fail to deliver or at least be seen trying hard to deliver, there is a point at which I'd bolt to a third party like, say, Nader, who in many ways represents me more accurately than the Democrats do.

Sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do and let the chips fall where they may. But I am curious, like I wrote before, about where Mr. Hawkins and like-minded right wingers will go. Stay home? Third party. If a third party, which one? Will it be the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party?
He just got pressured into signing an increase in fees eventually by the Democratic congress.

Story of John McCain's life.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
That had to be a tough decision, John, and I salute you. Taking the long view is always the right thing to do, but that doesn't make the pain in the short term any easier to bear.

It's key to understand that the Democrat majority in congress is likely to get even bigger this november. I don't like it any better than you all, but it's looking like that's how it's gonna go.

What this means is that a Democrat president will govern like a Democrat, and a wishy-washy Republican president will also govern like a Democrat. Remember when George Bush '41 went back on his "no new taxes" pledge? That's what can happen to a Republican president who has to deal with a Democrat congress.

And it's even worse with McCain, because he's a long-time Senator. Even as President he'll be a Senator at heart, and won't treat them with the contempt they deserve.

So if the Democratics are gonna be setting the agenda anyway, they might as well hold the white house too so they'll bear the blame for their screwups. If McCain is President then all the Democrat congress mistakes will get blamed on McCain.

We've got to get back to our roots as a party, and show the American people why they trusted us in the first place. A RINO doing the bidding of a Democrat congress won't get it done. If that means we have to spend a few years in the wilderness, so be it. A few years in the wilderness makes you leaner and tougher.

The Duncan Hunters and Fred Thompsons of the party will never take charge until we stop settling for half-baked RINOs like McCain.
Posted by decypher
May 23, 2008 4:03 PM |

Posted by TomJW
May 23, 2008 4:03 PM |


Swing by http://rightwingrocker.blogspo...008/04/platform.html">here and leave a comment as to what you think of it.

Just a little something I cooked up.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I hate having to vote for McCain, but I'll do it. I'd hate to see President Barack Hussein Obama and his America-hating wife in the Oval Office even more.

It is this mentality that is going to give us President McCain/Hitlery/Obama in January.

If people of this mindset were serious enough about getting a conservative into office to join forces with those of us who are, there would be more than ample support for a conservative candidate to get one elected.

People of this mindset are the ones making the bed that we will all have to suffer under for at least four years, not the ones willing to stand up for what is right. Negativity never got anyone anywhere worth going.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Also look at the USSC. The likeliest justices to retire during 44's first term are Ginsburg and Stevens, the two biggest libs on the court. With a Democrat congress there isn't much chance of getting any more Robertses or Alitos seated. It'd be some kind of half-assed "moderate" like Kennedy.

But what's the worst that a Dem president could do? Replace two big liberals with two more big liberals.

That's not so great, but we can live with it. There's never a GOOD time for a Dem president, but right now is about the least bad time we're gonna find.

Republicans are unpopular right now? Best cure for that is a good dose of liberals. That'll bring people around in a hurry. Last thing we need is a Democrat government with a Republican label on it.
Hogg=Troll, nothing else needs be said on the subject.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
May 23, 2008 2:29 PM


You are just now figuring that out?

TR

Posted by hogground
May 23, 2008 3:43 PM

POS SFB leftist moron. Please do not thread jack, and keep repeating the arguments you lost long ago.
You are a loser and a troll. Please get on subject or go away.
As a Democrat, I support many of the things people here despise, like national health care, big government spending on alternative energy, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, a withdrawal from Iraq, and the appointment of "socially conscious" (i.e., pro-choice) Supreme Court justices.


Younger, how much did you pay in taxes last year? Just curious.
I wish I could be as convinced of the "congress blocks democrats" scenario as you are, Cav, but I'm not.


I'm not convinced. It's just our only realistic hope, tiny and frail as it is, to slow down the Liberal agenda a little over the next four years.
Younger, how much did you pay in taxes last year? Just curious.

Look, this is the Right Wing News, so I'm trying to comment narrowly and avoid a slanging match with you. Besides, if I told you I paid a whole lot of taxes, you'd surely call me a limousine liberal. If I told you I paid very little, you'd call me a welfare parasite.

So, rather than give you a number, how about a percentage? Not including sales taxes or the employer portion of Social Security, but including state taxes and property taxes, it was in the high-20% range. That's as close as I can get at the moment. I figure it out every year, but I don't keep the exact number.

I can say this much: I've been working a long time, and have made not much money and have made a whole lot of money at various times. I've never paid less than 25%, and have never paid more than 35%.

I hope this can be civil. We'll see. In any case, I really sympathize with Mr. Hawkins. And, given that he's one guy and I'm one guy, and we both pretty much take whatever we get, I accept his good faith and hope you'll accept mine. We just disagree on what to do these days, that's all.
once again, I never said McCain is assured to nominate the right one, but I believe he will


Right there, that's your problem. You believe in McCain. Here's what I believe: If he ever nominated any decent judges, it would only be because he knew damn well they wouldn't pass, and then he could nominate moderates that would please the Dems and get passed, while claiming that he "did something" to get good judges nominated.
Cav, if you were the only one voting and the only vote that mattered was yours, but you could ONLY choose between McCain and Obama and you had to vote, who would you vote for? Just curious.
p.s.: The biggest points in Obama's favor for me is that he's steady under pressure, and that he honestly seems to want to talk about the real problems instead of the usual hot button side issues.

I'd really like to see him pick Chuck Hagel as his running mate. In the next five to 10 years, I think everyone across the board is going to realize in a very direct way that the problems we'er facing are not the ones very many people have been spending enough time talking about. Trench warfare is easier, because no one has to do any thinking.
Cav, if you were the only one voting and the only vote that mattered was yours, but you could ONLY choose between McCain and Obama and you had to vote, who would you vote for? Just curious.


If the President controlled the government single-handedly, I'd vote for McCain in your scenario. His policies are slightly less odious than Obama's in many ways. But everyone keeps forgetting about Congress. The President has to push his agenda past House and Senate. Do you think the Republicans in Congress would fight McCain, or Obama? I could never vote for Obama, so I would have to abstain.
Cav, Thanks for indulging me.

Just curious. Do you think the GOP has a strong chance of regaining Congress?


In answer to your question, I don't think the Republicans in Congress would fight either that much.
"The first does not exist and the second can be controlled with moderate difficulty."

Illegal immigration is a fundamental issue on which no compromise is acceptable. It's about who we are as a nation. As the saying goes, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." The spirit is the American People, who spoke very clearly the last time congress meddled with this, so loudly that even McCain got the message.

The weak flesh is the congress. They know what we want, and pretend to care, but when it comes time to act they always falter.

McCain is no better than Obama on immigration, but in practice he's not likely to be much worse either. The Democrat congress will be in control whether McCain or Obama lives at 1600.

But with President McCain we can't hope for better any time soon, whereas we can expect a Republican to retake the white house after Obama's certain-to-be-disastrous first term. If we stay true to our beliefs and vote our consciences, we have a chance at a President in just four short years who takes illegal immigration seriously.

If we compromise and hold our noses and pull the lever for McCain, the best we can hope for is that his VP is someone like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter.

Note that McCain's VP is almost certain to be the 45th president. Sitting VPs who seek their party's nomination almost always get it, and there's a fair chance that McCain's health wouldn't permit him to serve his full eight years.
Posted by younger
May 23, 2008 5:02 PM

Well newbie, how about having the common decency to not start making statements about me. You seem to support a high amount of government spending in your idealic view of government. FYI in my holding company, the couple of businesses we own, and my personal income, I pay, when you account for everything, almost 45% of my income in taxes. I am penalized for being successful. I do not support massive increases in government spending, Higher taxes on the rich (Which democrats have stated a teacher married to a fireman to be), and think the government has no business in healthcare. When you watch almost half your income leave to support such idiotic things as a bailout of people too stupid to do a budget and read a mortgage contract, it really starts getting to you. Now factor in Obama wanting to raise $800 billion in additional taxes to pay toward world poverty or some other rainbow task, yeah, that is just what we need.

More government confiscation of the productive folks money has no positive benefit.
The biggest points in Obama's favor for me is that he's steady under pressure,




As he has no executive experience in a crisis, nor has he demonstrated any sort of crisis management abilities, can you tell us how you know this?
You don't always get what you want in politics, but there are always, or at least there should be, limits to someone's willingness to compromise deeply held principles on behalf of a candidate.

Correct: there has to be a line at whiceh you don't go past, a point at which you draw the line and will not compromise at. For some, this line appears to be "voting for Democrats," for others it is drawn a bit more clearly on ideological lines and some Republicans won't make the cut.

The truth is, if you won't stand for principle, don't expect the people you elect to, either. If you will support anyone, no matter how awful they are, just so a Democrat won't win (or the opposite), then you've little to offer of any real value to the community discussion or political arena than cheerleading.

For everyone with a conscience, honor, and principle, there has to be a point at which you will go no further. For those who are simply on one side or another cheering for their team, their guys can do no wrong - or at least the other team can do no right.
It is becoming increasingly distressing, of late, to see my fellow conservatives arguing over who should get to drive the fire engine while our collective houses are about to burn down. Does it not make sense for those of us with conservative values to at least try to retain some control over national public policy, particularly in an election year in which the Democrats might well acheive a 60+ seat majority in the Senate? John McCain may not be perfect, but he is certainly to be preferred to Barack Obama. Moreover, his reputation for "moderation" might well allow him to mobilize a level of public support that would be impossible for a more conservative Republican President.

In addition, for all of Senator McCain's ideological faults --- and they are legion --- does anyone here really believe that McCain is comparable philosophically to Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, Harry Reid, Carl Levin, or Joe Biden? Like many of you, I worry about some of the policies that might emerge from a McCain Presidency. Moreover, I also worry about how much influence the Right might really have over the policies and goals of a McCain Administration. However, while I have my doubts about McCain, I don't even have to guess how conservative values will be treated by a President Obama! If McCain just stands fast on judicial appointments and the War in Iraq, then I, for one, will be satisfied.


And now, as Monty Python used to say, for something completely different ...


Several of the posts in this thread seem to contain a few historical slip-ups.

First, although Germany, Italy, and Japan were all the signatories of a mutual defense pact, Hitler actually dithered for a few days before finally deciding to have Germany declare war on the U.S. The original U.S. Declaration of War was against the Empire of Japan only. In addition, despite numerous entreaties from Berlin, the Japanese pretty much left the Russians alone during the entire war; it was the Soviet Union that actually opened active hostilities against Japan once Germany was defeated.


Second, the tired old trope that somehow President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld allowed Osama bin Laden to escape when he was trapped at Tora Bora really doesn't merit serious consideration by anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the actual facts of the operation. This is the kind of charge that you usually hear regularly from bitter partisan hacks like Chris Mathews, Alan Colmes, Dan Abrams, and Keith Olbermann. The facts, however, are pretty straight forward. During the final stages of the Afghan War, bin Laden's capture was one of several (opportunistic --- do it if the chance arises) operational goals of forward elements of the American 10th Mountain Division, which was receiving assistance from local Afghan forces. Given the extensive numbers of Al Qaeda bunkers and tunnels throughout the Tora Bora area, and the extrordinarily difficult mountain terrain, there was probably never much chance of bin Laden being taken, even if he had remained in the battle area once the American mountain troops arrived on the scene. Moreover, intelligence is still unclear on the subject of bin Laden's whereabouts during this period, but there was at least as much reason to believe that he had already fled into Pakistan, as there was to believe that he had remained behind in the border area. Also, in the interest of historical fairness, it should be noted that neither President Truman nor Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was ever blamed --- even by Republicans --- for the escape of a number of important Nazis after the surrender of Germany in 1945.

Well newbie, how about having the common decency to not start making statements about me.

That's fair enough. I jumped the gun.

You seem to support a high amount of government spending in your idealic view of government.

Now you're making statements about me. I'm not idealistic about government. A certain amount is wasted, just as in the efficient private sector. I think anyone who's honest and experienced knows that private companies can be just as profligate as anyone else. I'm not speaking in favor of profligacy. I'm a realist about these things.

FYI in my holding company, the couple of businesses we own, and my personal income, I pay, when you account for everything, almost 45% of my income in taxes. I am penalized for being successful.

Wow, that's high. Are you sure that this is your effective rate, or is that your marginal rate? I ask because the one time I paid 35% was a year where I made more than $800,000. I didn't use any tricks. It was a simple return (did it myself, on Turbo Tax) without weird deductions. So, 45% strikes me as really high.

Higher taxes on the rich (Which democrats have stated a teacher married to a fireman to be)

I would disagree with any Democrat who states that a teacher married to a fireman is rich. And let's not go 'round and 'round about the rates for the teacher married to the fireman, because frankly we're not going to convince each other of anything. Instead, let's just agree that we won't agree. My point is that I don't think that hypothetical couple is "rich."

When you watch almost half your income leave to support such idiotic things as a bailout of people too stupid to do a budget and read a mortgage contract, it really starts getting to you.

I sympathize with that. I'm not too high on the bailout proposals. Of course, a bailout is already happening by way of the Fed's inflationary policy. I'd like to see some bankers in jail, but we know that's not going to happen. Personal responsibility rarely extends that high.

Now factor in Obama wanting to raise $800 billion in additional taxes to pay toward world poverty or some other rainbow task, yeah, that is just what we need.

We'd probably find some agreement there, too. Of course, someone whose name I can't bring myself to put in the same sentence with the word "president" has spent $600 billion and counting on an unnecessary and wholly mismanaged quagmire in Iraq.

If the U.S. government had stuck half a trillion into solar panels and windmills instead -- both of which work and are not pie in the sky -- we'd have a whole lot more to show for it now and in the future. $800 billion for world poverty? What, that's about the equivalent of the Marshall Plan back in the '50s, which the Republicans opposed but which was a hell of a good investment in Western Europe.

Problem is, I don't think we can afford it now. Job #1 is going to be energy, and it's not going to work if we spend on drilling in Alaska or building nuclear plants. The U.S. is going to have to go to renewables, and the government ought to be in there with both feet. Think of it as the modern equivalent of the dam-building of the 1930s, which the Republicans opposed but which worked out pretty well.

More government confiscation of the productive folks money has no positive benefit.

Unless it's to lose a war we didn't need to fight, huh?



Good to see the anti war folk out on this thread. Saddam was paying terrorists, allowing them to train in his country, had gassed his own people, locked radar on our planes, and violated the cease fire from Gulf War I. I guess we could have let it slide, like we did for HItler on the Versailles Treaty violations in the 30's. How did that turn out? We have freed the populace n two countries under Bush. Not too bad. Your opinion will vary, as you are a leftist. Free country however.

BTW We are winning against the terrorists in Iraq, you can drop the quagmire chant.
Well newbie, how about having the common decency to not start making statements about me.

That's fair enough. I jumped the gun.

You seem to support a high amount of government spending in your idealic view of government.

Now you're making statements about me. I'm not idealistic about government. A certain amount is wasted, just as in the efficient private sector. I think anyone who's honest and experienced knows that private companies can be just as profligate as anyone else. I'm not speaking in favor of profligacy. I'm a realist about these things.

FYI in my holding company, the couple of businesses we own, and my personal income, I pay, when you account for everything, almost 45% of my income in taxes. I am penalized for being successful.

Wow, that's high. Are you sure that this is your effective rate, or is that your marginal rate? I ask because the one time I paid 35% was a year where I made more than $800,000. I didn't use any tricks. It was a simple return (did it myself, on Turbo Tax) without weird deductions. So, 45% strikes me as really high.

By the way, the $800,000 year was a one-shot deal. I've had other good years, but nothing like that. I've made as little as $11,000, too.

Higher taxes on the rich (Which democrats have stated a teacher married to a fireman to be)

I would disagree with any Democrat who states that a teacher married to a fireman is rich. And let's not go 'round and 'round about the rates for the teacher married to the fireman, because frankly we're not going to convince each other of anything. Instead, let's just agree that we won't agree. My point is that I don't think that hypothetical couple is "rich."

When you watch almost half your income leave to support such idiotic things as a bailout of people too stupid to do a budget and read a mortgage contract, it really starts getting to you.

I sympathize with that. I'm not too high on the bailout proposals. Of course, a bailout is already happening by way of the Fed's inflationary policy. I'd like to see some bankers in jail, but we know that's not going to happen. Personal responsibility rarely extends that high.

Now factor in Obama wanting to raise $800 billion in additional taxes to pay toward world poverty or some other rainbow task, yeah, that is just what we need.

We'd probably find some agreement there, too. Of course, someone whose name I can't bring myself to put in the same sentence with the word "president" has spent $600 billion and counting on an unnecessary and wholly mismanaged quagmire in Iraq.

If the U.S. government had stuck half a trillion into solar panels and windmills instead -- both of which work and are not pie in the sky -- we'd have a whole lot more to show for it now and in the future. $800 billion for world poverty? What, that's about the equivalent of the Marshall Plan back in the '50s, which the Republicans opposed but which was a hell of a good investment in Western Europe.

Problem is, I don't think we can afford it now. Job #1 is going to be energy, and it's not going to work if we spend on drilling in Alaska or building nuclear plants. The U.S. is going to have to go to renewables, and the government ought to be in there with both feet. Think of it as the modern equivalent of the dam-building of the 1930s, which the Republicans opposed but which worked out pretty well.

More government confiscation of the productive folks money has no positive benefit.

Unless it's to lose a war we didn't need to fight, huh? Here's a thought. Trade the opening of ANWR for a real renewables program. Instead of selling leases to the oil companies, have the U.S. government retain ownership of the oil and hire the oil companies as contractors. Use the proceeds exclusively to subsidize renewables.

Here's an example: 750 square miles of solar panels in the desert southwest would generate 100% of U.S. electricity demand. The technology is available right now. Have the government use ANWR money to subsidize the panels, requiring that those panels be made in America rather than in China. And it's time to get moving on electric cars, in a much bigger way than we've been doing. All that technology is sitting there, ready to go.

The Republicans won't do any of this. The Democrats ought to. But I have my doubts, because frankly I think the Democrats are just as much hostage to Big Oil as anyone else is. Obama doesn't seem to have as many debts as the other Democrats do to the powers that be, but how true that is remains to be seen.



All I have to say for those of you sitting in your Ivory Towers and dream of the Utopian conservative candidate, the reality down here is that McCain will garner the vast majority of votes on he right. Anything that pulls votes from him, pushes the Obamanation closer to the Office.

There's being idealogical and then there's being a pragmatist and knowing when to pick your fight. I am not a GOP loyalist. I am however, fervently against the liberals and their socialist agendas trying to take down America from within. John McCain is not my choice, I did not vote for him during the Ohio primary. But I will vote for him because the liberals are on the verge of a horrific rein of idiocy that I cannot bear to allow my children to grow up in.

The next President will pick two Supreme Court Judges. You may believe McCain won't pick the right ones, however we know Obama will absolutely pick the wrong ones. I am willing to take my chances with McCain rather than foolishly pave the way for Obama.

There's a time to pick your battles. Right now we just need to stop the liberals. Splitting our base only hands it right to them.

I'm just being pragmatic. I see the goal is to keep Obama from office. John McCain is not the perfect candidate for conservatives yet he is the best one to beat Obama in this election. It may be that only a McCain could win.

Are you willing to be complicit to Obama steam rolling the most liberal judges ever to sit on the bench? How will your conscience reconcile the fact that the next generation of Americans are subjected to liberal activist judges ruining our country without any check?

By advocating this foolishness you abandon reason for ideology. The foolish man will stand his ground, too bad he stands on quicksand. Support McCain and fight the next battle to get popular support around a true conservative in the next election. We had our chances during the primaries, we failed to get a more conservative candidate. Tough. Deal with it. I have....the alternative is far too horrific and therefore I must ensure I deal with my conscience which to do what I can to keep Obama from winning. So that is why I will cast my vote for McCain. Not because I like his policies, not because he is my choice, but because he is standing in the way of Obama from taking the country into the abyss.

Vote for whoever you like, but ask yourself if you can live with the fact that you aided this snake, this serpent called Obama, win the White House.
All I have to say for those of you sitting in your Ivory Towers and dream of the Utopian conservative candidate, the reality down here


Very nice, starting off all condescending...

But I will vote for him because the liberals are on the verge of a horrific rein of idiocy that I cannot bear to allow my children to grow up in.


Then don't vote for McCain!

The next President will pick two Supreme Court Judges.


To replace two liberal justices. So, both McCain and Obama pick liberal replacements - your point?

I am willing to take my chances with McCain rather than foolishly pave the way for Obama.


Good for you, I'm not.

There's a time to pick your battles. Right now we just need to stop the liberals.


Agreed, but there are only two major parties and both of them are running liberals. I have seen tales of a possible third party starting up, perhaps you'd like to join in?

I see the goal is to keep Obama from office.


I see the goal as being true to my beliefs.

John McCain is not the perfect candidate for conservatives


I hereby nominate this as Understatement of the Year.

How will your conscience reconcile the fact that the next generation of Americans are subjected to liberal activist judges ruining our country without any check?


Well, by looking in the mirror and being able to say "Hey, I didn't whore myself out to the best choice out of crap and crappier."

Tough. Deal with it.


No.

So that is why I will cast my vote for McCain.


Great, have fun. Just take your overbearing ass and quit trying to tell me who to vote for. Last I checked, I am allowed to vote as I please. Thanks.

Geez, you McCainnites are as bad as the Paulians!
There's a time to pick your battles. Right now we just need to stop the liberals. Splitting our base only hands it right to them.

Just between you, me, and the fencepost, you're not going to stop the liberals. Every dog has its day, and this is their day. Obama is more liberal than you are (as are most people) but I don't think he's as liberal as you fear. He'll be a uniter, not a divider. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Very nice, starting off all condescending...


I'm condescending? Who are the ones acting all righteous when the reality is that Obama, the actual liberal is heading strong into completing the liberal takeover of America? How on Earth is John McCain liberal exactly?

Please explain on which issues out of all the issues makes him a liberal? Apparently he isn't pure enough for some, and that makes him liberal? How perfect of a resume must one have to make them a proper candidate?

Using the logic I've read here, Fox News must seem like a left wing media mouthpiece to you, seeing how they employ at least one liberal...

So, both McCain and Obama pick liberal replacements


Care to back up that assumption? What voting history or statements leads you to believe McCain will put up liberals? "Oh to appease the democrats" Please...so out of a misguided paranoia, you'd vote for Joe Anonymous and hand Obama the keys to the kingdom? It took Samaritan to stop and help the man alongside the road when the pharisees passed him by...

Good for you, I'm not.....Well, by looking in the mirror and being able to say "Hey, I didn't whore myself out to the best choice out of crap and crappier."


No apparently you want Obama to be President...yes, when after 4 years of Obama and 6 million more unborn babies slaughered, you can look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back and say quitely to yourself "Well done, thou good and faithful conservative"...Brilliant....

Last I checked, I am allowed to vote as I please


Yes you are...even morons get to vote...

Geez, you McCainnites are as bad as the Paulians!


...I have said that I am not pro-McCain, just a pragmatist who is able to see reality and know that my candidate of choice didn't make the cut. I am ok with that and won't be stomping up and down like a 3 year old who didn't get their way. I still realize that one or two issues I disagree with McCain on is not worth 4 years or more of Obamanation.

When your candidate of choice receives a fraction of the vote that could have gone towards defeating Obama, well, I hope you rejoice in your steadfast resolve to go down with the ship....
Now who's throwing a tantrum and swearing revenge? How about if you just do what we're doing: vote for the person you think best -- not "least terrible" -- to run the country? The lesser of two evils is still evil, you know.

Posted by CavalierX
May 23, 2008 3:06 PM

I have already said that I don't think McCain is a great conservative. And yes, I am voting for the "least terrible" choice, b/c national security and the fight in Iraq are paramount in my view. Hell, even cutting spending and making the tax cut permanent are more important than illegal immigration (which is important, but not the overall cataclysm you claim it to be).

As to my tantrum, it'll simply be revenge for the bullshit you will try to pull in 2008. Don't act like a shithead now and then get pissed when I do the same down the road.
p.s.: The biggest points in Obama's favor for me is that he's steady under pressure, and that he honestly seems to want to talk about the real problems instead of the usual hot button side issues.


Obama? Steady under pressure? You are kidding, aren't you? This guy can't handle being off a teleprompter, and all I see him wanting to discuss is race, which is neither a real problem nor a hot-button issue.

What is he going to do when the real problems need to be discussed, like overtaxation and the illegal growth of government? He's dead meat on both of those, and more.

This guy's as big a joke as Carter, Gore and Kerry. Nothing but a socialist fool in a suit.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Now factor in Obama wanting to raise $800 billion in additional taxes to pay toward world poverty or some other rainbow task, yeah, that is just what we need.


The irony, of course, is that cutting taxes significantly would bring in that additional revenue. Leave it to a liberal to screw up basic economics.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
How on Earth is John McCain liberal exactly?


Umm ... Why do I feel like we're arguing with a 7-year old?

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Umm ... Why do I feel like we're arguing with a 7-year old?


Typical. Can't or won't answer the question so dodges it with a belittling attack. Are you sure you're not a liberal?
I'm condescending? Who are the ones acting all righteous when the reality is that Obama, the actual liberal is heading strong into completing the liberal takeover of America? How on Earth is John McCain liberal exactly?


OK. Fine. Here we go. It simply doesn't matter. McCain/Hitlery/Obama, no matter which one gets in, will complete the liberal takeover of America, period. Our only hope is a brokered convention or a conservative party coming along out of nowhere to take over the whole thing. Since it doesn't seem America has the guts to say no to the Republicans or Democrats, we will not have a conservative in the White House until at least 2013. Nothing new, really. We haven't had one since 1989 anyway.

For you to sit there with a straight face and ask what makes McCain liberal has mo completely flummoxed. Can you really be seriously asking that? Three huge and easy bills, known as McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, and one of the most liberal illegal bills ever passed into law, McCain-Feingold come to mind immediately. Add to this his lies about allegedly supporting the Second Amendment when he supported banning "certain assault weapons", and I think the case is basically made - game, set, match, at least on the issue of whether McCain is "liberal" which he is.

Care to back up that assumption? What voting history or statements leads you to believe McCain will put up liberals?


Gang of 14. Nuff said.

No apparently you want Obama to be President...yes, when after 4 years of Obama and 6 million more unborn babies slaughered, you can look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back and say quitely to yourself "Well done, thou good and faithful conservative"...Brilliant....


Not the point. The point is that John McCain is far enough to the left to disqualify him from getting my vote. I've provided more than ample support for this in this comment alone. I voted along your line of reasoning at least twice in my life, and saw no good come of it. My vote is earned through a commitment to Constitutional government. On that point, McCain's as bad as the other two, and I do NOT trust him to appoint the proper judges. On the point of the war, I see him as a continuation of W's "sitting duck" policy instead of what we should be doing, which is enforcing the Bush Doctrine (bringing the fight to the terrorists).

I do not begrudge you your decision to vote for this loser. Please get off our backs. We are, after all, trying to get a conservative elected. Voting for McCain doesn't achieve that. In my opinion, you would be doing much more for America by spreading the word of conservatism instead of supporting one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. If more of your kind would have the courage to join us, we just might be able to beat back the liberal onslaught that is McCain/Hitlery/Obama.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Can't or won't answer the question so dodges it with a belittling attack.


Um .. you did a fine enough job of belittling yourself by demanding an explanation as to how John McCain is liberal. If you don't know why John McCain is a liberal, then any attempt to reason with you will have the same result as arguing with a 7-year old.

Frustration.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
And yes, I am voting for the "least terrible" choice, b/c national security and the fight in Iraq are paramount in my view.


How do you reconcile the former with McCain's border policy? How secure can we be without a damn border? As for Iraq... I seriously doubt that will be much of an issue two years from now, the earliest that even the most eager Liberal could possibly begin withdrawing troops. And as I have said before, I will not sacrifice America's future to stay in Iraq. I will not "honor" those troops by enabling the destruction of their homeland.
Hell, even cutting spending and making the tax cut permanent are more important than illegal immigration (which is important, but not the overall cataclysm you claim it to be).


You don't think increasing our population by a quarter with an influx of unassimilated, uneducated, unemployed, disease-ridden foreigners with their hands out for "free" government goodies isn't a cataclysm? Our country will be unrecognisable in a decade, if McCain takes power. I'm not voting for that. There is nothing more important than stopping the McAmnesty.
stomping up and down like a 3 year old who didn't get their way


That's a damned good description of these Republican loyalists when we say we're not voting for their Liberal candidate. Hey, if we Conservatives are so few and so powerless, why do you care if we won't vote for your Democrat in disguise? You've got all your "moderate" pals to vote for you now. We don't count, so stop bothering us.
after 4 years of Obama and 6 million more unborn babies slaughered


Ahh, but you forget:

"I'd love to see a point where it [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
- John McCain
This guy can't handle being off a teleprompter, and all I see him wanting to discuss is race, which is neither a real problem nor a hot-button issue.

I started out as a real skeptic about Obama. Those rallies with the college girls fainting (when they weren't screaming "Hope!" and "Change!") didn't exactly fill me with confidence. But after listening to him in the Ohio debate, I concluded that he is conversant with the details. I realize that people on this website don't like his details, but he does know them.

Race isn't even close to being his only topic. It's not a hot button issue to me, either. But I think he's handled himself well with respect to Rev. Wright. Maybe now that McCain has his own ministerial problems, the light bulb will go off in some brains and more people will decide that preachers 'n politics don't mix.

What is he going to do when the real problems need to be discussed, like overtaxation and the illegal growth of government? He's dead meat on both of those, and more.

Those are YOUR "real problems." For most other people, the real problems are quite different. I think the rich are undertaxed, and I want to see the government do less war and more at home. But then, I'm a Democrat and you are not.

This guy's as big a joke as Carter, Gore and Kerry.

I hope not. The biggest risk I see is that he'll be like Carter: too aloof, arrogant, and independent. It's a balancing act. How "independent" to be in Washington, which pretty much demands compromise if you want to get anything done.

I don't worry as much on the Gore and Kerry fronts. Obama seems to be have a better sense of who he is, so I'd be surprised if he lets political consultants do wholesale personality makeovers like Gore did in 2000. And I don't think he'll respond to political attacks by going windsurfing, like Kerry did.

Nothing but a socialist fool in a suit.

Yes, I see what you mean. Turn Obama loose, and we might have a government-paid prescription drug program that forbids the government from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies. Oh, you mean the Republicans rammed that one through? Wow.
unemployed, disease-ridden foreigners

Posted by CavalierX
May 24, 2008 12:16 AM

Wow, I never thought that I'd read such blatant racism, even from you. I get pissed about illegal immigration because they're...um...illegal? Not b/c they're "foreigners." I love hard working immigrants that come here and play by the rules. They bring new life blood to our society and help keep us vibrant. We need to streamline the legal process so there is incentive to play by the rules. We need to ensure that businesses pay true wages so that not only immigrants, but citizens as well, won't look at it as a "job they wouldn't do" - that's just code for low wage paying. I'd shovel shit for the right price.

Illegal immigrants bring down wages, sap educational resources by denying spots to those who do things the right way, and hurt health care by taking w/o being able to pay. But to call them -

"unemployed"...if they were unemployed, they would self-deport to find work. Geez, at least try on this one, okay?

"disease ridden"...wow...just wow...this is one of the most racist arguments I have ever heard. How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion? You are spewing hatred here with no facts to back it up, just your emotional response. It's one thing to oppose illegal immigration based on facts and reason, but to shoot forth such vitriol is worthy of the way Kos treats things.

Did you remember to wash your cloak after the cross burnings this week?
I get pissed about illegal immigration because they're...um...illegal? Not b/c they're "foreigners."


Apparently you're just too stupid to recognise that an influx of tens of millions of people from a different culture would irrevocably change our own.

I love hard working immigrants that come here and play by the rules.


So do I. But we can't handle increasing our population by a quarter all at once.

Illegal immigrants bring down wages, sap educational resources by denying spots to those who do things the right way, and hurt health care by taking w/o being able to pay.


And they should not be rewarded with citizenship for that.

But to call them -

"unemployed"...if they were unemployed, they would self-deport to find work. Geez, at least try on this one, okay?


I wish you would work on that reading comprehension thing. I was talking not about the 12-20 million illegals currently in this country, but the wave of 40 to 60 million relatives that would swarm into this country once those illegals are granted legal status.

"disease ridden"...wow...just wow...this is one of the most racist arguments I have ever heard.


Try paying just a little attention to where most immigrant will be coming from, would you? Back-country towns where diseases we thought eradicated run rampant. Yes, disease-ridden is precisely the word. How is it racist to point out the fact that most of these people will be suffering from diseases? Do germs have a "race" now? And you want to bring in tens of millions of them to overflow our hospitals, calling anyone who notices a racist.

You are spewing hatred here with no facts to back it up, just your emotional response.


Nice use of projection, just like a Liberal now. I notice that die-hard Republican apparatchiks become almost indistinguishable from Liberals when challenged. Do facts really scare you that much?

Did you remember to wash your cloak after the cross burnings this week?


And with that, you've dug your own grave as far as intelligent debate goes, asshole.
Posted by RtWingNtCase
May 24, 2008 4:04 AM |
You talk of vengence and make false accusations of racism. Do your liberal self a favor and join the Dems.
I don't know if you have talked anyone out of voting your way on McCain, but you sure have talked me out voting your way on Repubs. They don't get my vote until they assure me they are conservatives, not party hacks like you. Good luck losing all those senate and house seats.
But I think he's handled himself well with respect to Rev. Wright.


I don't.

Those are YOUR "real problems." For most other people, the real problems are quite different. I think the rich are undertaxed, and I want to see the government do less war and more at home. But then, I'm a Democrat and you are not.


Those are AMERICA'S real problems. The fact that you don't see that is a tribute to your own foolishness.

Your comment about the rich being overtaxed is the perfect example. Everyone in America, the rich included, should be taxed at the absolute minimum possible. Since receipts are more a function of GDP than anything else (19.5% of GDP no matter what tax structure you have), focus should be on getting the rich to spend as much as possible in the economy (to which taxation is ALWAYS a detriment) instead of trying to find ways to confiscate their assets in an effort to punish them for their success. This is nothing but the very "class envy" the Democrats tried to accuse Republicans of in the 90s.

What kind of country are we when we have so many ways to discourage people from becoming wealthy, and so many people looking for more?

As for war, at least it's legal for the US government to engage in it. I also believe that had the war been fought with winning it in mind, it would be long over by now, or at least already moved to its inevitable next phase. Yet our liberal Republican president, too busy trying to be "a uniter, not a divider" to fight like we're at war, has chosen to sit around and take it on the chin in Iraq from a bunch of non-Iraqis who couldn't care less about the fate of that country. Go get the terrorists is his policy, but he doesn't follow it because he's too busy futilely trying to make you leftist nutjobs happy, and that's done nothing but extend the war much further into the future than it needs to be.

I hope not. The biggest risk I see is that he'll be like Carter: too aloof, arrogant, and independent.


There's overwhelming evidence that he is. Have you taken the "Who said it?" quiz (Obama or Carterr)? Carter was anything but independent, and Obama is the same. Dependent on a socialist philosophy that's done no good in the world and can easily be said to have done much in the way of harm.

Luckily much of that harm is repairable (sp?), and many of those nations that subscribed to it are beginning to dismantle it. Strange that countries are finally following our capitalist lead just as we are bringing on more of their own failed policies, isn't it?

Yes, I see what you mean. Turn Obama loose, and we might have a government-paid prescription drug program that forbids the government from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies. Oh, you mean the Republicans rammed that one through? Wow.


So what's your point? Republicans suck on that issue just like the Democrats. Can you find even one instance where I ever suggested that a stupid policy like that one was a good idea? NO. I wonder why that is...

Socialism fails every time it's tried. Your example is just another reason to suggest that McCain and Obama really aren't all that different. Heck, it's plenty of reason to suggest that Republicans in general aren't all that different from the Democrats, especially President Bush, who's been quite the RINO these last four years. This is a big part of the reason I've been giving serious consideration to other political parties, and have even drawn up a conservative party platform of my own.

It's about time liberals began to recognize just how much the two parties have in common. It's ridiculous how Democrats accuse Republicans of "right wing extremism" when they're arguing largely the same point. The only thing being taken to extreme is liberal foolishness.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
We need to ensure that businesses pay true wages so that not only immigrants, but citizens as well, won't look at it as a "job they wouldn't do" - that's just code for low wage paying.


It's actually a code word for modern-day slavery.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Apparently you're just too stupid to recognise that an influx of tens of millions of people from a different culture would irrevocably change our own.


This argument is all too common in Ku Klux Klan literature. I'm all for bringing people in to assimilate into our culture, as long as that's what they want to do. As for the influence of their former culture, I welcome that as well. I do still eat schnitzel, spaetzel, and sauerbraten quite often, and people love the cultural aspects of having me cook for them (which I only do for fun).

Still, with the most recent of my ancestors coming over a mere 117 years ago (1891) and with relatives from the Old Country frequently in my presence, I'm still quite the America lover, and so was my great grandfather, who was born in the disputed territories. I take a pretty big exception to the idea that these people, just by being here are going to inalterably change our culture for the worse. The problem is that they are disrespecting our very legitimate laws and exploiting many of our illegitimate ones. This is the true essence of the problem.

But we can't handle increasing our population by a quarter all at once.


Actually, if these people were real participants in the economy, we could handle that and more. Not only that, but given this condition they would be able to conrtribute to the incredible growth of our country and return it to economic superpower status.

Yes, disease-ridden is precisely the word. How is it racist to point out the fact that most of these people will be suffering from diseases? Do germs have a "race" now? And you want to bring in tens of millions of them to overflow our hospitals, calling anyone who notices a racist.


Sadly, given the conditions these people choose to live in once they get here, "disease-ridden" is about as accurate as you can get. However, forcing them to obey the laws in coming here and having mandatory health checks necessary for work visas (and enforcing the law with deportation) would go a long way in keeping this to a minimum, while still providing those who wish to come here and assimilate the opportunity to do so.

As far as it being racist to be concerned about illegal aliens (they are not immigrants) crossing our borders, I cannot disagree more. However, making blanket assumptions about non-citizens in our country (including unnaturalized inmmigrants) is, though not racist, definitely wrong. My grandfather must have dealt with some interesting crap being the son of German immigrants during WWII, though I wouldn't know for sure. There were very good reasons to be leery of Germans back then that had nothing to do with race, but rather with what was going on in Germany at the time. The same goes for many of the countries that today are suppying us with illegal aliens, especially Mexico. The evils of socialism are so obvious there that many try to come here where there's less of it in the hopes of making ends meet somehow. I don't blame them for wanting to be here. I just insist that they obey our laws in doing so.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
If only you silly neocons would fight the socialists instead of the Muslims, America would again be strong.
If only you silly neocons would fight the socialists instead of the Muslims, America would again be strong.


Both need to be fought. Terrorists for the short term, and socialists for the long.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
"I'd love to see a point where it [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
- John McCain


Ahh yes, a nearly 10 years old quote and sicne then McCain has made many many more that are solid pro-life stances....so, which is correct? This old quote which does not necessarily reflect his current views or all the myriad of pro-life supporting quotes and VOTES....

* Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)
* GovWatch: 1999: Don't force women to have illegal operations. (Feb 2008)
* Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are. (Aug 2007)
* Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
* Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
* Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
* “Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
* Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
* Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)
* Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
* Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion. (Oct 1999)
* Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
* Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing. (Aug 1999)
* Nominate justices based on experience, and values. (Jun 1999)
* Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
* Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
* Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)


http://ontheissues.org/2008/Jo..._McCain_Abortion.htm
Thanks for distorting the argument, CavX. No one said that those who oppose illegal immigration are racist (at least I didn't). I, for one, oppose illegal immigration. But to call people "disease ridden foreigners" is indeed racist. I'm sorry you can't handle that, but that doesn't make it less true.

How about opposing them on the legality bit? Or would you oppose ALL immigration since many of them would be coming from the same "disease ridden" areas? As I recall, the first settlers to the new world were "disease ridden" - small pox, cholera, diptheria, etc. There's no comparison between then and now, except they were white and now they're not.

Immigrants who assimilate nad add their own spice help our culture. You can't just sit in your basement reading Outdoor Hunter and pray nothing changes. Is there anything in your families background you would give up? I don't agree with RWR on this, but he brings up the right point - he still enjoys "old country" stuff while being fully American. It can happen.

And TomJW - I vote Republican b/c I actually give a shit about America, and I work from within the party to change it. Screaming at McCain, AFTER he has already won the nomination, will do nothing. You are now invested in defeat, like the dems in Iraq, b/c if he wins, despite all the screeching, you lose all voice you ever had. And that's your TRUE nightmare.
indicating a mixed record on abortion.

My, what a glowing endorsement.
My, what a glowing endorsement.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
May 24, 2008 2:48 PM |


Might want to read his full record on abortion: http://ontheissues.org/2008/Jo..._McCain_Abortion.htm

The mixed rating no doubt probably comes from his concession for allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest and expanding embryonic stem cell research.

I'm not going to squabble over that. The issue is to get the SC justices to repeal Roe vs Wade which is McCain's most recent stance and has been for a long time. Then let State Law govern the legality of abortion for hardship cases.


As for the "Gang of 14":

The Gang of 14 was a term coined to describe the bipartisan group of moderate Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called nuclear option (or constitutional option) over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats. The Democrats had been using the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by President George W. Bush. The gang consisted of seven Republicans and seven Democrats led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and John McCain (R-Arizona). The informal group became active again in July 2005, attempting to advise Bush on the choice of a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On November 3, 2005, the group met to discuss the nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court, but came to no conclusions, noting that the hearing process had only just begun in his case. On January 30, 2006, the members of the group unanimously supported a cloture vote in the Alito nomination, providing more than enough votes to prevent a filibuster.

[...]

Although strongly criticized by both Democratic and Republican partisans at the time, the compromise was successful in precluding further judicial filibusters or the use of the nuclear option during the rest of the 109th Congress. As noted before, the Gang of 14 deal was instrumental in permitting Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito an up-or-down vote, as his vote for confirmation (58 for to 42 against) would not have been adequate to overcome a party-line filibuster (i.e. did not equal or exceed 60 votes).


So I fail to see how the Gang of 14 can be used as an argument against McCain. As this group helped in establishing solid SC judges...
Might want to read his full record on abortion


I got his record right here:

"I'd love to see a point where it [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
- John McCain
I vote Republican b/c I actually give a shit about America


Meaning those who don't vote Republican don't care about America. My God, how fast these fake Conservative Party apparatchiks start sounding just like Liberals when you tell them you're not going to tow the Party line anymore.
Posted by CavalierX
May 24, 2008 6:18 PM


Oops; tow = toe.
But to call people "disease ridden foreigners" is indeed racist.


So the truth is racist? You really do sound like a Liberal.
How about opposing them on the legality bit? Or would you oppose ALL immigration since many of them would be coming from the same "disease ridden" areas?


Here's http://www.vdare.com/francis/hospitality.htm">just one article which mentions the infectious diseases -- including leprosy, for crying out loud -- brought to this country by illegal immigrants, and the burden these disease-ridden criminals place on our health care system. Now, an intelligent person might ask, "where did they contract those diseases?" Since I don't expect you to ask, I'll do it for you. Well, the answer is: back home, the place from which an illegal will be able to bring his entire family once he gets his McAmnesty. That health care burden I mentioned? Multiply it by at least a factor of three. Now tell me again how McAmnesty isn't going to be a big problem for this country. And that's just in the health care industry.
Or would you oppose ALL immigration


Oh, yeah; I forgot to address this mischaracterisation of my position. Immigration is terrific, as long as it's done according to the law. I oppose rewarding illegals for their blatant disregard of our laws, and I oppose giving them the ability to flood our country with a wave of unassimilated, uneducated, unskilled, disease-ridden foreigners seeking government handouts, which would cause a drastic change in our culture and destroy our economy.
The issue is to get the SC justices to repeal Roe vs Wade which is McCain's most recent stance and has been for a long time.

I'm not sure where you get this idea, he's only recently (while trying to get votes) made noises about wanting judges who are more like Alito. The man has made a career out of doing what annoys conservatives (who he speaks of with contempt and dismissal) and conservatism, has done everything he can to reach out to and do what the left wants - without ever bringing them over to our side - and would only appoint judges the newspapers and Democrats would like. You liked Sandra Day O'Connor, did you? That's Senator McCain's style of judicial appointment. If you somehow are deluded into thinking that will get Roe v Wade out of the system and abortion back at the state level, you're unreachable.
Please think of your choice, Mr. Hawkins. Would you honestly prefer Obama and all the damage he would do to America and our Constitution, including the lasting damage he would inflict by his appointment of far left, socialist judges? Yes, immigration is an incredibly important issue, but it is not the only issue nor the all defining issue as you are suggesting. And Obama would cerainly be worse for immigration also, as you well know.
I feel Obama is the most dangerous threat to our republic that we have faced in my entire generation (I am 54, and he will happily destroy America, our capitalist society, our Constitutional freedoms, our family structures, our economy and our environment - as well as our borders. Please re-think your position, Mr. Hawkins, and realize that although your emotional response to McCain and his pending immigration policy may be satisfying, it is still, even yet, not the threat to our lives that Obama poses.
Please think of your choice, Mr. Hawkins. Would you honestly prefer Obama and all the damage he would do to America and our Constitution, including the lasting damage he would inflict by his appointment of far left, socialist judges? Yes, immigration is an incredibly important issue, but it is not the only issue nor the all defining issue as you are suggesting. And Obama would certainly be worse for immigration also, as you well know.
I feel Obama is the most dangerous threat to our republic that we have faced in my entire generation (I am 54), and he will happily destroy America, our capitalist society, our Constitutional freedoms, our family structures, our economy and our environment - as well as our borders.
Please re-think your position, Mr. Hawkins, and realize that although your emotional response to McCain and his pending immigration policy may be satisfying, it is still, even yet, not the threat to our lives that Obama poses. Plus, I feel our conservative movement will rebuild even more strongly, under a McCain presidency, without having to undergo the enormous damage that would inevitably be disastrously inflicted under a socialist Obama presidency.
And I do say these things while still adamantly opposed to illegal immigration, as fervently as anyone posting here.
But I also believe we can all still work to better America much more easily AND effectively under a President John McCain than we ever could under a President Barack Hussein Obama.
Good grief. What a choice.
Think about it.
Would you honestly prefer Obama and all the damage he would do to America and our Constitution, including the lasting damage he would inflict by his appointment of far left, socialist judges?


As opposed to McCain doing the exact same things as well as destroying the Republican party into the bargain? At least under a Democrat there's a chance the Republicans in Congress will stick together and fight the worst of it, whereas most of them would back McCain.
But to call people "disease ridden foreigners" is indeed racist.


Since when is "illegal alien" a "race"?

As I recall, the first settlers to the new world were "disease ridden" - small pox, cholera, diptheria, etc. There's no comparison between then and now, except they were white and now they're not.


No comparison, except for the very obvious fact that there was no cure for those diseases when America was first settled.
That sounds simplistic and naive, CavalierX. Again, I do not want the left to win, and it's insulting that you write as though you're talking to hogground.
But can you seriously argue that Obama would make better choices for America than McCain? Plus Obama will have a Democrat Congress backing him.
And like it or not, one of those two IS going to be our next president.
Yes, it sucks either way, but I'd rather not fiddle and stand on "feel good principles", just so I can say "I told you so" while America is destroyed.
Since when is "illegal alien" a "race"?


Maybe it's only the ones carrying communicable diseases that form their own "race," which would make my objection to them "racist." It's hard to tell.
Again, I do not want the left to win


Then you really shouldn't vote for McCain.

But can you seriously argue that Obama would make better choices for America than McCain? Plus Obama will have a Democrat Congress backing him.


Since Obama, Hillary and McCain would push basically the same domestic agenda, they'd all get the Democrats to back them. That was never in question. However, only McCain would be able to get Republican support very easily, making one of the the other two the logical strategic choice if your aim -- like mine -- is to slow down the Liberals over the next four years.
That "slim chance" idea sounds simplistic and naive, CavalierX. Again, I do not want the left to win, and it's insulting that you write as though you're talking to hogground.
But can you seriously argue that Obama would make BETTER choices for America than McCain? Plus Obama will have a Democrat Congress backing him.
And like it or not, one of those two IS going to be our next president, and it's inane to pretend otherwise.
Yes, it sucks either way, but I'd rather not fiddle and stand on "feel good principles", just so I can say "I told you so" while America is destroyed.
And McCain will NOT destroy our republic in his single term.
He is not an apostate left wing socialist muslim with an innate resentment and hatred of America.
I prefer being realistic about this election. I won't rely on slim chances and slim hopes. But again, you do as you wish. Just realize that you do only have two bottom line choices, once you get past all the other words masquerading as choices. And only one of them is honestly intelligent.
Posted by rrobin
May 25, 2008 1:23 PM


Please don't spam. Copying and pasting the same comment across multiple threads is not only obnoxious, but shows you can't actually come up with an argument to make.
As I've been forced to state elsewhere, I'm NOT spamming. I've been forced to comment in multiple places, simply because I've had to chase YOU around. I won't bother any further. Again, I frankly find your opinions meaningless and you're not worth it.
Posted by B_Hussein_Obama
May 25, 2008 11:47 AM |

Categorizing foreigners as "disease ridden" as a broad characterization is indeed racist. Just as it would be to characterize foreigners as "dumb and unsophisticated" or "prostitutes who look to look to dilute our gene pool."

Stick to the FACTS on the argument, not emotional bullshit about immigration. We have the majority of the American people with us when we press the legality bit, couple with the drain on resources. When we cross the line, as CavalierX has done, we lose people. What good is your argument then, when you can't get anything enacted?


Again, I do not want the left to win

Then you really shouldn't vote for McCain.

But can you seriously argue that Obama would make better choices for America than McCain? Plus Obama will have a Democrat Congress backing him.

Since Obama, Hillary and McCain would push basically the same domestic agenda, they'd all get the Democrats to back them. That was never in question. However, only McCain would be able to get Republican support very easily, making one of the the other two the logical strategic choice if your aim -- like mine -- is to slow down the Liberals over the next four years.

Posted by CavalierX
May 25, 2008 1:05 PM |


I used to think I was a far right wing individual...you sir have redefined right wing. By your obstinate view that McCain is somehow just a liberal in disguise is frankly just disturbing. I do not know who could possibly live up to your idea of "conservative". I understand that McCain is a moderate but he is still to the right and right now is the only realistic person to the right that has a shot. I am no longer worried about individuals like you because I have come to the realization that you're just about as constructive and adding to the debate as a Daily Kos kid is on the left: a fringe, a radical, and not a factor.

Amen JimC!
I'm glad to see another reasonable, intelligent, pragmatic conservative posting on this site. Maybe we can even get back to a worthwhile discussion. And there's not a single true American that actually wants "comprehensive immigration reform", at least not without the usual Democrat ulterior motives, etc., etc. We simply MUST have border security to remain a viable country - but we will have ZERO border security with Obama as president. (And I've just a big lesson in border security, having to spend the last hour repairing my dogs pen - which they have just today breached after 2 years of working at it. And don't worry, I do let them out regularly for plenty of exercise and freedom.)
I have come to the realization that you're just about as constructive and adding to the debate as a Daily Kos kid is on the left: a fringe, a radical, and not a factor.


If we're so few, so irrelevant, and so far from the mainstream... then why are you Republican Kool-Aid drinkers following us around demanding that we give you and your "moderate" candidate our votes? Why don't you party apparatchiks leave us alone and go hang out with your "moderate" pals? We certainly don't want to listen to your whining and demanding any more. Go away and leave us in peace, if we're so "not a factor."
We simply MUST have border security to remain a viable country - but we will have ZERO border security with Obama as president.


"We simply MUST have border security to remain a viable country - but we will have ZERO border security with McCain as president."

There -- fixed that for ya. Honestly, I don;t think you people ever even heard of John McCain before a few months ago, the way you talk about how wonderfully Conservative he is.
I won't waste any more time responding to you. I'm actually probably more conservative than you, but I'm also far too pragmatic to throw away my vote on a write in candidate, just so I can say "I upheld conservative principles" when in fact, you'll simply be empowering a REAL socialist danger and will thus have helped to destroy conservativism. John McCain is far from my first choice, but if you honestly think what you have written today, and think that there's no difference between him and Obama, then you're simply a grandstanding moron, and not an honest conservative anyway. You might as well take your toys and go home. I certainly won't take your puerile views seriously any longer...
Categorizing foreigners as "disease ridden" as a broad characterization is indeed racist. Just as it would be to characterize foreigners as "dumb and unsophisticated" or "prostitutes who look to look to dilute our gene pool."


Whoever you are, you need to brush up on your basic English.

Immigrants, foreigners, and illegal aliens are not, and never have been, a "race".

Stick to the FACTS on the argument, not emotional bullshit about immigration.


Yes, you should definitely stick to the FACTS of the argument, rather than appealing to emotion by calling anyone who even slightly disagrees with you a "racist".

Incidentally, I find it amusing that you accuse me and Cav of not sticking to the facts, despite the FACT that Cav has already posted a link supporting his claim that illegal aliens are http://www.vdare.com/francis/hospitality.htm">"disease ridden".
I won't waste any more time responding to you.


He said, while wasting time responding to him.

I'm actually probably more conservative than you


Would you like to compare penis sizes next or are you through with this adolescent posturing?

You might as well take your toys and go home. I certainly won't take your puerile views seriously any longer...


Did anybody else LOL at the irony of these two sentences?
Posted by B_Hussein_Obama
May 25, 2008 6:43 PM


I just wish he would stop spamming the comments, showing off his mastery of "cut and paste."
You must register, be approved and log in to post comments.

ad banner for Justice Sotomayor
© Copyright 2001-2009 John Hawkins
eXTReMe Tracker