The Right vs. McCain
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (116) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Don't understand why so many on the right hate McCain? This is from Citizens United, a right of center group. It lays it all out there. And McCain is going to have to do something if he doesn't want these people sitting on the sidelines in November.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley try to build a base of religious voters for Hillary Clinton — Comments (12) »
The Right vs. McCain 116 Comments (0 topical, 116 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I understand it completely. I'm just opposed to taking my football and going home to have a pity party.
Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. But walking off the field is childish.
I'm actually in contact with several people to actively fight against McCain in the general if he wins. I'm not totally bought into the idea but there are some deep pockets who seem to be.
I'm actually trying to gather all of the data. I've made some premature statements. Depending on what McCain says/does before then, I may come around to holding my nose and voting for him, if in fact he is the nominee. Right now, I'm leaning towards a hefty donation to fight against him but there are a lot of other things I could do with that money. I'm very torn right now.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
You actually are taking your football and going home if you actively fight against McCain in the general.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
It's a two-party system. If enough people don't vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate for vote for the Democratic opponent, then you're Hillobama a better chance of winning by voting against your party's chosen candidate.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
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
The party was much further left in 1964 than it is now, and yet he was firmly committed to it.
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 not going to take my ball and go home - far from it. I am simply going to spend my limited time, money and energy supporting conservatives.
It is a very, very close call on whether NOT supporting McCain will further the conservative agenda. Reasonable people disagree. I have chosen not to support or vote for him. This is not the result of petulance, or because my preferred candidate got ousted or because I am whiny. It is a carefully thought out decision that I will be happy to discuss with anyone. I will support people I agree with locally, statewide and even out of state - just not John McCain.
Heck, I might even be convinced that there is some guy in Macon, GA worth swinging a contribution to.
and go home, but we will vote according to actual principles. No sense in winning the game if you lose the battle. No pity party here, but I do have to live with my choices.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Erik is not a McCain fan, nor am I, but like a lot of us, he is not going to stand by and not hand power to the Dems either.
This ad is relevant and devastating.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
I 'm batting 1000 for never voting McCain and it is really depressing that I may just have to break my streak in November.
But I will.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Further, I believe a vote for McCain would not only be handing power, but worse yet, COVER, to the Democrats.
On what? The war? Impossible.
On taxes? Not bloody likely. It would destroy his political capital after he's campaigned so hard for keeping the Bush tax cuts.
I'll grant that he'll give cover to non-immigration hardliners (I'm not one anyway, so I don't care), and on Global Warming issues, but even on that, he's very moderate in comparison to the D's.
On anything else, I don't think you have a case.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
On judges. Here is how I think it will play out:
Remember, when the Republicans were in the firm majority, President Bush was not able to get all his judicial appointments in place. He was barely able to get Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS (thankfully both have been exceptionally welcome surprises).
What are the chances, with John McCain as president and the Democrats controlling the house and senate, that conservatives get an acceptable SCOTUS nominee? I absolutely see a Souter in our future, REGARDLESS of who becomes POTUS. The Republican minority will make Hillary move right, and the Democrat majority will force McCain left (if they even need to use "force"). Recall how we got a Souter in the first place, and you will see my point.
And that is why I do not believe there is a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
No one can say that any of it is a lie or distortion. That is what makes it so devastating.
McCain has to deal with his because he will get far worse thrown at him to alienate the conservatives in the general election. I suspect a "clean" 527 is being formed to run such ads already by the DNC in such a way to ensure their fingerprints are not on it.
He needs to have it thrown at him now, if not to shape the remaining primaries, but also to inoculate him for the general if he gets the nomination. Otherwise, he will be toast in the general.
If the Dems can get conservatives to stay home, they will win the general against him. The MSM knows this too.
I may not like McCain at all, but I am not dumb enough to let a Dem get elected as an alternative. That would be far worse!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
I don't understand why so many on the right hate Romney. You don't have to love the guy. You don't have to want to have a beer with him. Romney is the conservative candidate in this race and McCain is not, plain and simple. It's not even a close call. By the way, Rush Limbaugh about to declare all out war on behalf of Romney.
Are voting for a flawed candidate they know over an unknown quantity they don't know and don't have great reasons to trust.
As statisticians would say conservatives are risk adverse people and risk adverse people almost alwys chose a known flawed product over an unknown product with uncertain loyalties.
If he would have run on the same platform he ran on in MA, he'd probably be my candidate. Instead, he became the Republican version of John Kerry. The only thing missing was footage of Mitt wind surfing.
Actually, no one should become more conservative only right before selling himself as the best conservative after decades of being a liberal.
I could care less what he or any of the others say. I think for myself, don't need someone else to tell me who I should or shouldn't vote for in the primary or general election. I am tired of these guys and the blind that live and die by words.
And btw, Romney is not the conservative in the race. Romney is trying to sell us on the whole idea that he is now a conservative, but Willard is just bursting at the seams with liberalism. He is slicker than Slick Willie and yes, he should be out windsurfing with Kerry.
Romney derangement synodrome - "bursting at the seams with liberalism" - can't get much more ridiculous than that.
I agree that is way over the top.
I'd say "busting at the seams with panderitis" is a lot closer to the truth.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
anyone care about yours?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I care about the opinions of the peole I know and trust. As far as why anyone should care about mine, they needn't. Not one person here needs to care about my opinion. Many of my friends and relatives appreciate my opinion, as I appreciate and care about theirs.
Too many people listen to the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of this world and take their word as gold. They regurgitate whatever is told to them rather than making informed decisions on their own.
brilliance, you should care about Rush's. His word is often gold, sometimes silver. But if he suggests sitting out a McCain Dem battle, I will not follow. But you really need to discover
The Wonder of Rush
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
who says one thing then says another, or says one thing then does another.
Romney is a Massecusetts liberal. Too keep promoting him as a conservative doesn't help him out any because people only need look at his record.
I don't plan on voting for McCain, and I think McCain is way too liberal, the problem for Romney is that he cannot be trusted because he has already caved on being conservative many times even after he supposedly became conservative.
He would never have a beer with you, it might spill on his secret underwear. The best you might get is a shared sparkling water to discuss his flip-flops on gay marriage, abortion, tax cuts, blah blah blah.
This f*king sucks. There are no semi-respectable candidates left. It’s driving me nuts every once in a while I find myself actually taking Paul seriously and then I snap out of it. What the hell was Thompson thinking?
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
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
We've seen enough of these to know.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
You guys still on the sidelines???
And if in 2012 the GOP does nominate a strong conservative and the moderates all stay home or turn left that's cool too - right?
I don't want to risk a McPain, win, I'll vote Hill **cough cough, it may kill me but I will.
And if in 2012 the GOP does nominate a strong conservative and the moderates all stay home or turn left that's cool too - right?
If the strong conservative we pick mock, ridicules and is generally a pain to moderates, I expect that moderates will sit out 2012. I don't have a problem with moderates, I have a problem with moderates who *HATE* conservatives.
Well I guess this group does not believe in Reagan's eleventh commandment. That being said I guess there are truths, half truths and distortions. In no particular order.
1. yes John Kerry was interested in McCain as VP. Even Kerry was smart enough not to look to Hillary in 2004. McCain would have pulled Kerry in and there would be now 7 solid liberals on the Supreme Court. McCain said "no thanks" and does he get a little credit for that?
2. Yes McCain voted twice against the Bush tax cuts. We were then we are now in a war against government over spending. Should we have a tax policy and a domestic spending program to reflect that? I may disagree with McCain on making the Bush tax cuts permanment, but I will say this. I am not sure its fiscally or economically responsible making tax policy for the year 2010 (in the year 2001) without making the spending commitments thru the same time period. Guess what that's impossible so perhaps McCain was right.
These 30 second attack ads would make Bill Clinton proud. I can tell you that 99% of the people get the idea that McCain is a conservative and that Hillary is a Liberal.
This attack ad reminds me of NPR who in 2004 while walking the streets in Ohio could find dozens of lifelong republicans who (who voted for Bush in 2000)would vote for Kerry.
... argument against the Bush tax cuts, echoing Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy, maybe you'll have a point.
I don't care how many times McCainiacs repeat it; McCain's reasons for voting against tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 had nothing to do with spending.
one of those tin foil hat guys, but I believe some in the media pushed McCain back from the dead after Iowa because they wanted more candidates in the race to split the vote as well as have a polarizing figure that they knew would fracture the party. I have heard such from MSNBC even before the Iowa Caucuses were called.
McCain was dead, and now he is some kind of superhero. He has not gotten the majority of the conservative vote, but the vote from moderates, liberals and unknown independents (as in their actual party affiliation - remember the KOS plan?). Will that unknown independent vote be there in November?
Fracture is already happening with the liberal media intent on destroying the conservative movement by making Limbaugh, Levin, Ingraham and others ineffectual. They started this right before New Hampshire and it has been a steamroller ever since. Please note that it was Thompson that won third in Iowa, but McCain, a close fourth, was the one in the media. I don't know who the mastermind of the Dem strategy is, but I will tell you they are good.
I wasn't going to vote in the Presidential race in November, but I just might to keep order in the house.
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
Undeniably true: journalists like McCain and can barely hide the extent to which they root for him, and dislike Romney and do not bother to conceal their contempt. I don't think they're influencing the process with quite the conscious, malicious intent that you impute - I think they're influencing the process semi-unintentionally because they like McCain and think his comeback is such a great story.
It's not sinister - just embarrassing and frustrating.
Feel like it owns the rest of us? I voted for a "Conservative" in 00 & 04. Know what I got? A free spender for a President. As a person that is very fiscally conservative, seeing the way the spending has increased has driven me batty!
This party was not founded by the far right that Limbaugh, et al, represent. I would even venture a guess to say you out there clamoring about "conservative, conservative, conservative", wouldn't have elected Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
"His (Abraham Lincoln's) expressed views on slavery were seen as more moderate than those of rivals William H. Seward and Salmon P. Chase. His "Western" origins also appealed to the newer states: other contenders, especially those with more governmental experience, had acquired enemies within the party and were weak in the critical western states, while Lincoln was perceived as a moderate who could win the West."
Our party used to be the party of change & ideas, hope & dreams.
"The new party (Republican party) emphasized a vision of modernizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry, and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers."
Now we allow backward thinking big mouths like Rush to wield power over our presidential selection. Well, I for one am saying, NO MORE.
They are a right of RIGHT group.
Romney is the ultimate outsider in the South. He is a Northerner and from Mass. Plus frannkly he is a Mormon. I would never use the word "hate" to describe my feeling towards him or I do not believe that is a accurate representation of most Republicans in the South.
There has been two non-Westerners or Southerners to be the Republican nominee since 1960. One was an incumbent President (Ford) another was from Kansas. I might add that Eisenhower was born in Kansas, but raised in Texas. The heart of spirit of the Republican is the South and West. Any Republican from anyplace else almost seems like an invasion to us.
I might add that no Republican can win the nomination without support from the South. Rush Limbaugh not withstanding Romney does not have true grits.
In my opinion, you are the one poster here who seems to be focused on regionalism. You also try to be a voice of "the South," as if there is such a thing. I don't think the South is owed anything any more than any other part of the country. I also find it notable that your history of Republicans vis a vis the South seems to extend only back as far as the late 1960s.
For one main reason. In the event that there is a Supreme Court vacancy sometime between January 2009 and the 2010 Senate election, and there is a President Obama or Clinton in the White House and the Democrats control the US Senate...I do not want the President going through his or her rolodex of judicial nominees to find who has written the best opinion or law review article about a right for homosexuals to marry emanating from the penumbra or an evolving standard of decency coming from European courts.
Am I positive a President McCain will not nominate a Souter? No. But I am positive that a President Obama or Clinton will nominate someone to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and that is a chance I can not risk.
The fact is, if Republicans win in November even in this historical moment, it will totally demoralize the Democratic party of death for years to come; might even make them embrace conservative principles out of sheer self-preservation. That alone is worth a McCain presidency, however un-ideal.
Democracies by nature cannot self-destruct in four years. It takes decades for that to happen. Win in November, and achieve small goals that McCain can accomplish in 4 years like cutting govt spending and keeping the terrorists on the defensive, promoting life, invest in energy technologies, build the border fence, and in the meantime we prepare for 2012.
Don't give the Democrats hope. Bury them now.
as well as the reasons I hate John McCain for being a liar, a charlatan, and a false conservative.
It's freaking David Bossie's group.
Newt Gingrich: "I'm embarrassed for you [Rep. Burton], I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee."
Why was Gingrich embarassed? David Bossie.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/...
President Bush: "We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics"
Who was he talking about? David Bossie.
After Bossie and Rep. Tom "no fat left to cut in the federal budget" DeLay who's the next to spite hate on McCain? Jack Abramoff?
Please, let's restore the honor and integrity of the GOP.
...restore the honor and integrity of the GOP with McCain you're sadly mistaken "my friend"
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Does the truth from a crank make it not the truth? I'm no fan of Bossie and he gets no support from me but the statements in this ad are absolutely true. I will never vote for McCain and this ad pretty accurately describes why.
Roger L. Simon (whom I like) has labeled people like me MDS sufferers. Now as far as I'm concerned BDS sufferers have philosophical differences with W but they are utterly irrational in their fear and loathing of him on a personal level as well. An entire industry of BDS-inspired books, movies and execrable journalism exists to prove this, and in fact BDS may be greatly responsible for the hastening of the old media's decline.
My and others' opposition to McCain for the most part is based on his legislation, his courting of the Drive-Bys, his lies (yes, lies), his utter lack of and disdain for conservatism, and his betrayal at key times of the president (and by extension the president's base). Personally I admire the guy's history and would love nothing better than to vote for a veteran and war hero, but he seems at times to be becoming a decrepit crank and is utterly untrustworthy in high office.
In short, the message is right whether or not the messenger is questionable in this instance, and those of us who agree with the ad are not necessarily nuts or suffering from MDS. You can see that charge coming, though.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
McCain's personal sacrifices for his country, his social conservative record, and his uncompromising support for defending this nation are attributes that all conservatives should admire.
But his record on immigration, his common ground with Ted Kennedy, his acceptance of Al Gore's hysterical Global Warming scenario, and his commitment to big government make him a big problem for conservatives.
There is no reason to believe that McCain will select conservative judges. There is a greater chance that he will (like George Bush) support left wing initiatives that will promote the Democrat agenda.
With Hillary or Obama in office the conservative movement will regroup and flex its muscle -- the way it did in the immigration debate. With a Republican President who supports Hillary's positions on so many crucial issues conservatives will suffer from a natural tendency not to oppose a Republican presidency.
We must decide if we are committed to electing Republicans or promoting conservatism: Often they are not the same thing.
...Charles Bird and others will now spend 54 posts debating the word "amnesty" and how "words still mean things" nonsense!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
...don't constantly do exactly that in your feverish defense of John McCain
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
but economic conservative I would most probably not vote for a Republican who uses class warfare rhetoric. So for me only Romney is left.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The Romney guys are funny. They hate MCain for his lack of purity, but Romney's ideological flexibility bothers them not at all.
With McCain, you know he says what he believes. With Romney, you know he says what he thinks you want him to believe.
Maybe you won't always agree with McCain, but he's no shape-shifter.
Gar
When I think of John McCain, I don't care about David Bossie or anyone else. I think instead of this cartoon.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
The fake but true thing again. McCain didn't want to be Kerry's running mate, but Kerry thought he would! What a searing indictment that is.
Still, you are right again Erick. Like the Hernandez thing, McCain has issues that must be addressed with conservatives. Clearly he has been able to win over individuals, such as Kyl and Coburn. He needs to win over others.
absentee
...and that's as far as McCain goes.
He is not going to save the Supreme Court - he is going to go over the aisle to Ted Kennedy and ask who should I nominate?
The single worse move for the United States right now is Hillary. Hillary and the Clinton machine WILL destroy the USA because they have the will and desire and the playbook to make things happen in a liberal way.
Obama will be so busy trying to "change" things, he will simply be a do-nothing president. Let him rearrange deck chairs. Good - the American public will soon tire of his speeches and no action. Blame the Democrats and sweep house again.
McCain will get nothing done because the Democratic controlled legislature will resent the fact that once again they failed to get a Democrat to the top position. However, McCain IS a Democrat in everything that he does except for the military and National Security. Trouble here is the American public will blame Republicans again for an empty headed president.
Romney will be stonewalled and will do nothing. Republicans get the blame again.
Anyone but Hillary gets us 4 more years to try something that works. But McCain is an insult to everything conservative and Republican.
We need to lose this election to anyone but Clinton. Let them make a pure mess out of the USA in four years and then see who steps forward to take leadership.
I can't believe that these are my choices for selecting someone to run my government. How did we ever get here? I suddenly feel like a Russian marching to the polling place - it just doesn't matter what I vote for - the answer is still socialism and no control over my own income.
read Erick's "Electile Dysfunction". I just made a list of 10 issues important to me, and McCain and I only match up on 3. Of course Hillary matches up on none. So McCain is marginally better than Hillary. There is a sort of cost-benefit analysis to do here. Does it benefit me more to vote for "my friend" than it costs if Clinton II is elected? And what is the opportunity cost of a McCain presidency? Better to fight for a seat at the table, or fight from outside the castle walls, trying to defeat and forestall the Queen? McCain has made his progress by defeating conservatives, not because of them. Will he feel obliged to offer seats at the table if he wins? Probably not if you're waging a campaign against his ascension. Quite a minefield to pick your way through...
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
When you say "McCain is going to go over the aisle to Ted Kennedy and ask who should I nominate". I think that is a bit harsh, but with a Democratic Senate and a President who is at best weak on social issues like McCain, I do have that fear that we'd end up with a Souter.
However, as mentioned above, I have no doubt that Ted Kennedy would be a moderating force in terms of an Obama or Clinton nominee. They would go to every left-wing nutjob in academia and judicial circles to find the most stalwart pro-homosexual and anti-religion nominee they could find.
Serious damage, absolutely.
1. Ginsberg & Breyer.
2. Gorlick Wall.
3. Treating terrorism as a "crime" instead of an "act of war".
For starters.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
How about adding:
1. The biggest income tax increase in history.
2. Sex in the Oval Office
3. Turning the White House into Motel 6 for contributors.
4. Pardoning Puerto Rican murderers to help get his wife elected to the Senate
a lot of Dems will vote for a Repub if Clinton is nominated just because they dislike her. And since the two major candidates left have tilted left inthe past, I think they would not feel guilty about it.
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
But that still leaves us with sh*t ... and the responsibility for it.
I don't know who the hell I'll vote for in November, but it won't be McCain and I can't stand Romney.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
is that the only true conservative in this race got in too late and left too early. Neither Romney or McCain are true conservatives. But they are both better than The Angry Divorcee or Obama. To sit this one out hurts our House candidates and our Senate candidates and ultimately hurts our country.
Jindal in 2012!
And I will vote this fall. I want my senator to remain a R. I want my state rep and senator to remain a R. But I won't be voting R at the top of the ticket if it's McCain
I didn't in '76, '88, '96 or 2000 when I wasn't happy with the nominee. I won't this time, either. I may literally wear a clothespin on my nose as I fill out my mail-in ballot (King Co., WA). McCain's choice of running mate won't help my attitude much.
I was and am very critical of the "rule or ruin" crowd (mostly Huckabee supporters) that were planning to walk if Giuliani got the nomination. I won't be a hypocrite.
McCain may well have once been a conservative; it's hard to see him as one now. BTW, the spot leaves out the disastrous McCain-Lieberman "cap & trade" thing, as well as McCain-Feingold.
I do not expect McCain to win; if he does, I do not expect his administration to be a successful one. I will be happy to admit I'm wrong if the time comes.
I look forward to supporting Bobby Jindal in 2012 -- and probably being disappointed again.
As the immortal Bobdole would say, "whatever."
I think Jindal has an excellent chance at sometime down the road. He has virtually no enemies in the party.
Anyhow, I'm from Sno-Co, although I go to law school in DC. Just thought I'd say hi :waves:.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Jindal would be an excellent VP nominee. I guess its not likely
It's too soon. He wants to turn LA. around, not warm a seat in the back of the white house.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I would have to say that McCain would have to forsake all of his attacks against social conservatives, end his support of gay marriage, end his support of embryonic stem cell research spending, and many such things like this, then sign a pledge, a legal document that states that he will immediately resign if he ever fails to up social conservative issues. Then make sure his VP is a social conservative like Same Brownback or someone who is good on social conservative issues, but there must be the pledge also with it. The legally binding document must say that John McCain's failure to uphold social conservative issues as President will mean automatic resignation.
Then maybe I would think about it. (I also think that he is soft on national security and spending, and though I know a lot of people think he is strong on that, I disagree.)
Would he ever do that? Never gonna happen? Not a chance?
I could say the same thing about John McCain ever getting my vote.
by announcing that he would only appoint strict constructionist judges. They would have to agree that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. Note, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg have voted to approve provisions of McCain-Feingold. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy have found provisons of McCain-Feingold to be unconstitutional in every case they have decided on the act.
"I would rather have clean government than one where quote first amendment rights are respected..."
John McCain at http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/4/29/111841/988.
I share your lack of enthusiasm for Senator McCain. But I am not going to spite myself and allow a President Obama or Clinton and a Democratic Senate to push through, unfettered, their judicial nominees. It would be catastrophic for the both the cause of social conservatism and decency! If you want judicially mandated homosexual marriage, then you'll get your wish if you don't vote for McCain, or at the very least you will be throwing away any opportunity to prevent that.
I don't have any real vote in terms of turning the Senate Republican since it appears Lamar is going to keep his seat, so my only voice in this matter is the Presidential race. And, I don't care if I have to pull my nose off my face (rather than just hold it!), but I will do my part to keep my initial scenario from occurring.
How can I vote against gay marriage by voting for McCain? That doesn't make any sense. McCain favors gay marriage very strongly, dispite most states saying no.
I know a Hillary or Obama presidency is scary but what people often fail to realize is that a McCain presidency is scary.
Just because I will probably not vote for McCain if he is the nominee doesn't mean that I will vote for democrats. Maybe there would be a good independant or I just write in. I know what people say about that but thats just too bad.
You see if you want to settle for less and less you will get less and less, and you will send the political parties a clear message that you will still vote for them no matter what they do, because you have become partisan. Thats their goal.
McCain is a gay rights activist? And he "favors gay marriage very strongly?"
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
by trying to tell them lies about McCain.
McCain is against a ban on Gay Marriage.
Period.
So you are the fool, ok.
Opposing a constitutional amendment re gay marriage does not a "gay activist" make. Here's another link:
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
He voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. What's more, you owe zuiko an apology for calling him a liar, assuming you're not banned already.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
What you showed was some of McCain's double talk.
We know what double talk gets us.
And yes I consider him pro-gay rights because of his opposing the marriage amendment.
Thats the way it is, and thats the way I call it.
Just like how he claims to be prolife but is for a taxpayer funding for destroying human embryos.
Thanks.
Blam.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to noodge the Directors.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Are you really this badly informed? Or are you just retarded?
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
McCain campaigned for the AZ state marriage initiative.
So stop being "scared" of something that isn't true. And turn off Rush for a couple days. Read up on the Senator and do your own research.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Or have I missed where Rush has taken to calling McCain "a gay rights activist?" Clearly this guy absorbed his undying devotion to Huckabee from Rush, though. I mean how could anybody listen to Rush's show without turning into a Huckabot.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
but one of the major talk radio people included "gay marriage" on a list of anti-McCain bullet points. I don't generally listen to Rush, but it wouldn't surprise me for him to be misrepresenting McCain's anti-FMA views as pro-same-sex marriage.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Why don't we stop with the "fake but accurate" stuff about Rush? It seems to me that would be the most reasonable course of action here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
as you say, but I do. Rush to my knowledge has not once discussed McCain's stance on gay marriage or the FMA or any of that. He lists a littany of sins on McCain's part but I don't remember that one.
Rush might be the only "leader" of the conservative (Reagan) movement anymore. When you insult him you insult a whole lot of us.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
he attacks a lot of us.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.
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
"Read up on the Senator and do your own research."
Ok.
Here ya go.
"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
So your position is that gays give up their 1st amendment rights by virtue of being gay. I'm not sure how else you think we should prevent gays from holding marriage or commitment ceremonies. I hate to break it to you, but your Huckster hasn't adopted that position either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Giving McCain and the other Republicans who did not support the marriage amendment (which I strongly support(ed)) the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they have not read Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas and Scalia's dissent, but I hardly think that makes them strong advocates for homosexual marriage.
I don't want a Souter anymore than any other conservative, but I sure as heck don't want Pres. Obama or Clinton effectively making Souter a "moderate" on the Court after the left-wing homosexal and "wall" of separation of church and state advocates who they would inevitably nominate and the Democratic Judiciary committee and full senate rubber stamp!
It is a party that Reagan once led, which currently has pushed those who support the principles upon which Reagan governed, into an untenable long term alliance.
Party OF Reagan has a connotation all his pricipals will be pillars.
It makes my heart ache just to write that.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
I will actually be a turncoat if McCain is the nominee. He will be no better than Hillary or Obama, and I'd rather he not tarnish the Republican brand and ruin things for the next election.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
has long been deemed an unfair "attack" by Dem's and the MSM.
Is one of our GOP presidential nominees also taking this view?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
sitting on the sidelines. Why don't you understand it Erick? Many people have posted here again and again why they don't trust him and don't consider a win for him, a win for conservatives. I know my posts (as a newb) don't mean much to you but there are several here who've been here for years that you must have some respect for and therefore see the points against McCain - even if it means a victory for the Dems.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**