Redstate

So in your world Pro, If someone doesn't agree with you on every single issue they shouldn't be here?

How tolerant of you...Those of you who are left can have fun patting each other on the back and telling you how great you all are.

Have fun in your big tent eating with your pals...Party of one?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

The tent to right is great. The tent in the middle is great. The tent on the left is bad. The tent full of conservatives not voting becouse McCain is only 86% upto their standards is the worst. I pray you will see the light. I truly feel you are either completly misguided or a Lib in sheeps clothing.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Ban yourself.

So I should leave and not participate in Red State debates or participate in your party any more because you say so? Or is it that you can't stand decent.

Are your arguments so week that they can not stand up to those who disagree so they should leave?

I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to you but you should step back and take a look at yourself!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

has gotten old. Yes, by all means leave. You prattle somewhere about discussion and debate, but you do neither; you pontificate and then you whine about how nobody loves you and everyone wants you to leave when people take issue with your pontifications. So, leave.

In Vino Veritas

Thanks Art. Great comment & I love ya for it. In a manly sort of way of course.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

you'll never get a kiss on the lips from me

HA!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

You could take your own advice or just don't read my posts if you don't like them.

For the record, I could care less if you love me...I could care less if I never heard from you again if you're not interested in being constructive or trying to make reasoned and rational arguments for your positions instead of inviting me to the door.

I'm not going anywhere so you might as well get used to it.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I'm not going anywhere so you might as well get used to it.

You've apparently mistaken a one-time act of generosity for a free lifetime pass. You're on notice that it would be a mistake to continue under this assumption.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

I was trying to have a rational discussion here and Adam decided to come in with a snipe.

If you don't want me here than by all means Ban me but know that you are being one sided in this because there is a whole group of you who hurl insults continuously and then you start threatening when you are called on it.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Adam is a moderator. Complaints about him go to the Contact Form. And you certainly should not expect that the same rules apply to him, that apply to you, ace.

Besides, Life's Not Fair™. Adam's earned a great deal of respect around here for a long history of analytical posting. You haven't.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You have a mission if you wish to remain at Red State: You must prove to the satisfaction of the moderators that you are making good faith attempts to get along with your fellow posters, and engage with the site community.

Jeff and Leon have already given you this hint, but I'm just reinforcing it. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why you should be here, to a group of people inclined to see life without you at Red State.

So instead of stomping your foot like my kindergarten nephew, try this: Don't be so mind-bogglingly stupid as to start alienating one respected poster after another, if you wish to remain here.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

but I don't respond well to being called stupid. I don't know which of you are moderators and I could care less but Neil, you are one of the ones I'm talking about...Read your posts to me over the last several months ad tell me you haven't been at least as insulting and provocative as me. Once again, if you want discussions between a bunch of yes men...BAN Me but don't threaten me because I'm defending myself!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

1. Don't defend the indefensable.
2. Respect authority.
3. When you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging.

You're not doing any of the above.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

People with the ability to ban include me, Erick, Ben Domenech, Jeff Emanuel, Thomas, Moe Lane, Leon Wolf, Adam C, streiff, and Robert Hahn. There may be more mods but those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Rule of thumb: If you see someone posting on the front page, either a) that person is a mod or b) that person has a big in with the mods.

If you haven't been around long enough to have an idea of who the front page posters are, then you should consider shutting your fool mouth until you've been around long enough to know how the place works. Lurking Before Posting is a long-established rule of Internet etiquette.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

This is you trying to be constructive. I can't wait to see you trying to be divisive and unconstructive. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not booting you but that's because I have a high standard for such a thing.

I still don't get why you are coming to an R site for the singular purpose of a fighting a Republican. It seems dumb and fruitless and it is hurting our community and wasting your time.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

you've given graphic evidence here that your ignorance is exceeded only by your lack of self-awareness. I don't care whether you go or stay or live or die, but stop whining when people aren't nice to you.

In Vino Veritas

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

1. It's easy to piss me off and generally nothing bad comes of it.
2. It's moderately hard to piss off a moderator, but sometimes, because they have to read everything and also have lives to attend to, they can get "out of sorts" and take out on a poster.
3. It' virtually impossible to piss off MULTIPLE moderators in the same thread. You've accomplished a real feat. (Or in Leon's case "feet".)
4. I don't think I've ever seen anybody piss off Art. You've gone over the line to have struck the mellow fellow in that way.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You know, the signal:noise ratio in your comments is so low that it's barely non-existent. I've read probably hundreds of your comments, and not once have I ever thought, "You know, ace has a point." Just for a frame of reference, I think Duncan Black occasionally has a point.

The value-added you bring to this site is zero, ace. I have hairs on the top of my foot with more intellectual firepower than you bring to the table, and they're capable of spelling basic English words better, too. And as if all this were not enough, you aren't content to be stupid and pleasant like our long-departed friend OhSure generally was; you insist upon being stupid and confrontational.

In light of that, you have officially used all nine of your lives on this site. It would be in your best interest to make sure that I'm not forced to notice any of your comments in the future, because the next time your account gets turned off, it's for keeps. EOL.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

The ability to be meld an insult into clever analogies, I'm starting to think you stole this from - okay maybe it wasn't that skillful, but it sure was a good effort.

And, for the record, I don't hold a candle to you Leon.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

to Leon, I do think you think you're more skilled at the insults.

And photographic evidence should not be required. Some things we should be more than willing to accept at face value.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I've seen loads of guys with hairs on the top of their feet, so you guys aren't going to make me feel like a freak that easily.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

the last thing most of us would want to do is make you feel anything. And frankly, if you're gonna start posting about feelings those posts should go here.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Nothing wrong with that. It just means you have more testorone than guys with girly feet unless you descended from Hobitts then that's a whole other story.

I'll bet over half the guys here have hairs on the top of their feet, Jeff. And if not, I'm content with being exceptionally hairy. I just wish more of it stayed on my head.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

The hair on your head falls out at an increasingly rapid rate only to be replaced by new and aggressive growth in your nose, ears and on your back and your butt.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

done without that visual.
Just sayin' cuz you know it knocks you off of your pedestal when I think of such things.
I always thought you were a child groom and had those boys of yours in jr high. :>)

is occupied by Franz. I'm just the old pedestal cleaner.

I was an old groom and the boys were part of my second childhood. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm trying to dial it down and if you'd read my posts you'd know that

For the Record I never called you stupid or any of the other vile names you're calling me in this post. and I'm not asking anyone to leave.

As far as your threat to ban me forever...be my guest...if this is the kind of debate you wish to have here I'm not sure I want to participate any more anyway

and I note I don't hear you criticizing on an open post all the other drive by insult snipers on your side of the arguement.

and I can spell, I don't type all that well!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Having found myself, more than once, at the point of the spear, there are times when the most appropriate comment is "OK, thanks." IMO, this would be one of those times.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Also, please don't get the idea that I'm interested in your evaluation of my maturity or anything else. The bottom line is that you need to stop pissing other people off, full stop. And if you notice that other people are getting away with more than you are, well, that's because they're justified in doing so because of how incredibly annoying you are. If you can't accept that, then just accept that Life is Not Fair™. Or leave.

By the way, are you never leaving so we'd better get used to it(as you told Achance), or are you leaving because the debate here sucks, as you just told me?

Really, I don't care, I'm just helping you get your whining straight for all others who might care to read it in the future.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

That's fine Leon but can't I fire back when fired on or am I required to kneel before those attacking me out of the blue and kiss their ring?

If that's what this site is for I'm sorry I joined it and by all means...PLEASE BAN ME!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

"If that's what this site is for I'm sorry I joined it and by all means...PLEASE BAN ME!"

This site is for and about Republicanism. You seem to be opposed to that now, so I can see why you are uncomfortable.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

was shown by so many moderators.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

than mods get credit for, especially when the poster is not an open liberal troll.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

I think they may be practicing the opposite of the Hinz Rule. Goad him on to see what he does next. Kindof like tapping on the glass at the zoo.

This is a riot: simpson316, I was pretty worked up...when this was going on and I missed this post...I love it...it's funny, takes me down a notch and the visuals are a riot.

LMAO

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Glad you appreciated it ace.

n/t

So Republicans are required to drink the Kool-aid you are dishing out?

Funny, every time I search for Redstate on the internet I find
Redstate - Conservative News and Commentary. Not Redstate-a division of the Republican National Committee.

Apparently something has changed.

Accept it. Millions of Republicans are not going to support mccain. The party will have to pay for this mistake. It doesn't mean we won't support other worthy Republicans and we will.

I noticed that too, but I didn't want to get involved in this pissing contest. There is a big difference between promoting conservatism and electing Republicans.

There is some ambiguity about the Republican vs. conservative nature, but it is surely not a "conservative site" that is about attacking moderates in the party.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I've tried to dial back the attacks on Moderates Adam but it's almost impossible to do when there are certain people here who slip into a thread, leave a land mine behind insulting someone and then call in all their moderator buddies to lower the boom on him. and you are the biggest culprit. I said I wasn't going to respond to you any more but I'm not sorry I did!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

You manage to attract this attention all on your own, as Leon has told you before.

Cut the crying. You're only a victim of your own bad posting.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

"Dialing it back" consists of a post that says, "OK." and nothing more.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Honestly, your posts that aren't attacking the Republican nominee for President are decent. It's just your obsession with going around and attacking him that is so annoying.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"your posts that aren't attacking the Republican nominee for President are decent."

I do attack McCain a lot....I', trying to change the attacks on him to relying to get his supporters to see what they are doing with the insults. It's not whining it's getting you to understand that

1) There is a problem out here in the country with this nominee.
2)He and His supportrs need to stop attacking those who have a problem with him and try to bring them along. There are some out there who might go along but will never go along because someone's trying to bully them into it.
3)I'm not going to change your mind about whether you will vote for him in November and you likely won't change my mind but the vitriol that comes when the slightest thing negative about McCain is not serving you and him well.

I'm sorry for being so strident and will try to do better. All I ask of you is cool the attacks on my intelligence and try to at least consider what I'm saying.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

What's your point? Are they all coming onto this site and disrupting it?

They are all welcome to focus on issues or electing other Rs to lower offices. But some have focused on attacking Republicans as their main purpose. That's not the point of RedState.

And "the party" won't suffer, Republicans will. We had a fair primary system and McCain won. If people decide they are no longer Republicans, that's their choice. If they decide to call themselves Republicans but spend their time attacking Republicans then they are as close to RINOs as I can think and I really don't like that word.

But after many Rs were attacked by Bush supporters for being impure even though they still supported Rs (see McCain, Snowe, Collins, Smith, Coleman, etc), it is funny to see anti-McCain people see what it is like to be read out of the party because they are even less loyal than those moderates and "impure" conservatives.

Shows who really cares about building a successful party and countering the leftism of the Democrats.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

From the posting rules: "The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals."

And by the way, don't compare the Republican Party with a suicide cult again, Bob, nor make a sweeping insult of those of us who are following the Reagan/Goldwater model of promoting conservatism through the party.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

A suicide cult? At least get your facts right.

I happen to be a reagan conservative. Mr. McCain is not. Does that clarify things?

And you sir are no Reaganite. Get your facts straight. The fact is, you're a whiny crybaby who wouldn't belong at Reagan's feet.

The fact that you would compare Republicans like Ronald Reagan himself with deranged cult followers at Jonestown puts you at the fringe, and anything buot a Reaganite.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You know that is not what I meant. And your attitude is much less than professional.

Is this the professionalism we should expect at Redstate?

Hey Bob, what did you mean? You explicitly compared us with idiotic suicide cult members. I'm not a mind reader. What did you mean to say?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

How about swallowing the company line? That work better?

I have to say the civility of the site has been badly damaged. And appears its not just limited to visitors to the site. I think those that care abour Redstate ought to reconsider the damage such an attitude may cause to Redstate itself. I did not deserve any of the abuse I was subjected to, and I think Redstate should be ashamed that a long term member to the site was treated in this way.

One final tip, Bob: If you're going to stick around but whine like a crybaby about 'abuse,' save us the trouble and go to Daily Kos instead. They like Red State bashing over there.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

B. Fred State.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

We still link to B. Fred State over on the right column.
Think we could get that one removed considering the animosity that he has for RedState.

Did you read Bob's post Neil, This is what I'm complaining about. This is asinine. I came on here to have a calm reasoned debate, and I was doing so, got attacked, replied to an attack, got threatened by at least three moderators and called stupid, intellectually challenged and lectured like I was some child. Bob says something about the lack of civility being thrown around, (I'm guilty for part of it for not keeping my mouth shut)and you're telling Bob to leave now not just me and the original poster.

What do you want here? BTW can you post a list of the moderators at Red State so I know who not to reply to so I won't be threatened or banned any more?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Ace, you haven't been "calm" or "reasoned" since you were a Huckabot. You won't deal with facts, you get your feelings hurt in an instant, and you whine incessantly.

Get a new bloggyhorse, this one's old and tired.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Wow, I can't wait to see what unreasonable looks like. Because your your diary attacking the Republican nominee didn't seem like "reasonable" debate. It seemed like an attack... on a Republican nominee for President.

Why does it surprise you that when you come on a Republican site, attack Republicans, and then play victim that it rubs people the wrong way?

Think for a moment. If you went to Kos, attacked Obama, and then complained when people called you on it, what would happen?

You don't make friends attacking them and their nominee for President.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain ran as part of the Reagan Revolution against the Rockfeller wing. He is most definitely part of that wing. You may be as well, but it's pretty hard to say he isn't.

Reagan and McCain see taxes, judges, immigration, abortion, and most issues the same way. There are some small differences, but they are definitely from the same wing. Of course, most of the Party is from that wing these days (except for Huckabee).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"Reagan and McCain see taxes, judges, immigration, abortion, and most issues the same way. There are some small differences..."

I think Reagan actually liked and respected the First Amendment

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

The kool-aid comment.

promote CONSERVATIVE and Republican ideals."

and am simply contrasting "our" nominee with Conservatism!

I'm sorry you don't like what I'm saying but you could simply ignore me.

What exactly in your definition is "Disrupting the group? disagreeing with you and not following the herd or Trolling the threads looking for everything aceintx has said and threaten him with a lifetime ban?

I've always believed that we are always strengthen in our disagreements because we can point out the inconsistencies in each other's arguments. I learn from you guys and those who listen to me may pick up something useful from me no matter how "Stupid" or "Intellectually" Challenged I am. If you would engage in a discussion with me instead of making threats and calling names you might see a hole or two in your own arguments.

Or are you so infallible that you never have a hole in your arguments?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

"I'm sorry you don't like what I'm saying but you could simply ignore me."

Yup, I could. But I'm trying to help you. If you want to be a helpful member of this Republican community, you can be. You can write about how you are helping Rs. You can focus on House races or Senate races. You can write about issues that need to be addressed. You can do a lot of things.

But if you sole purpose continues to be attacking the Republican nominee for President, then you are not contributing to the community. You are no more a community member than a Kossite who comes here and does the same thing. They would have been banned by now. You are not... yet.

But it's been hard to hold others back. You should stop going down this line and start thinking about how to contribute more and how to whine less.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Man, you've got to take a hint. I actually agree with you to some extent, but making everyone mad at you isn't going to accomplish much.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

and Ace, you're doing a piss poor job of it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Maybe if you had written about disagreements on policies, you wouldn't have burned your credibility so fast. Instead you acted like McCain was a big Souter guy instead of researching about it. You accused the Senator of calling values voters "agents of intolerance" instead of researching it. You went out of your way to attack and tarnish the Republican nominee. That's not "ideas" nor "policy."

And this diary is blatantly an attack on the Republican nominee and an attempt to help the Democratic nominee. If a kossite wrote that, they'd be gone already. Why do you think you should get to have real estate on our site to attack the Republican nominee?

I stand by my description of that diary as "useless drivel" and I repeat that if you spent that amount of time trying to help Republicans, you'd be a valued member at RedState. But you spend all of your time attacking Republicans. That's not acceptable here.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm not opposed to Republicasism Adam!!! I oppose this candidate NOT THE PARTY. If you'd read my posts instead of skimming them looking for something to insult me over you'd know that. I have a problem with the candidate that we've probably picked. I'm trying to explain the reasons and I keep pointing out that if we're going to eventually come together and if you really believe by trolling and doing drive by attacks on everyone you disagree with you will bring them along with you, you couldn't be more wrong!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

John McCain is the leader of the Republican Party. You can't oppose his candidacy and still support the party. It doesn't work that way.

No buts. No exceptions. Play nice or move along elsewhere.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Our Presidential nominees are the top dogs in the party. Always have been. Ever notice how they even control the conventions? That's how the game's played, fair or not, nonsense or not.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Shouldn't we still be looking sensibly at the nominee? Not tearing him down, but examining the situation, finding the weak points and marking them as room for improvement. Doing that doesn't provide any fodder for the left as they would likely get it anyhow. The facts of McCain (policy, background, family, etc.) should come out now (or soon) so that whoever faces him won't be able to pull a late-breaking maneuver.

Erik

But the people who are talking about not voting for him aren't being constructive like that.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

which is why we still have a lot of anti-McCain people here. But if people obsess with attacking the Republican nominee as their raison d'etre that is not acceptable. And ace's diary is a long attack on the Republican nominee. His comments are doubly so.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

And although I perused that blog quickly, noting that while it was an interesting way to make a point it was lopsided. Perhaps rightfully so as how McCain attacks Obama on the debate stage and how it appears to the public could be worrisome.

Erik

M y post was as much a criticism of the MSM and the way they will inevitably gang up on McCain as anything. As for what I have McCain saying in it I used actual quotes and positions he's taken in the past.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

but the last two elections have shown that the Republican party is moving to the left - the location vacated by the earlier Blue Dog Democrats. I can either resist the move or join the crowd and give up any conservative leanings. Seems as though RedState has decided to join in the move - not necessarily a bad thing, it just leaves me out searching for the non-existent party of old. So, yes, I can and will be disgusted with the current Republican nominee, but then you're right, it may not be my party much longer anyway....

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

From whom are you measuring this as a shift left? Save for Reagan, who was special, we've shown a pretty steady shift *right* in our nominees since Eisenhower. McCain is head and shoudlers above Nixon and Ford, and I would say is definitely better than GHW Bush, too.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

has been trying to push conservatives out since Bush I. They have been trying to eliminate the abortion issue for years (from the party plank). They have decided that spending (buying votes) works best. They have thrown out law and order to insure future votes (illegal immigration).

It doesn't take a genius to see that most of the current party movers are rather liberal in their views. You can't pretend to not notice the changes in the last 12 years or so...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

In the 80s, Rs supported amnesty. In the 00s, a not-even-amnesty program was shot down. The FMA and the HLA were not seen as a necessary thing to support to win "conservative" support 10-20 years ago. IIRC, the whole abortion plank controversy was 10-20 years ago, it wasn't in 2004 or 2008. Even Rudy said he wouldn't try to remove it.

The party has slowly but surely pushed out socially moderate northeastern Republicans. It is much more Southern, religious, and socially conservative.

OTOH, it's also much more Big Government, less fiscally conservative, and less vigorous about good government.

I don't see how the "party movers are rather liberal." The party movers are almost all pro-life (that didn't used to be true). Many have bought into the "buy the vote" routine with pork and entitlement expansion, but many of those were hailed as "conservatives" including Delay, Santorum, Allen, and Bush while those fighting such efforts (McCain) were trashed.

I can't say there is a clear movement left. It's mixed at best and very clearly a move to the right on social issues.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

it is mixed (not for the better)! Not exactly a glowing recommendation though... Name some of the tings that Republicans have moved right on in the last 12 years.

I don't think the immigration issues are the same as they were in the 80's during Reagan's presidency. Today, both parties are willing to sacrifice country for votes.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I think there's a strong case that the Rs have moved to the right on abortion, judges, terrorism, military funding, military intelligence, meddling in end of life decisions, illegal immigration, legal immigration, personal retirement accounts, school choice, medical research funding for stem cells and possibly supply-side (rather than balance budget) economics.

Some show more movement than others. OTOH, spending, pork, cutting agencies, corruption, pay-to-play, free speech, and censorship (see FTC and Janet Jackson) went the other way.

Those are off the top of my head, so I am surely missing some things.

I don't see much change in color-blindness, assisted suicide, drugs, the drug war, free speech, taxes, marriage, and general foreign policy (i.e. UN, EU, Japan policy).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

many of those are on my wish list also... :^(

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

but this is an indication the Party has indeed moved left

OTOH, it's also much more Big Government, less fiscally conservative, and less vigorous about good government.

"I don't see how the "party movers are rather liberal." The party movers are almost all pro-life (that didn't used to be true). Many have bought into the "buy the vote" routine with pork and entitlement expansion, but many of those were hailed as "conservatives" including Delay, Santorum, Allen, and Bush while those fighting such efforts (McCain) were trashed."

What you seem to miss is that when I and others say the Party has moved left we're not just talking about social issues.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Adam C has written up some excellent articles on McCain including his ACU rating and judges.

Should have titled it for me "How I stopped worrying about illegal immigration and started loving McCain."

Illegal immigration brought me to this website as I wanted to push numbersusa. But I've stayed on and listen to the knowledge and wisdom of the sages. If I'm able to overcome the illegal immigration push by McCain and realize that the Presidency is about more than just this one issue, I would bet you could as well.

It does not appear to me that the party is moving to the left. Just kind of staying in the same spot we were 12 years ago with the first Bush.

Erik

I'm not sure how the Schiavo incident or vetoing stem cell research was moving to the "left." But I do know people who voted R that now think it is mainly a religious movement. I don't know if that's left or right.

OTOH, Rs have become porkers and no friend of small government. I supported McCain because he was the most dedicated to fighting pork, cutting spending, and reinvigorating the 1994 spirit of Republican revolution.

I've been saying for a while (i.e. before the primaries) that the next President of the U.S. would be to the "left" of Bush on social issues. The question was whether we could find someone more committed to small government and as committed to strong national defense. I think we lucked out by getting McCain in that respect.

If we had nominated another social issues first candidate like Bush (i.e. Romney or Huck), we would have lost by 10-20 points. That wing of the Party had 8 years and it hurt the Rs massively.

It's a big tent and it's time for a different wing of the tent to get a chance.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Gingrich conservatives that are long gone... Have you not noticed any changes?

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

You have a problem with the candidate. Get over it. Heck, I managed to get over it. Do what's right for the good of the country and come hell or high water McCain will be better than the alternatives. I'm not hoping for "good" or "great", just "better" than C&O.

In case you haven't noticed, you are accomplishing nothing here with this so-called argument. You have neither logic or reason on your side and you can't make up the difference with noise.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If you care about helping Republicans, then write a diary about how you can help in ways outside of the Presidential race. It seems to most that you care more about attacking a Republican than helping them win elections.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

This is what I get for taking two days off to enjoy the freaking weekend. Clearly, we need to settle this, once and for all. So:

I apologize for calling you a jackass.

See? There you go: vindication. You have had the slight to your honor withdrawn. You may now retreat from this battle head high and with no shame. And once you've done that, there will be no further need to attack any moderator, be rude to any moderator, and certainly no need to continue any hypothetical attacks on moderate Republicans by you on this weblog. All you have to do is say, "Thank you*," and stop.

Which is advised. Because I'm not interested in having any more of our site's bandwidth used up over this.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*And nothing but "Thank you."

a distinct advantage over many of us, you're used to dealing with infants.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

So be nice. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Just so I could say in the super-secret Editor IM "Buckwheat has been shot!"

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I tried to apologize as well here

Time for me to eat some crow and apologize! http://www.redstate.com/blogs/aceintx/2008/feb/18/time_for_me_to_eat_som...

I truly am sorry for the disagreement not because of the constant threats but because it's not who I really am! in another election cycle I think we would all be on the same side for the most part!

No hard feelings

:>)

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Glad to see that's sinking in. Why do you want to participate here? This is a Republican site. You are attacking Republicans. I can see why that creates problems.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain is no more a "true conservative" than the moon is made of green cheese. BTW, just what the heck IS a "true conservative".

McCain is conservative on small points and he MAY be at the edge of fiscal conservativism. He's certainly no conservative on immigration or domestic issues. He's not as bad as Bush and he's infinitely better than Huckabee, but "conservative" he ain't. Get over it.

With respect to Ace, while he and I are about as far apart as any two people on RS, he is certainly no Obama voter or KOS acolyte. You may not like is position, but you're over the top on those two particular adjectives. Same for Haley.

As for me, I find McCain to be an absolutely disgusting candidate. I'm actually ashamed that the Republican Party would nominate him. I will, however, vote for him in the sure knowledge that he'd be light years better than Clinton or Obama and in the sure hope that Bobby Jindal will be able to fix the mess he leaves in 2016.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Well said mbecker, and thank you. For the record I don't think we're as far apart on issues as you seem to think.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

OK...let me see if I have this right....?

1)Bush and Delay turned us into Democrat lite?
2)That turned the country against Republicans and its an up year for the Democrats?
3)To win we have to become the Democrats so we can muddy the waters and confuse the electorate as to who the real Democrat is?

Makes perfect sense to me.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

sounds like democrat-lite to me...

McCain is still center-right...

Trusted by moderate dems and independents

True fiscal conservative

Trusted on foreign policy

And socially conservative with out being public enemy #1 to MSM about it...

I'm glad we agree it makes perfect sense.

"The next president will be picking the replacement for ginsberg, stevens who is 88, souter, and maybe scalia."

1)Scalia won't leave with a Democrat in office
2)A democrat president couldn't appoint anyone further left that Souter or Ginsburgh
3)Stevens is all over the map so we'll replace someone whose against us more than he's with us so there is a slight loss of ground for us there.
4)McCain along with Warren Rudman and other liberal Republicans talked GHW Bush into Souter so I doubt McCain would do much better with his appointee's that Souter.
5)McCain stopped the nuclear option which would have given his nominees an up or down vote. Now he'll have to go hat in hand to Judiciary Committee Chairman Shumer to vet his choice.

I'm noit expecting much from McCain on the Judges thing!

Just sayin!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

If anything, he's consistently on the wrong side ...

Romney/Pace 2008

So it's a wash...no net loss to conservatives on judges if the Dems win

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Sorry, my post below titled "Do the math" was meant to be a reply to this post.

"McCain along with Warren Rudman and other liberal Republicans talked GHW Bush into Souter so I doubt McCain would do much better with his appointee's that Souter."

McCain was more skeptical about Souter than most Senators. He was holding out his support while others supported Souter. I wrote about this in the McCain on the Issues series. So if you have other evidence, could you provide a link. I think you're letting your disdain overcome the evidence.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Micheal Reagan called him on it on his program in 2000....I remember it because rather than answer Micheal, McCain went off on a semi psychotic rant about agents of intolerance attacking his good friend, (an far left Republican), Warren Rudman.

Can you attach a link to your post? I would like to read it and follow up on the chance I am wrong.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

But here is mine:

First, An LA Times article from 1990 about the Souter nomination:

Republican Sens. Phil Gramm of Texas and Don Nickles of Oklahoma each gave tentative endorsements to Souter. But Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona expressed frustration that the President had nominated a low-profile judge, apparently to avoid the kind of blood bath triggered by the nomination of Bork.

"Any first-year law student would tell you his chance of an eventual appointment to the Supreme Court is directly related to the paucity of writing or speaking on controversial issues," McCain said acidly. "It gives us a largely unknown quantity in appointments to the bench."

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

My reply to your issue about McCain and judges - GANG OF 14

McCain has such a wonderful track record of supporting the confirmation of qualified justices. How many did he throw overboard with his little betrayal?

Spare me the judges argument. McCain lost that one with conservatives in 2005.

NT.

that the senate should blindly oppose justices proposed by the President on partisan grounds, but only on the basis of whether they are qualifient in terms of legal ability and experience.

If you think they should be selected by the senate, not the president then you can oppose McCain for his votes, but I'm not sure that's what the constution called for.

I always mis him up with Kennedy who is no spring chicken either.

I'm going from memory on the Rudman issue and thought McCain was involved in it. I remember Michael Reagan asking about it and McCain going on a semi psychotic rant about what a great American Uber-Liberal Republican Rudman was and attacking agents of intolerance for attacking his good friend as a viscous bigot.
I could be wrong on this due to the fact that I'm going from memory on it. I'll look into it and you can count on me admitting I was wrong if what you say turns out to be true.

As far as the Gang of 14 goes, the nuclear option would have given all of Bush's nominees an up or down vote without exception. The gang of 14 threw Brown and a couple of other judges under the bus and they were never given a vote and the gang now gets to sit on their perches and say who Democrats are allowed to proceed to the Federal Courts. This is yet another instance where Republicans were poised to win an argument involving Constitutional issues only to have McCain pull the rug out from under them and trow a life preserver to his Democrat allies.

I don't accept your argument that if the Dems win now they'll win in 2012, I point you to Jimmy Carter. I see the danger you are pointing out and I am perplexed about the whole issue.

But as everyone is starting to say all over the place, "McCain is McCain, you're not doing to change him", as if that's a virtue.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I've read the transcript of the Michael Reagan show you're referring to, and while Reagan brought up Rudman's involvement with Souter, there's no evidence that McCain himself had anything to do with that process. And the quote from the LA Times story suggests that McCain didn't have inside knowledge of Souter; otherwise he wouldn't have been calling for more information.

As for the Gang of 14, we can't be sure that the nuclear option would have succeeded. The vote was going to be extremely close. If it had failed, then the Gang of 14 compromise might not have happened, which would have freed the D's to use the filibuster more freely. Possibly they could have filibustered Alito; then again, the threat of the filibuster might have led Bush to appoint someone more moderate than Alito. The point is, we simply don't know what would have happened. This is the kind of complex political calculus that's difficult to judge from the outside, without having inside information. But conservative senators who were on the inside at the time, Brownback and Coburn, have strongly endorsed McCain as trustworthy on judges.

As for whether the Dems would be re-elected in 2012, I said that based on history we should presume re-election. Since FDR the only presidents to run for re-election and lose were Carter and George Bush 41. Each was defeated by the opposing party's most talented politician of the past 45 years: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. It's certainly possible that Obama would lose in 2012. It just doesn't seem likely--or something that we should count on happening.

You write:

As for the Gang of 14, we can't be sure that the nuclear option would have succeeded. The vote was going to be extremely close. If it had failed, then the Gang of 14 compromise might not have happened, which would have freed the D's to use the filibuster more freely.

Appreciate the fact that John McCain announced in April 2005, a few months before the Gang of 14 deal was ironed out and after the Democrats had already filibustered several conservative judicial nominees, that he would vote with the Democrats on the nuclear option, allowing the Democrats to continue filibustering as often as they wanted as long as they could get 41 of their (at the time) 45 Senators to oppose cloture on debate.

So, McCain essentially created the problem by opposing the nuclear option and then came to the rescue by joining with Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on the Gang of 14 deal.

And we are supposed to be convinced that McCain is a conservative on judicial nominations?

Tory Conservative

it doesn't say anything about his philosophy on judges, not everybody believes the end justifies the means, he may believe in judges but believe that abolishing filibuster is the wrong way to get there.

I don't think it was necessarily unprincipled of McCain to oppose the nuclear option in April 2005. The filibuster has an impressive historical pedigree. I don't like it much myself, and I particularly don't like to see it used on appointments. But I'm not a Senator and have never worked for one, and I recognize that I don't really have the information to judge. I'd rather rely on people like Ted Olsen, Miguel Estrada (who had his own nomination railroaded, before the Gang of 14), Calabresi, Brownback, Coburn, etc. I strongly respect the opinion of these men, and they have crucial information and an inside perspective that I lack.

Moreover, if you think that the nuclear option was the only way to go, then you are implicitly putting a great deal of trust in Bill Frist's prudential judgment. I'm wary of doing that, in part because he came out strong for Harriet Miers and stuck with her for longer than some other Republicans. McCain also initially offered (somewhat tepid) support for Miers (in a terse, pro forma press release); but according to Brownback, McCain was one of the first senators to join him in opposing her nomination. Since Brownback led the effort to question the appointment and stood up to the White House, I'm inclined to trust him more than Frist when it comes to prudential judgments about judicial appointments. And then there's this:

"The day Miers withdrew her name, Sen. John McCain surprised the mob of reporters clamoring around Brownback outside the Senate chamber by grabbing his colleague’s shoulders. 'Here’s the man who did it!' McCain shouted in admiration, a big smile on his face." (source: Rolling Stone magazine)

I addressed the Michael Reagan show in an individual post below

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I thought they had the votes by a head count....until the 14 got together and withhold their vote?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I do and always have intended to vote down ballot.

As to being willing to elect a president that is bad for the country, It's a valid point and causes me heartburn but it's only half the issue.

My question for you is, do we reward McCain for all his past actions in promoting and authoring some of the worse legislation that's passed in the last 60 years by making him the head of our Party?

The other thing is this, I believe that the best thing for this country is to be lead by the Republican Party in a down the line conservative way. I'm faced with the prospect of saddling the Party with a candidate who will further damage our brand, (which was already damaged by spending addicted Rebublican and the K street Project in the House and Senate. I can't get past the idea that by voting for McCain:

1) I and the Republican Party are endorsing the bad legislation that he's already authored and passed. Even though he did, and pass it with the help of a majority of Democrats, We all know the Democrats are not above putting the blame for bad legislation they championed around the neck of the first Republican they can find to hang the blame on when it becomes unpopular. They'll hang it on McCain and the Party by extension.

2) McCain will sign and push for bad legislation as President and as President he will be blamed for the negative consequences as will the Republican Party by extension.

Here is the conundrum, If I believe what's best for the country is Republican leadership and am asked to vote for a candidate that has done things and will do things that will be blamed on the Republican Party and hung around our necks like a millstone for the next 20 years, am I really doing what's best for the country by voting for him?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Here is a fact: no matter Republicans choose in the primary, there would be some significant group of Republicans complaining about it.

were determined to sit out and not vote for him if he got the nomination. There was a lot of criticism of Thompson campaigning style... but I don't recall any conservatives in the Blogoshpere who were going to sit Thompson out. All of the other top five had people sitting out. I would say the order of candidates who people in the blogosphere were willing to sit out was: Guiliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Thompson.

Just the one with the least activist opposition.

I never got to vote but might have ended up voting for him. This primary season was over way too soon. Thompson might have had a chance if people had known McCain was going to take it while we were all beating each other up over lesser candidates.

He did run a terrible campaign though

I hope going forward we can fix the Primary process to allow more Republicans to have a voice next time around. As it was there were too many states with open primaries that allowed McCain to become the nominee with a minority of conservative votes.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

that way nobody could claim that so and so would have one if only so and so was splitting the vote with them. We would have a series of elections and each elections would knock out the lowest vote getter out of contention. We could have like 10 or 15 elections this way - it would be 15 weeks of political fun. Of course this is about as likely to happen as Ron Paul getting elected and pigs flying, but its fun to dream anyway.

I wish that were possible...I think it would be the way we could truly find a consensus candidate

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I guess reading content isn't something you are good at, Adam C. At what point in my original post did I state I was voting for Clinton or Obama?

I am casting my write-in ballot for Mitt Romney and also voting for my local Congressman and Senators.

You need to grow up and learn to practice what you preach. My space on RS is my space and I will support those candidates that aren't sellouts like McCain. I will also write what I feel and stand on principles, something you obviously lack along with tact and good manners.

Thank you though for making the point for me that I made in my original post about a-hole McCain supporters who think the rest of us OWE your boy a vote. You made my point better than I could by your response. Way to go!

"Thank you though for making the point for me that I made in my original post about a-hole McCain supporters who think the rest of us OWE your boy a vote. You made my point better than I could by your response. Way to go!"
Nobody is owed a vote, you should vote for who you think is best for America. If you think a Hill or Obama presidency is better than a McCain presidency than by all means don't vote for McCain. However, the only thing a candidate has to do to earn votes is to be the better than the country than the other options.

which is what I said. And you're dumb to do it if you want conservative gains in the country. It's an egotistical thing to do that puts your feelings above the good of the country. Enjoy your indulgence.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Way to promote debate and discussion on the site Adam

Maybe you should get it through your head that you are not the only Republican that has an opinion and you have no right to tell us to leave...Moderator or not!

You ware truely one of the most hateful members on this site...consider yourself ignored by me forth with

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I just got through defending you and now I get back into Normal908Mode™. If you honestly think that Adam is "truely one of the most hateful members on this site" your skin is just way to thin for political discussion.

Adam's posts are frequently biting, frequently funny, sometimes convicting, often wrong (IMLTHO), but never hateful.

You need a rest.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

and you forgot to mention Childish when describing Adam's posts.

Thank you again for defending me.

:>)

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Achance and Leon.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

should leave is because this is a Republican site and John McCain is pretty much the nominee. Adam C. is a reasonable guy, and you are out of line calling him one of the most hateful members of Redstate. Some McCain supporters may at times lose some civility and that's not right, but you considering you were a Huck supporter you should be able to understand frustration caused when people constantly bash your candidate and not only your candidate but supporters of him. I have recently replied to a post talking about how the party should purge McCain suporters if we lose in NOV, your side is just as guilty of bringing down the level of discussion as Adam C.

NT.

"the party should purge McCain suporters if we lose in NOV, your side is just as guilty of bringing down the level of discussion as Adam C."

I wouldn't support such a movement and I condemn it whole heartedly. And you should condemn anyone that says someone should not be a part of this group because they disagree with Adam or anyone else here unless you want an echo chamber where everyone agrees with everyone else and anyone who descents is summarily executed and purged from the group. That's what Democrats do and the fact that Adam has on many many occasions said people should leave speaks because they don't fit his definition of what a good Red Stater is speaks much louder about him than anything I can ever do!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

"And you should condemn anyone that says someone should not be a part of this group because they disagree with Adam or anyone else here unless you want an echo chamber where everyone agrees with everyone else and anyone who descents is summarily executed and purged from the group. That's what Democrats do and the fact that Adam has on many many occasions said people should leave speaks because they don't fit his definition of what a good Red Stater is speaks much louder about him than anything I can ever do!"
Adam nor anyone has suggested that those who disagree with him should leave the site - for one thing that would mean at least 70% of the site leaving just based on his support of McCain in the primary alone. The point is though, this site is dedicated to advancing Conservative principals through the Republican party, if you're going to spend 100% of your time bashing the Republican presidential nominee, than you would probably fit in better with another site.
I can tell you this site is absolutely not an echo-chamber, if it was an unorthodox Republican like me would not be welcome. As a matter of fact, on the issues I and Mbecker are probably - a whole lot farther apart than what you and Mbecker are, same goes for many members of this site; the difference is we both come together to support the Republican nominee, rather than spending 100% of our time sabotaging what the whole purpose of this site is.

I want you to realize that you are being a destructive force and hurting your cause. Then maybe you will start adding something to the site.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

First, let me point at that this is false (like much of your writing). I could say the word and you would be gone. But of the editors, I am probably the most open to having people stay who disagree with Republicans.

But if your purpose is to oppose Republican candidates, then this isn't the best place for you. I don't know why you want to be part of a Republican community if your purpose is undermining Republicans.

I was arguing for your reinstatement in spite of the vapidness of your commentary. Ignore me all you want, but I am not going anywhere and I will continue to mock your anti-Republicanism on this site.

If you want to help Republicans, write about non-presidential races, or talk about issues that would be a great addition to the site. But you seem committed on coming here and attacking Republicans you don't like. That isn't helping the community.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

This is a reasonable post and it's not so hard to swallow as saying we should all go join the Daily Kos.

I've said over and over that I do want to be constructive and I can't for the life of me understand what's so wrong with stating the weaknesses of a candidate whether you support him or not because if you would listen and look with an objective eye you would see what some of us are saying. I know I can't get you to reconsider voting for McCain and it's not likely you will get me to vote for him but one thing is for sure, you can't win me over by name calling and I wonder how many people that you might win over are stiffening their backs because of the treatment they are getting from McCain Supporters. I'm not saying this to be inflammatory I really want you to open your eyes to what I'm talking about.

Can you get what I'm saying here?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

and I ask this just so I can try to figure you out. How old are you?

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

Pleas don't tell me you thought I was 10

:>)

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

it was that young, idealistic thing...now I guess I have to go with demented :-)

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

Passionate yes...demented???

I'll need to think about that!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

It is McCain's job, (and yours to since you support him), to bring us along and make a compelling case why we should support him not attack us us idiots and whiners or try to scare us with the idea of a Democrat President.

Name calling and denegrating your natural allies is no way to win a campaign and it's beyond my comprehension to me that you aren't doing yourself or your candidate any favors by acting like you are.

We need to and will work together in the future but your current behavior is over the line!

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I am terrified that the policies of an Obama administration are going to make 9/11 look like Al Qaeda came over for teatime.
I am terrified that the "paper tiger" of Clinton will look menacing compared tot he military strategy of Obama.
I am scared that Obamas immediate pullout of Iraq will make Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese genocide look tame in comparison, as well as embolden the terrorists to declare victory and recruit more heavily.
Is that civil enough for you, my fellow Horn?

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

Well said...I knew you had it in you ;>)

I am concerned about the same issues....I think it's too easy to think those of us who can't support McCain under any circumstances don't care about them either. It's too easy to think we oppose McCain out of spite or in a fit of pique. I know I've made statements that would feed that perception.

I'm off that wagon now and I'm making a conscious and sincere effort to discuss the problems I see and wish to have a decent and rational dialog about how we fix it for 2012.

I guess I'm trying top do a post mortum review of the 2008 Primaries though I'm still praying for an open convention.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

We don't denigrate natural allies, we annoy you. That's because you aren't acting like an ally, but an enemy. Enjoy your anti-Republican tirades. And we hope you will decide in the future to help Republicans win, but right now you are focused on being divisive. That's not a "natural allies."

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I see a lot of necks about to be stretched.

Erik

aceintx, you wrote the following in a post above about your claim that McCain was involved in pushing the Souter nomination on Bush: "I'll look into it and you can count on me admitting I was wrong if what you say turns out to be true."

Now, you write in this post: "My memory was wrong but not by much."

Well, your memory was precisely wrong on the key fact that Adam C and I challenged you on, which was your claim that McCain and Rudman together pushed the Souter nomination on Bush. To justify saying were not wrong by much, you claim that McCain referred to all Christians as "agents of intolerance." That is absolutely false, as I demonstrate in my post below titled "Setting the record straight" (which I meant to make a reply to this post).

You also claim that McCain had a "meltdown" in talking about Rudman to Michael Reagan. That's not how it sounded to me. It sounded like a spirited and vigorous defense of a friend he thought had been unjustly maligned. If McCain over-reacted to some degree (and I admit he did), then so did Michael Reagan in rudely hanging up on him. If McCain is President, I hope he'll show some of that same spunk if he ever has to stare down Ahmadinejad.

The YouTube video that you link to, by the way, is a biased and grossly distorted piece of work. If that's the sort of thing you've been relying on for your research, I'd suggest you seek out more balanced sources. If you're interested, I'd be glad to point you to some. Adam C's posts on McCain on the Issues are a good start, if you haven't read them already.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Thanks, aceintx. And I'll acknowledge you were right to be concerned about your memory of the M. Reagan interview. It wasn't McCain's finest moment. But when seen in context, I think it's understandable. There was a lot of blame to spread around the time of the South Carolina primary in 2000. Tempers were hot, reputations were being trashed, and there were lots and lots of underhanded smear jobs and phone call campaigns. It wasn't the Republican party's finest moment, either. But fortunately we pulled it together. McCain sucked it up, got over his defeat, and went out and campaigned for Bush.

and I'm sorry for my part in it.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Let me say it unequivocally, I was wrong about McCain helping on the Souter appointment. If you listen to the Utube link I sent, you would know Reagan didn't hang up on him. The call dropped. Reagan tried several time' to get McCain to calm down and move onto another subject and he kept going back to it.

As for his speech, I and most of the conservatives I know took the agents of intolerance crack as an attack on all of us. It stung then and still stings now. and again, words mean things his words in that time frame meant something.

I agree it's biased because of the pictures and the video. But the audio is as it happened. I remembered it from when I heard it live went looking for it. I've never forgotten it because I was stunned by the way he came across on it. Maybe as bad as I come across here :>)

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

aceintx, thanks again for owning up in a manly way to the Souter remark. As for who hung up on whom, I did listen to the tape and it wasn't clear to me. I suspected that it was Reagan, because if if had been McCain, then I think Reagan would have complained that McCain had hung up on him. I looked it up and found an article from Human Events that said that Reagan did hang up on McCain. This might be not be definitive, but it makes sense to me. Here's a quote:

"John McCain got into an on-air scuffle last Wednesday with popular radio talk-show host Michael Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan, which ended with an exasperated Reagan hanging up on a belligerent McCain."

Link here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200003/ai_n8878990

For what it's worth I think Reagan said the call dropped a little later. He told his screener if McCain called back not to put him through, I'm not sure if that's right or wrong but if I were Reagan I probably would have done the same thing.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Mike reagan was anti McCain before the call, and Mike reagan hung up on McCain, period. I don't need youtube, I heard it live. I also heard mikey go on and on about it and how he hung up on McCain.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

It was probably more clear if you heard it live, but the recording alone is a bit ambiguous. And there are various comments around the net claiming that McCain hung up on Reagan. It's plausible to think that was the case, but I think the better evidence shows that Reagan hung up. Your "eyewitness" testimony confirms it, I'd say. But there's no need to use the t-word.

You're wrong. Listen to the interview...your memory is wrong about Reagan hanging up as mine was about McCain working with Rudman to promote Souter.

I double checked and admitted my mistake because the Truth does matter to me. I'll let you decide what it says if a person won't go back and check when someone provides a link with the actual recording and admit they were wrong.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

or members of this site? I think you are a deep cover troll, one who likes to push the edge, and then slightly back down prior to being banned.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I don't think this kind of accusation is helpful. aceintx is someone who's been sincerely disappointed by what McCain has done (or in some cases what McCain has been alleged to have done), and in this discussion we're having he's showing that he has an open mind about investigating the record.

handful of would be concern trolls around here lately. They seem to be getting what they want from the moderators, basically a lot of ink. I see a handful of people causing disruption and adding to our problem of comming together and actually helping our side win.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I totally understand and have also been frustrated with a lot of comments. But post no. 173 above shows aceintx is sincere.

The Republican Party is my Party I work for it, I support at and when I think it's wrong I say so.

Let me try to say what I like about the Republican Party so I can say I did:

It's the wind beneath my wings....err

Just kidding.

I like her platform
I like what her ideas
I like her stated goals
I like what she stands for on the international stage
I like most of her ideas on free trade
I like her positions on defense

I like working on the platform and am trying from down here where I abide to figure out some way some way to get our representatives to follow it.

I like discussing different Republican ideas and solutions to problems we all agree on and even the back and forth of those I disagree with.

I don't know what else to say. I've said before that this is a difficult time for me with the Party and they way I think it's going buy even lovers fight with each other from time to time. I hope you all can see that and cut me some slack. Take what I say that can help and ignore what doesn't, maybe we can learn from one another,

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

Since I've arrogantly assumed the role of self-appointed mediator here, I do feel compelled to suggest to you, aceintx, that you do more to look for agreement and less for things to disagree with people about, in particular with regard to McCain. I think that the moderators were understandably concerned about some of your interventions.

You write: "I hope you all can see that and cut me some slack." I think people will be willing to cut you some slack to the extent you're willing to cut McCain some slack.

... and with that I'm signing off for the night. Peace.

I've seen deep cover trolls, ace isn't one. He is just too focused on McCain right now. I think it would be good for him to focus on issue diaries or other races. It's the singular focus on the anti-McCain crusade that has made him go over the line a bit. And when he takes a step back and breathes, he can be a fine commenter and member of the community.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Thanks Adam, That truly means a lot coming from you

I'll try to not go out of my way to attack McCain all the time but I can't promise you that I won't be critical when he deserves it. To do otherwise constitute being untrue to myself and lie to Red Staters that I'm something I'm not

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

FWIW, Rudman was McCain's best man at his wedding, they are close. I do expect Rudman would serve in some role in his administration. But McCain's full record on judges is pretty fantastic and better than almost any person we've nominated before. And the guilt by association of McCain and Rudman is as unfair as purposefully misinterpreting the "agents of intolerance" comment.

I'd really recommend you take a minute to look into McCain's actual record instead of the caricature that people like Rush are opposing. Check my blog, I have 3 issue diaries on abortion, taxes, and judges that take an in depth view on McCain's votes, views, statements, and promises.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

My only objection to Rudman being in a McCain Administration would be if he had a part in nominating judges. I wouldn't oppose him say at treasury or some placed where he would work on budget issues because he's a deficit hawk As off the Wall as Robertson has been, that was his objection that got the ball rolling and in my opinion rightly so. One of the biggest issues I have with the Party leadership is putting people in policy positions where they can influence things they agree with us on instead of putting them where they can damage us in areas where we disagree. For example putting Arlen Specter who is opposed to abortion on the Judiciary committee instead of committees that he could chair where he agrees with us. I think Republican Caucus rules that dealt with this issue would go a long way to making the Republicans in congress more responsive to us.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

I'm using the standard McCain applied to Romney. Buzz words, code words etc have meanings at that point in time he was attacking me because I agreed with Falwell and Robertson. I personally think Robertson has gone way off the deep end at this point.

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

"Buzz words, code words etc have meanings at that point in time he was attacking me because I agreed with Falwell and Robertson."

Well, whatever "agents of intolerance" meant, it didn't mean "all Christians." And that is precisely what you said McCain meant by those "buzz words" in your long post above. Since it's not clear whether you have read my reply, I'll repeat. McCain specifically praised James Dobson and Chuck Colson, two of the most prominent members of the religious right. He said, "I stand with them."

His attack was on Falwell and Robertson, and he didn't have to rely on buzz words for that. He called them out by name. Now you yourself admit that Robertson has gone off the deep end. And it was just a year after McCain's speech that Robertson interviewed Falwell and both of them agreed that 9/11 was to be blamed on the gays, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and assorted other liberals. That sounds pretty much like intolerance to me. Falwell later apologized for the remarks.

Perhaps McCain was just a step ahead of you in recognizing that Robertson had gone off the deep end?

Vote for your preferred candidate even if they've dropped out. Don't follow the herd in the stampede!

At the time, I was also concerned about what McCain had said. Now, looking back at all the reporting that's been done about the 2000 primary (particularly the South Carolina phase), I have a lot of sympathy for what McCain went through. And seeing all the ridiculous things Robertson has said since then, it almost seems like McCain was on to something. Of course, with Falwell, McCain mended fences with his speech at Liberty U.