McCain why are the GOP pundits and other hardcores...

[1BGDOG]

so adamant about not liking him?

His immigrant stance? Not a big thing IMHO look up Reagan.

Not supporting the tax cuts? We have a big enough deficit.

Discuss....:P

[scottycards]

:popcorn:

Honestly, I'm very interested in hearing the responses. :thumbsup:

[jnschwie]

I am too, although I'm sure I won't like them.

[1BGDOG]

:popcorn:

Honestly, I'm very interested in hearing the responses. :thumbsup:

As am I, I am from AZ and my mom still lives there. Back in the day she loved him, but now not so much. For her the issue is immigration but I think it is a great compromise.

[ZappBranigan]

McCain has made a career out of taking stances that are in opposition to the most vocal of the right-wing crowd, particularly talk radio. As a result they've spent years vilifying him on a daily basis. In reality, McCain is a more or less mainstream Republican of the type that have been in Congress for decades but because he won't kiss the butts of the Hannity's and Limbaugh's he gets trashed.

I consider myself a very conservative Republican, and while I don't agree with everything McCain has done the demonizing is really out of line. There are even people out there in the waaaay-wingnut right who are spreading rumors of him collaborating with the North Vietnamese while he was a POW.

Like many others here I think McCain is the stronger candidate, especially against Hillary. And while I was not a fan of Bubba, I don't subscribe to the notion that Hillary is the antichrist, either.

Bottom line, as things sit now, I think McCain beats Hillary but Obama beats McCain. That may change, though, as the Democratic frontrunners continue to beat on each other.

OTOH, if the economy does take a turn south (and it's looking increasingly likely that it will) then Scotty is right and it will be the Democrat no matter which one wins the nomination. People run to the Daddy party when they're scared of an external threat (commies, terrorists) and to the Mommy party when there's domestic distress.

[Tom N]

Reverse Psychology? Either way it's music to my ears! :thumbsup:

[Steve]

He's too independent-thinking for some on the far right. IMO that's a good thing.

[SUPERGILDO43]

I like that McCain is the front man. for me the race is much more quality now. he sort of worries me a bit economically but we will have to see how the dems turn out and then go from there...

Mccain gets almost as many independents as republicans and thats why the conservatives dont want to like him, IMO...

[Yota]

First, they aren't "hard cores" they are conservatives.

Second, McCain has long track record of abandoning the principles of conservatism.

The criticism of McCain is not personal (well some of it is personal - from those who know his famous temper), it's political.

I think his much-touted ability to get along with Democrats is precisely because he *is* a Democrat on many issues. I disagree with him vehemently on the tax cut issue and immigration and several other things. But then again, I disagreed with Bush on medicare part D and immigration so whatever. If the president tries to tax us out of a recession or tax us out of a deficit s/he is just going to fail (again). This is not new. Ask Bush 41.

But McCain is at least something of a hawk, which is the most important thing.

I will vote for him in the general because on ALL issues, the Democrats are worse than McCain. I strongly disagree with the likes of Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck who say that conservatives should sit out or, worse, vote for the donkeys. That's just childish.

[MountainJeep]

Zapp best political post I have seen in a long time

kudos

[Yota]

I'd ask Zapp to tell us which politicians kiss Rush's butt.

The notion that Rush or Hannity only support candidates that kiss their butts is absurd. Rush and and Hannity have not criticized McCain because he doesn't "kiss their butts," he criticizes McCain because they are conservatives and McCain has a LONG record of voting like a Democrat when conservative principles are in play. And his LONG record is troubling to a conservative who's looking to nominate a conservative.

It doesn't need to be more sinister than that.

[jnschwie]

When you consider the bickering even within the parties themselves (and it is signficant on both sides), I cannot IMAGINE how any candidate would fancy himself a "uniter" anymore. :shrug:

It ain't gonna happen.

My dream? Political gridlock 2k8!

[SUPERGILDO43]

I'd ask Zapp to tell us which politicians kiss Rush's butt.

The notion that Rush or Hannity only support candidates that kiss their butts is absurd. Rush and and Hannity have not criticized McCain because he doesn't "kiss their butts," he criticizes McCain because they are conservatives and McCain has a LONG record of voting like a Democrat when conservative principles are in play. And his LONG record is troubling to a conservative who's looking to nominate a conservative.

It doesn't need to be more sinister than that.

what you talking bout, McCain says he is whippin out the Reagan pen!!!


I am excited that someone will vote outside of their parties agendas based on what they think is more correct. we need that independent sort of thinking...

[Steve]

I am excited that someone will vote outside of their parties agendas based on what they think is more correct. we need that independent sort of thinking...

Ditto. I'm sick and tired of party line voting. Enough already.

[ZappBranigan]

Yota: Perhaps "kiss his butt" was a bit bombastic but Rush and other prominent conservative talk show hosts seem to have assumed the role of the ideological police for republicans and conservatives. Straying from their pronouncements is considered heretical for the hosts and for thier rabid listeners.

But in reality you can't get things done in DC without cutting deals and making compromises. The talk show hosts hate McCain because he has compromised on issues they think he shouldn't have compromised on. Well and good but the difference is McCain's the one on the field and the talk show hosts are still sitting on the sidelines.

The emptiness of the "hardcore" positions is evident by the fact that their erstwhile champion, Mitt Romney, was a liberal governor of the most liberal state in the US just a few years ago. They supported him not because he was a good candidate (actually, Romney was a terrible candidate) but because they hated McCain so viscerally.

Out here in the real world, where people don't eat, sleep and breathe politics 24 hours a day, McCain's compromises were seen as venal sins. But amongst the conservative radio talk shows and thier adoring fans, they were mortal sins, casting him forever into the pit with Hillary.

I think if anything comes out of this primary process it's going to be a chastened set of conservative talk show hosts who realize that they aren't nearly as powerful or influential as they thought they were.

[Yota]

what you talking bout, McCain says he is whippin out the Reagan pen!!!

Uhh what are YOU talking about? Reagan was against tax rate hikes. So which "pen" are you referring to?


I am excited that someone will vote outside of their parties agendas based on what they think is more correct. we need that independent sort of thinking...

Well that's the point. Raising tax rates is not more correct. It's less correct, historically-speaking.

[scottycards]

Zapp is bringing his "A" game today.

Well stated.

[Yota]

Yota: Perhaps "kiss his butt" was a bit bombastic but Rush and other prominent conservative talk show hosts seem to have assumed the role of the ideological police for republicans and conservatives. Straying from their pronouncements is considered heretical for the hosts and for thier rabid listeners.

But in reality you can't get things done in DC without cutting deals and making compromises. The talk show hosts hate McCain because he has compromised on issues they think he shouldn't have compromised on. Well and good but the difference is McCain's the one on the field and the talk show hosts are still sitting on the sidelines.

The emptiness of the "hardcore" positions is evident by the fact that their erstwhile champion, Mitt Romney, was a liberal governor of the most liberal state in the US just a few years ago. They supported him not because he was a good candidate (actually, Romney was a terrible candidate) but because they hated McCain so viscerally.

Out here in the real world, where people don't eat, sleep and breathe politics 24 hours a day, McCain's compromises were seen as venal sins. But amongst the conservative radio talk shows and thier adoring fans, they were mortal sins, casting him forever into the pit with Hillary.

I think if anything comes out of this primary process it's going to be a chastened set of conservative talk show hosts who realize that they aren't nearly as powerful or influential as they thought they were.

You really are going overboard trying to make this into some kind of visceral hate-fest vis-a-vis McCain. It never was. And those who listen to Rush and Hannity, again, are not "rabid" - they are just conservatives looking for a conservative nominee. Here's the thing to understand about this I think:

All presidents eventually are forced to compromise. McCain, Romney, Huck, they'd all have to compromise. The reason conservatives don't like McCain is because he LEADS with the compromise without first trying the more conservative approach - often without attempting to start from a more conservative bargaining point. In short, he's just closer to a Democrat by his very nature and that bothers a lot of us. So when McCain compromises, we end up with a solution further to the left than we might with a more conservative president.

Romney may not be the perfect conservative, but he's relatively more so than McCain is on the issues.

BTW... did anyone notice that Fred Thompson never endorsed Mitt Romney (or anyone else) even though they were closest on the issues? That pissed me off. But the explanation is simple: Fred is good buddies with McCain. Romney couldn't buy a break.

[scottycards]

But the explanation is simple: Fred is good buddies with McCain. Romney couldn't buy a break.

Ding, ding, ding.

McCain can "get to YES". Something GWB could never do. Hardline negotiating is fine, but you have to "get to YES".

Otherwise, you end up with a "LOSE/LOSE", as evidenced by the current administration on so many issues.

Bush is a horrible negotiator. It was his way, or no way. McCain will get things done, and avoid the lose/lose.

[Yota]

Now let's handicap the general election.

I think both Hillary and Obama are a mile wide and an inch deep.

The problem with both of them is that they are truly novices. Both have made many classic novice blunders already. Either McCain or Romney should spank them in a debate by making them look like children. Hillary actually holds up a little better in this regard than Obama. Obama's problem is that he could get the nomination based mostly upon a bunch puffy sunshine promises. At least Hillary has run a more concrete campaign.

[Yota]

Ding, ding, ding.

McCain can "get to YES". Something GWB could never do. Hardline negotiating is fine, but you have to "get to YES".

Otherwise, you end up with a "LOSE/LOSE", as evidenced by the current administration on so many issues.

Bush is a horrible negotiator. It was his way, or no way. McCain will get things done, and avoid the lose/lose.

Not quite true.

Sometimes the compromises required to get to an agreement are worse than the alternative, which is status quo. It is taken as dogma by Democrats that status quo is always "bad" but that's not necessarily important if we are negotiating between "bad" and "worse."

[TheCopperCowboy]

Uhh what are YOU talking about? Reagan was against tax rate hikes. So which "pen" are you referring to?

Reaganomics increased payroll taxes and the deficit went from 700 billion to 3 trillion. :thumbsdown:

[scottycards]

Not quite true.

Sometimes the compromises required to get to an agreement are worse than the alternative, which is status quo. It is taken as dogma by Democrats that status quo is always "bad" but that's not necessarily true if we are negotiating between "bad" and "worse."

Having spent my entire professional life as a negotiator, I'd beg to differ, based on my experience.

If the status quo is acceptable, why enter into a negotiation, if your desired outcome is (by definition) win/lose? That is to say- if your only acceptable outcome is to win and have the other party to that negotiation lose, why do it?

If they're at all competent, they will see this, and you're right back to lose/lose (status quo).

Waste of time, and a very transparent and elementary approach. Lacks sophistication, and unless you're dealing with kindergardners, ain't gonna work.

[ZappBranigan]

You really are going overboard trying to make this into some kind of visceral hate-fest vis-a-vis McCain. It never was. And those who listen to Rush and Hannity, again, are not "rabid" - they are just conservatives looking for a conservative nominee. Here's the thing to understand about this I think:

Go over to some of the conservative message boards and see what the commenters are saying about McCain. Try Hugh Hewitt's blog in particular. http://www.hughhewitt.com I think is the URL. Hugh finally threw in the towel and is backing McCain but see what his commenters are saying. "Hate" may be too gentle a term.



BTW... did anyone notice that Fred Thompson never endorsed Mitt Romney (or anyone else) even though they were closest on the issues? That pissed me off. But the explanation is simple: Fred is good buddies with McCain. Romney couldn't buy a break.

And with all that money, too...;)

The reason Romney never got traction with most Republicans is because he comes across as completely fake. He actually strikes me as an Aaron Sorkin caricature of a Republican politician: A slick rich guy who thinks he can buy his way into office. Whether that's the way he actually was or not is irrelevant, that was his public persona. And the fact that he had to reverse a lot of the positions he took just 6 years ago to become the governor of the most liberal state in the US didn't help either, they just made him look like a cynical opportunist who would say whatever he thought his audience wanted to hear.

That he could get beaten so badly by lame candidates like McCain and Huckabee just shows how bad a candidate he was.

I'm not, and never have been, a McCain booster. But of the three candidates who remained after Thompson dropped out, he was the best of the bunch, and both McCain and Huckabee have a "genuine-ness" that Romney lacks.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Uhh what are YOU talking about? Reagan was against tax rate hikes. So which "pen" are you referring to?


Well that's the point. Raising tax rates is not more correct. It's less correct, historically-speaking.

I was making a sacrcastic joke out of a McCain quote...

Now let's handicap the general election.

I think both Hillary and Obama are a mile wide and an inch deep.

The problem with both of them is that they are truly novices. Both have made many classic novice blunders already. Either McCain or Romney should spank them in a debate by making them look like children. Hillary actually holds up a little better in this regard than Obama. Obama's problem is that he could get the nomination based mostly upon a bunch puffy sunshine promises. At least Hillary has run a more concrete campaign.

why are you trying to turn the topic??? I dont get the prupose, we have plenty of obama hillary threads :shrug:

[CannonBall]

McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, that really should be enough. He consistently votes against the principles of the GOP, I don?t want more taxes, amnesty for illegals, the government telling me what and when I can see something on television, or the government catering to global warming nuts. McCain has not only supported all of these actions, but he?s helped draft the bills that help undermine our country.

This may not trouble some of you, but I am a conservative because I believe the stances the party takes on most issues are correct. Obviously, the party has changed a lot, but as a conservative I want less government, controlled spending, free market, I want the constitution strictly followed, I don?t want America policing the world, and I want our borders defended. Any bending on those principles and it is an abandonment of the party and in my opinion an abandonment of what the founding fathers intended this country to be. McCain does not have a record of consistently supporting any of the principles of the party, and is essentially a pro-war democrat. He is ?conservative? in the ways that I most disagree with. A better description of his policies is Liberal Lite. I don?t want that in a president, and really I don?t want that in a representative of the GOP.

I saw this election as a turning point for the GOP. We could pick a true conservative who believed in the classic principles of the party and would strongly support them, or we could pick a more GW or Arnold type centrist candidate and essentially blend the two political parties together. Obama is the most liberal senator right now, so McCain looks pretty right wing in comparison, but McCain should show his true colors and run as what he is, a Pro-war democrat.
-Nate

[Yota]

Reaganomics increased payroll taxes and the deficit went from 700 billion to 3 trillion. :thumbsdown:

Are you trying to say that one caused the other? If so you're going to have to bring more than that.

[Yota]

I was making a sacrcastic joke out of a McCain quote...

k


why are you trying to turn the topic??? I dont get the prupose, we have plenty of obama hillary threads :shrug:

Like I'm the first one to discuss it. We're discussing McCain either way.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Are you trying to say that one caused the other? If so you're going to have to bring more than that.

Increased payroll taxes affect the middle class and another huge deficit while in office, (not unlike GWB's), proves that tax cuts for the wealthy does not work, is not in the best interest of the country and only puts the burden on the next administration. That's all I got. :)

[Yota]

Go over to some of the conservative message boards and see what the commenters are saying about McCain. Try Hugh Hewitt's blog in particular. http://www.hughhewitt.com I think is the URL. Hugh finally threw in the towel and is backing McCain but see what his commenters are saying. "Hate" may be too gentle a term.



And with all that money, too...;)

The reason Romney never got traction with most Republicans is because he comes across as completely fake. He actually strikes me as an Aaron Sorkin caricature of a Republican politician: A slick rich guy who thinks he can buy his way into office. Whether that's the way he actually was or not is irrelevant, that was his public persona. And the fact that he had to reverse a lot of the positions he took just 6 years ago to become the governor of the most liberal state in the US didn't help either, they just made him look like a cynical opportunist who would say whatever he thought his audience wanted to hear.

That he could get beaten so badly by lame candidates like McCain and Huckabee just shows how bad a candidate he was.

I'm not, and never have been, a McCain booster. But of the three candidates who remained after Thompson dropped out, he was the best of the bunch, and both McCain and Huckabee have a "genuine-ness" that Romney lacks.

No, Romney is polished. That's not the same as fake but some people mistake it for that. I actually think Romney is very genuine. He walks the walk (which is something I've found to be a common trait among the momons I've known). A Bill or Hillary comes across as utterly fake to me. He's wealthy because he has been successful in private business. Democrats are the ones who get into the class warfare crapola. Conservatism touts the free market so why should anyone fault a conservative for succeeding in it? If anything we should applaud Romney for his productivity!

And we should applaud him because he didn't get his money by being a sleezebag lawyer John Edwards who just takes other people's money.

I guess I'm willing to accept Romney as genuine because I've just watched the guy excel at every single thing he's done since I've been paying attention to the guy. I don't think he is fake at all.

How can a guy like McCain curse out one of his staffers one second then turn and smile for the cameras the next? That's fake.

[SUPERGILDO43]

I guess I'm willing to accept Romney as genuine because I've just watched the guy excel at every single thing he's done since I've been paying attention to the guy.

he didnt excel at getting the GOP votes :flipoff2:

[Jeff Mason]

His immigrant stance? Not a big thing IMHO look up Reagan.

I don't think you can compare that directly, nor can you assume what Reagan would have done if he was faced with the increased need to secure our borders after 911 and the sheer number of illegal immigrants that have come over in the last decade or so. I may be wrong, but I thought he had a two-step approach - step up border patrol and fine employers who hire illegals, and have some compassion for those that are here already.

Today we live in a different environment, and looking back at the effect of Reagan's actions, we can see that just stepping up border control and giving amnesty won't solve the current problem.

McCain doesn't even seem to recognize that much.

Perhaps this belongs in another thread, so I'll wrap it up and go back to contract reviews.

[jtw2]

what you talking bout, McCain says he is whippin out the Reagan pen!!!


I am excited that someone will vote outside of their parties agendas based on what they think is more correct. we need that independent sort of thinking...

which is exactly what I have against McCain. What you really mean is that you are excited about a Republican who will vote for with the Dems.

What I have against any republican is growth of government in any way shape or form. this is exactly what I have against Bush as well: Growing government.

[jtw2]

Increased payroll taxes affect the middle class and another huge deficit while in office, (not unlike GWB's), proves that tax cuts for the wealthy does not work, is not in the best interest of the country and only puts the burden on the next administration. That's all I got. :)


wow, you are so incredibly wrong I won't even go into the details. suffice it to say that you REALLY need to look up the real numbers.

[SUPERGILDO43]

which is exactly what I have against McCain. What you really mean is that you are excited about a Republican who will vote for with the Dems.


no. i am excited someone thinks outside the box. I find more and people that get appalled by people voting outside their party and they are ignorant. Ignorant to think one party will capture ALL of the right answers.

Now if I voted for a democrat that voted republican sometimes and I voted for them, you would say I vote one party tickets.

Stop thinking that one party patriotism is a good thing. ITS NOT...

[SUPERGILDO43]

wow, you are so incredibly wrong I won't even go into the details. suffice it to say that you REALLY need to look up the real numbers.

well, post them for everyone to see...

[jtw2]

no. i am excited someone thinks outside the box. I find more and people that get appalled by people voting outside their party and they are ignorant. Ignorant to think one party will capture ALL of the right answers.

Now if I voted for a democrat that voted republican sometimes and I voted for them, you would say I vote one party tickets.

Stop thinking that one party patriotism is a good thing. ITS NOT...

no, for the most part he is a social liberal. He doesn't vote outside the box, he votes for socialism. period. I pretty much agree with the foreign policy he advocates but seriously, don't be such a fool to kid yourself into thinking that he thinks "outside the box" when all he is doing is agreeing with your socialist views.

well, post them for everyone to see...

no. look them up your self and learn something. Doesn't matter what I post, you won't believe me.

[jtw2]

one of the other reasons you libs like McCain is that you know that deep down someone like me can't vote for him and I won't.


Better the enemy I know than the one I don't.

[SUPERGILDO43]

no. look them up your self and learn something. Doesn't matter what I post, you won't believe me.

says who? you? :rolleyes:

I wouldnt even know where to begin to look. post some links...

[SUPERGILDO43]

one of the other reasons you libs like McCain is that you know that deep down someone like me can't vote for him and I won't.


Better the enemy I know than the one I don't.

lol are you kidding me?? I HAVE never and WILL never vote because I know "SOMEONE" wont like my vote...

Making you unhappy is at the very bottom of my priority list...

[jtw2]

that's my point, nobody thinks for themselves though you're entire diatribe against me is that I follow party line.

with all due respect if you can't even figure out where to get the raw numbers how can you credibly engage in any debate over things like this?

Get a clue then get back to us...

[jtw2]

lol are you kidding me?? I HAVE never and WILL never vote because I know "SOMEONE" wont like my vote...

Making you unhappy is at the very bottom of my priority list...

seriously? That's your take away from my statement?

[SUPERGILDO43]

seriously you think i vote to piss you off?

[jtw2]

seriously. You think that's what I said?

[SUPERGILDO43]

you said I like him because you will never vote for him.

[jtw2]

and you make the leap that I think you vote to piss me off how?

Look, I'll explain it to you in terms I hope you'll understand.

Libs like McCain and promote him because they know that they can influence the voter turnout numbers negatively in favor of their pet socialist while they then in turn vote for said same pet socialist.

If you can't seem to grasp that salient point I really have nothing for you. You are lost and beyond hope.

[SUPERGILDO43]

yep thats why. and thats why you sit on your almighty soap box on a forum. youve seem to have ALL of the answers (and show you are QUITE sure of it) so why dont you get out and run for something?

when I DONT listen to you (like now) is when you think youre doing me some life changing advice giving favor. lets save the hassle, I think your full of it (at least when you dont post the facts that you advertise), and you think the same of me. At least I try to learn as I go. you dont seem to think learning is good anymore ;)

[jtw2]

That's the point. You don't try to learn. You just want someone to dump fact on you.

I've learned a long time ago that trying to talk sense to people of your ilk is like trying to wrestle a pig. I'll just get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

Go study or don't be surprised when people who are knowledgeable on a subject tell you you are full of crap and challenge you.

I'm not sitting on a soapbox. You asked an opinion and got one so why get so pissed off? I won't run because I did 10 years in the state legislature and know what it's about. I won't compromise my beliefs and principles which is what it takes to be successful.

I believe that the Republican party has abandoned it's principles. The proof comes when anyone who believes such as you agrees with them and should serve as a call to arms to the Republican party that something is wrong. Until the Republican party gets back to its roots I won't vote for them. Some libs know this implicitly or seem to feel it indirectly and so promote some RINO like McCain.

[Budman]

I don't get it

[SUPERGILDO43]

That's the point. You don't try to learn. You just want someone to dump fact on you.

I've learned a long time ago that trying to talk sense to people of your ilk is like trying to wrestle a pig. I'll just get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

Go study or don't be surprised when people who are knowledgeable on a subject tell you you are full of crap and challenge you.

I'm not sitting on a soapbox. You asked an opinion and got one so why get so pissed off? I won't run because I did 10 years in the state legislature and know what it's about. I won't compromise my beliefs and principles which is what it takes to be successful.

I believe that the Republican party has abandoned it's principles. The proof comes when anyone who believes such as you agrees with them and should serve as a call to arms to the Republican party that something is wrong. Until the Republican party gets back to its roots I won't vote for them. Some libs know this implicitly or seem to feel it indirectly and so promote some RINO like McCain.

wanting someone to "dump" facts isnt for learning?

I dont "agree" with any party. my take is that they all suck.

I commend McCain for his stand against party voting. you say its against your beleifs and principles. well in my opinion it looks like someone else is taking that stand and succeeding.

I listen to rush limbaugh and hannity every weekday. I take some bits of fact out of it and I actually enjoy the broadcasts (moreso as an entertainment factor) but I find that their one track political minds and huge egos are synonymous. You come off exactly like them to me. I take facts from you almost anytime you get involved in politics threads but someone who thinks they are always right and their whole point is to prove how right they always are live with their heads up their arses.

and to be frank, I never "ASKED" for your opinon (nor anyones) about anything here.

[jtw2]

[quote=SUPERGILDO43;994627]wanting someone to "dump" facts isnt for learning?

No, it's not. you are taking someones "facts" as gospel without finding them out for yourself. It's as bad as getting your "facts" from Ann Curry on the Today show.

I dont "agree" with any party. my take is that they all suck.

I commend McCain for his stand against party voting. you say its against your beleifs and principles. well in my opinion it looks like someone else is taking that stand and succeeding.

It has nothing to do with parties. As I've stated I subscribe to conservatism not a party. McCain isn't a conservative.

I listen to rush limbaugh and hannity every weekday. I take some bits of fact out of it and I actually enjoy the broadcasts (moreso as an entertainment factor) but I find that their one track political minds and huge egos are synonymous. You come off exactly like them to me. I take facts from you almost anytime you get involved in politics threads but someone who thinks they are always right and their whole point is to prove how right they always are live with their heads up their arses.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about supporting someone who subscribes to your values. I have conservative values. I believe that government governs best when it gets out of the way. At this point none of the surviving candidates subscribes to that POV.

Yota disagrees with this but I can't vote for McCain just because he has an R after his name any more than I could vote for Clinton if he/she had an R after their name. To me it's the same thing.

and to be frank, I never "ASKED" for your opinon (nor anyones) about anything here.[

do you not understand that any reply on a public formum is an implicit invitation to opinion?
/quote]

[1BGDOG]

one of the other reasons you libs like McCain is that you know that deep down someone like me can't vote for him and I won't.


Better the enemy I know than the one I don't.

AHA!!! So are you one of those Rs that is voting D out of spite?!!?!?!?

[jtw2]

BTW since Romney is now out the socialists are now going to win. We'll see how that turns out.

For the first time since 1982 I will not be voting this year.

Me? I'm buying ammo from here on in. I have a feeling I'll be needing it.

[osue077]

It sure seems that there are a ton of conservatives that are saying "if you don't believe EXACTLY what I believe, well then you're not a conservative." I don't buy it. Plus there are so many people quoting facts about McCain that are lies and half truths. What many don't realize is that talk radio is entertainment, opinons, thoughts, and blasting about McCain fianance reform, or not voting for the bush tax cut or imigration is only hurting the conservative party. Everyone out there should research Mc Cain's service as a Senator. I would bet you would see that Rush is only telling half of the story. You would see why McCain did vote for Bushes tax cuts and arguably would have eleminated the threat of recession today. You would see that the McCain Feingold is petty cry baby bull that libs worry about not conservatives. That the "Amnesty" that everyone claims is not. It is enforcing the laws that are already in place and McCain is smart enough to know that deporting 10 mill mexicans is not only unreasonable but economicly retarded. You would also learn that in 25 years, he has never voted for a tax increase, wheras Mitt did in his blue state. You would learn that he apposes gun control, wheras Mitt voted for it in his blue state.
McCain may not be hard core, but the next pres will nominate a supreme court justice. Don't be fooled by people with an adjenda. Mitt Romney, IMO is just a liberal as McCain. Just depends on what you deem liberal.

[jtw2]

AHA!!! So are you one of those Rs that is voting D out of spite?!!?!?!?

call it that if you want. I call it maintaining my principles. It's getting rare but it's something I won't do.

[SUPERGILDO43]

No, it's not. you are taking someones "facts" as gospel without finding them out for yourself. It's as bad as getting your "facts" from Ann Curry on the Today show.


i never said nor proved I take anything for gospel. I dig around when something irks my info radar and when I can, I like to screen sources. I asked for your source. I see nothing wrong with that :shrug:

It has nothing to do with parties. As I've stated I subscribe to conservatism not a party. McCain isn't a conservative.
you said you follow a "party line". i dont really see much of a difference...


It's not about right or wrong. It's about supporting someone who subscribes to your values. I have conservative values. I believe that government governs best when it gets out of the way. At this point none of the surviving candidates subscribes to that POV.
ive never issued a problem with something like this. thats your right as an american to vote how you like. vote or dont vote for who you want.

I would like less government as well, because thats what I would like. not some political party...


Yota disagrees with this but I can't vote for McCain just because he has an R after his name any more than I could vote for Clinton if he/she had an R after their name. To me it's the same thing.
and I am not going to vote for someone cause they have D or R either...

do you not understand that any reply on a public formum is an implicit invitation to opinion?
of course, but i never "asked" for your opinion specifically. You imply that i am some puppy following you around ready to catch every scrap of knowledge you will give me.

[jtw2]

It sure seems that there are a ton of conservatives that are saying "if you don't believe EXACTLY what I believe, well then you're not a conservative." I don't buy it. Plus there are so many people quoting facts about McCain that are lies and half truths. What many don't realize is that talk radio is entertainment, opinons, thoughts, and blasting about McCain fianance reform, or not voting for the bush tax cut or imigration is only hurting the conservative party. Everyone out there should research Mc Cain's service as a Senator. I would bet you would see that Rush is only telling half of the story. You would see why McCain did vote for Bushes tax cuts and arguably would have eleminated the threat of recession today. You would see that the McCain Feingold is petty cry baby bull that libs worry about not conservatives. That the "Amnesty" that everyone claims is not. It is enforcing the laws that are already in place and McCain is smart enough to know that deporting 10 mill mexicans is not only unreasonable but economicly retarded. You would also learn that in 25 years, he has never voted for a tax increase, wheras Mitt did in his blue state. You would learn that he apposes gun control, wheras Mitt voted for it in his blue state.
McCain may not be hard core, but the next pres will nominate a supreme court justice. Don't be fooled by people with an adjenda. Mitt Romney, IMO is just a liberal as McCain. Just depends on what you deem liberal.


I have no idea what Rush is saying since I work when he is on but the research I've done on McCain points firmly to the fact that he's a RINO and that he's way more liberal than I am. I don't see any difference between him and and D. He'll sell out any rights on the table for more growth in government just like Obama or Clinton.

I just don't see any difference between the three of them. This election has got to be a liberal's wet dream. They are going to get socialism progression no matter what happens.

[jtw2]

No, it's not. you are taking someones "facts" as gospel without finding them out for yourself. It's as bad as getting your "facts" from Ann Curry on the Today show.


i never said nor proved I take anything for gospel. I dig around when something irks my info radar and when I can, I like to screen sources. I asked for your source. I see nothing wrong with that :shrug:

I'm telling you to go get the facts for yourself. I don't have a "source". Study, it's what they used to teach in school.

It has nothing to do with parties. As I've stated I subscribe to conservatism not a party. McCain isn't a conservative.
you said you follow a "party line". i dont really see much of a difference...



I don't follow a party line. I follow conservative principles which is what the R party used to do as well.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about supporting someone who subscribes to your values. I have conservative values. I believe that government governs best when it gets out of the way. At this point none of the surviving candidates subscribes to that POV.
ive never issued a problem with something like this. thats your right as an american to vote how you like. vote or dont vote for who you want.

I would like less government as well, because thats what I would like. not some political party...

I somehow doubt that. Less government means people suffer the consequences of their own actions and the belief that stupid should hurt.


Yota disagrees with this but I can't vote for McCain just because he has an R after his name any more than I could vote for Clinton if he/she had an R after their name. To me it's the same thing.
and I am not going to vote for someone cause they have D or R either...

do you not understand that any reply on a public formum is an implicit invitation to opinion?
of course, but i never "asked" for your opinion specifically. You imply that i am some puppy following you around ready to catch every scrap of knowledge you will give me.
WTF are you talking about? Do you seriously think that I GAF what anyone thinks of my opinion enough to have that kind of hubris?


bored of this at this point. I think I've presented my point of view sufficiently at this point.

kthxbye.

[TheCopperCowboy]

I'm sure there was some Independents and Republicans involved with the results.

[jtw2]

I'm sure there was some Independents and Republicans involved with the results.


uhhhh.....what?:shrug:

[SUPERGILDO43]

bored of this at this point. I think I've presented my point of view sufficiently at this point.

kthxbye.

I could have told you that after the first post (i think I actually did at some point), but you wanted to try to be absolutely right so... :shrug:

[Steve]

uhhhh.....what?:shrug:

Here, let me try as I *think* I actually agree with him. :eek: Lots of independents and moderate republicans have had a hand in giving McCain the lead he now has.

The problem I have with what's being argued about McCain is that when you carry that argument out, you must have a "true conservative" running under the R ticket and a "true liberal" under the D. That leaves out a whole lot of people in the middle. Lots of Republicans and independents are voting for McCain. "True conservatives" have a problem with that. What should moderates and independents do, sit out each election? So far lots more people registered as republican like McCain than the other candidates. That's how our system works.

[SUPERGILDO43]

I don't follow a party line. I follow conservative principles which is what the R party used to do as well.

... is that I follow party line.

:shrug:

[TheCopperCowboy]

uhhhh.....what?:shrug:

Pertaining to your Democrat's wet dream comment. It seems to be going well, you know, this "change" and all. Americans are energized and the number of voters, be them D, R or I, aren't sitting home on their ass because things don't quite go their way. Doing their part to insure that "change" will occur. I've never seen this type of committment from any party and it's still early, yet. :cool:

[jtw2]

I could have told you that after the first post (i think I actually did at some point), but you wanted to try to be absolutely right so... :shrug:

WTF do you get that?

I was giving my answer to the OPs question.

I'm one of those conservatives who believes in conservatism and doesn't have a candidate this year.

Those in my position will do what everyone else is doing this year: voting according to their beliefs.

[jtw2]

Pertaining to your Democrat's wet dream comment. It seems to be going well, you know, this "change" and all. Americans are energized and the number of voters, be them D, R or I, aren't sitting home on their ass because things don't quite go their way. Doing their part to insure that "change" will occur. I've never seen this type of committment from any party and it's still early, yet. :cool:

good luck with that. I'm convinced that this country is on a steady march toward socialism and nothing will stop it until the bankruptcy that will happen.

[CLYDE]

Ok Im not a fan of mccain, but, the arguments that are going here about how you have to be a party liner is pretty much silly.. I dont believe the part line, and yet I consider myself to be pretty conservative. There are things I strongly disagree with in my party, and others I agree with.

So I wonder where that puts me. I believe in smaller govt, less taxes, strong military, and an end to illegal immigration. However I believe that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body, that Marijuana should be legalized, and that there are way to many nanny laws on the books. I dont like the patriot act, not the whole big brother thing.

Im against gun control, Im against, a lot of things that take place in washington thses days.


Hmmm I just dunno what that makes me?? Still aint voting for a democrat tho.:flipoff2:

[TheCopperCowboy]

nothing will stop it until the bankruptcy that will happen.

You mean it hasn't begun. :eek:

[jtw2]

makes you a libertarian Clyde. Pretty much what I am regardless of what the libs on the board think.

[jtw2]

You mean it hasn't begun. :eek:

no, it's been well on it's way since 1941.

[cheftyler]

:shrug:

Way to take that quote out of context...go re-read that post. All he said was that your problem with him is that you think he follows party lines :shrug:

[CannonBall]

Why have parties if they stand for nothing? Sooner or later the presidency will be like the Denver Mayor, no need for parties because everyone essentially has the same principles. I went to a McCain rally in 2000 when I was in high school; he's shown his true colors since then.

I'm a registered republican because while I am very rigid and unyielding in my beliefs, I am not for full privatization of everything. Though I would prefer that over the direction I see America going.

McCain quoted Reagan about not compromising the principles of the party, WTF, that?s exactly what McCain is doing.

-Nate

[Steve]

Why have parties if they stand for nothing?

Why have parties if they are so narrow minded that they only represent a small portion of the population? When that happens that party will die off.

[jtw2]

exactly. everyone seems to only care about getting the D or R in office and fawk what that individual believes.

sometimes you just got to step back and give the country what it wants and prepare for the inevitable fall out out.

[jtw2]

Why have parties if they are so narrow minded that they only represent a small portion of the population? When that happens that party will die off.

which is what is happening to the R party. It's in the midst of redefining what it is. I may or may not be an R when it's done deciding.

[jtw2]

I really don't understand this fascination with socialism. Do these people not study history?

[CannonBall]

yeah I mean, wow like a majority of the voting population, OMG, SO NARROW MINDED. I'd bet a large majority of the people disagree with the immigration bill McCain proposed, they're a narrow minded minority, same with the finance reform... for those who actually know about it, that crazy narrow minded small portion of the population. Again when there's no platform, there's no party, why have it, why build a pary on principle then abandon those principles?
-Nate

[TheCopperCowboy]

I equate the parties as the outside surface of a ball where the fringes are. This time around, the ball's core found it's voice and there is more mass in the center core than on the outside surface. I got nothing. :shrug:

[jtw2]

you're right. you got nothing.

[Steve]

Again when there's no platform, there's no party, why have it, why build a pary on principle then abandon those principles?
-Nate

So, if a potential candidate does not agree with all parts of the platform should they still be allowed to run as a member of that party?

[TheCopperCowboy]

I really don't understand this fascination with socialism. Do these people not study history?

I had some relatives who met with fascism first hand. That didn't go too well. :mad:

[jtw2]

fascism and socialism are two different paths down the same road.

[Steve]

Facism =/= communism =/= socialism.

Three different things.

[jtw2]

So, if a potential candidate does not agree with all parts of the platform should they still be allowed to run as a member of that party?


no. they do not agree with the party at that point. They should start their own party.

[jtw2]

Facism =/= communism =/= socialism.

Three different things.

yes, but they all = government in control at the end of the day which ALWAYS = a bankrupt country.

[TheCopperCowboy]

So, if a potential candidate does not agree with all parts of the platform should they still be allowed to run as a member of that party?

Not following. What's the potential candidate to do when he is chosen by a majority due to popularity? There is a reason for that.

[Steve]

no. they do not agree with the party at that point. They should start their own party.

In that case I guess even though I've been registered as one for 30+ years I'm not a real republican then either. I agree with most of the party platform, but like Clyde I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion if she wants. That's strictly against the party's platform.

Who decides the party's platform? Why is it apparently written in concrete and can't change?

Blind and unquestioning obedience to an official platform is how past atrocities have happened. Questioning is a good thing.

[CannonBall]

They?re allowed to do whatever they want, I wouldn't expect people to have to provide evidence of their republicanship, I just don't agree with it. I'm currently using co4x4 to voice my opinion on the matter.

I guess if someone really completely abandoned the party the RNC could say ?you aren?t a republican anymore?, but I don?t think there?s any prescient for that. While I don?t agree with McCain and consider him ?liberal lite,? unfortunately it appears that?s the direction the GOP wants to go, and I may not consider myself a Republican for many more years.

-Nate

As for the fascism/socialism/communism I see the political spectrum as a circle instead of a line. Many consider fascism to be the far right and socialism to be far left. With the circle analogy the extremes of either essentially become the same. The bottom of the circle is ?middle of the road? the right and left sides are ?standard? conservative and liberal beliefs, and as you rise up towards extremism there are more and more similarities in the outcome.

[jtw2]

In that case I guess even though I've been registered as one for 30+ years I'm not a real republican then either. I agree with most of the party platform, but like Clyde I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion if she wants. That's strictly against the party's platform.

Who decides the party's platform? Why is it apparently written in concrete and can't change?

Blind and unquestioning obedience to an official platform is how past atrocities have happened. Questioning is a good thing.

I have no problem with questioning and no one will ever believe in all planks of a party platform but when you violate the key tenets of the platform, trusses, not planks, then you should seriously reconsider your place in the party. This is not hard and fast concrete, this is the essence of the free market. piss off enough of your market and you no longer have support. keep supporting that market (candidate) blindly then you won't effect change. remember the Reagan movement happened because of Carter.

Steve if you still feel enough of the R party planks are covered by their candidate and are the ones that you agree with then you should vote for McCain. I'm just not there and I'm not coming back soon.

[CannonBall]

I have no problem with questioning and no one will ever believe in all planks of a party platform but when you violate the key tenets of the platform, trusses, not planks, then you should seriously reconsider your place in the party. This is not hard and fast concrete, this is the essence of the free market. piss off enough of your market and you no longer have support. keep supporting that market (candidate) blindly then you won't effect change. remember the Reagan movement happened because of Carter.

Steve if you still feel enough of the R party planks are covered by their candidate and are the ones that you agree with then you should vote for McCain. I'm just not there and I'm not coming back soon.

I guess you have to determine what issues the party decides to be the trusses and what are the planks.
-Nate

[jtw2]

exactly. It's obvious to me that some trusses to me are mere splinter planks to some in the party.

Might be time for me to part ways with the R party.

[CannonBall]

Yep, I felt that way for a while... I thought a lot of people felt the same, but apparently not strongly enough. Maybe my problems with the party were just the oppositie of everyone elses, I think the party's gone to the left, they think it's gone too far to the right. I didn't think so, but that seems to be the case.
-Nate

[jtw2]

for some reason the the right has been associated with some sort of religious intolerance (laugh!) but it has always meant smaller government. Apparently telling people that government is not the answer is out of favor. again, we're probably going to have to let nature take its course. This economic path is well spelled out in history. Plan accordingly.

[Budman]

BTW since Romney is now out the socialists are now going to win. We'll see how that turns out.

For the first time since 1982 I will not be voting this year.

Me? I'm buying ammo from here on in. I have a feeling I'll be needing it.

You basically have 3 statements in this post. I agree with 2/3s of them.

1. The socialists are now going to win... Agree
2. Not voting... I just don't get this. Why would you NOT Vote? By not voting, you are basically surrendering to the socialists. If too many people take this stance (as I fear will happen) we are doomed to a minimum of 4 years of downward spiral that we may not recover from.



3. I am for sure buying all the ammo I can get my hands on.

[starbreaker666]

You basically have 3 statements in this post. I agree with 2/3s of them.

1. The socialists are now going to win... Agree
2. Not voting... I just don't get this. Why would you NOT Vote? By not voting, you are basically surrendering to the socialists. If too many people take this stance (as I fear will happen) we are doomed to a minimum of 4 years of downward spiral that we may not recover from.



3. I am for sure buying all the ammo I can get my hands on.

Many feel that if you vote for McCain you are already voting for a Liberal so whats the point(but I did not need to tell you that). I will not be voting for a president this year because I will NOT support a president that advocates open borders and amnesty for those people.

[Budman]

My problem with this mentality is this: You can either vote for someone who has at least SOME of your concerns in common, or you can surrender to the other party who have none of your intrests covered. I just don't get the "I don't like the canidates, so I am not going to vote mentality. But that is just me.

[stewp97]

I'm not real happy with McCain but what choice do I have now? To me he is still better than the alternative.

I was listening to some talk radio yesterday. They were discussing that this race may come down to both candidate's choices for VP. Would it change anyones mind of how to vote if McCain chose Romney (or another more conservative candidate) for VP? I know I would be happier.

peter

[Budman]

The VP plays such a small role in the day to day goings on of the country that it really does not matter to me who they choose.

Of course that all goes out the window if something happens to the president.

[jtw2]

Here's the thing:

If McCain is in the white house the Rs in congress will go along with his crap while if BamaClinton gets in the Rs in congress will fight everything. I'm a big fan of congress getting nothing done.

[DaJudge]

Here's the thing:

Take a look at the ages of the current Justices of the US Supreme Court and ask yourself who you want to nominate their successors for ratification by a Democratic controlled Senate:

1st year is appointment; 2nd is year of birth.

John Paul Stevens (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE049572), Ill. 1975? ? Ill. 1920 ? Protestant ?

Antonin Scalia (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE046331), DC 1986? ? N.J. 1936 ? Roman Catholic

Anthony M. Kennedy (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE028100), Calif. 1988? ? Calif. 1936 ? Roman Catholic

David H. Souter (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE048739), N.H. 1990? ? Mass. 1939 ? Episcopal

Clarence Thomas (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE051596), DC 1991? ? Ga. 1948 ? Roman Catholic

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0772253), DC 1993? ? N.Y. 1933 ? Jewish

Stephen G. Breyer (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0772744), Mass. 1994? ? Calif. 1938 ? Jewish

John G. Roberts (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0932552), DC 2005??N.Y.1955?Roman Catholic

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0932915) N.J.2006? ?N.J.1950?Roman Catholic

[stewp97]

The VP plays such a small role in the day to day goings on of the country that it really does not matter to me who they choose.

Of course that all goes out the window if something happens to the president.

Other than the fact that the VP is often the party's next presidential candidate.

peter

[jtw2]

doesn't matter. Dems won't let a true conservative on the court and Rs cave in.

[Gags]

Damn, do people really think that if a Dem is elected the Country is going to turn into some kind of socialist Nation? That's just not going to happen.

[jtw2]

sure it will. it's been a steady march that way for years. Dems in office just accelerate the process.

[ZappBranigan]

BTW since Romney is now out the socialists are now going to win.

Romney never stood a chance. My god, he couldn't get people of his own party to vote for him. How do you think he'd do in the general election?

McCain actually has a chance of winning. Of course, a lot of hardcore conservatives think a McCain victory would be worse than a McCain defeat (although I'm not one of them.)

[Gags]

sure it will. it's been a steady march that way for years. Dems in office just accelerate the process.

We haven't been "pure" captialism really ever. A little bit of what would be deemed socialism has been part of our history. A little bit here and there isn't that bad. In some cases it has actually helped. Remember the book "The Jungle." Most Americans want us to stay as capitalistic as possible.

[bsaunder]

I'm amazed at how much power many people think the president actually has - there are very few things that can be done by executive order, for laws - they have to be given to him by congress. Yes, the president sets the tone and will request laws to be made; but they still have to be given.

For internal to the country actions, the ones I mainly look at when deciding on who to vote for president are mainly economic policy and view on government organizations (need more, less, leaner, etc - this includes USFS & BLM as well as CIA, NSA, DHS, etc). The rest is their view on foreign policy and relations.

All the fuss about socialism is really a bunch of strawmen in the argument for the presidential candidates IMO as congress has to give it first.

[Gags]

I'm amazed at how much power many people think the president actually has - there are very few things that can be done by executive order, for laws - they have to be given to him by congress. Yes, the president sets the tone and will request laws to be made; but they still have to be given.

For internal to the country actions, the ones I mainly look at when deciding on who to vote for president are mainly economic policy and view on government organizations (need more, less, leaner, etc - this includes USFS & BLM as well as CIA, NSA, DHS, etc). The rest is their view on foreign policy and relations.

All the fuss about socialism is really a bunch of strawmen in the argument for the presidential candidates IMO as congress has to give it first.

X2

[Steve]

I'm amazed at how much power many people think the president actually has - there are very few things that can be done by executive order, for laws - they have to be given to him by congress.

Very true. I think what has people a bit more scared than usual is the current "leaders" of Congress, Reid and Pelosi, both of whom are ultra-liberal and all for much bigger government in our lives. Combine that with a liberal Dem president and you have a recipe for passing massive new government programs that would normally not stand a chance of passing.

Regardless of your political views, some balance between Congress and the President is a good thing. With Pelosi, Reid and Billary running the government, I fear there will be no balance.

[Sound_Man]

I sure wish there was another option on our ballots. One that says "none of the above". This way if all of the candidates are terrible choices (like they are this time) the current administration stays in place and we start over and hold elections in 12 months. I can't believe that the front runners we have now are the best this country has to offer.

[Gags]

I sure wish there was another option on our ballots. One that says "none of the above". This way if all of the candidates are terrible choices (like they are this time) the current administration stays in place and we start over and hold elections in 12 months. I can't believe that the front runners we have now are the best this country has to offer.

The best our Country has to offer are running things like Apple and Microsoft, or teaching at Harvard or Yale, or are putting peoples' hearts back together...

I don't think our options are all "that" bad.

[bsaunder]

Regardless of your political views, some balance between Congress and the President is a good thing. With Pelosi, Reid and Billary running the government, I fear there will be no balance.

I can fully agree with the need for balance - that is honestly what scared me the most about the last congressional elections. Many people out there voted for whoever had a D next to their name, regardless of what they actually stood for as they had a major beef with what the previous ~6years of government had done. Basing decisions about who should be running the country on emotional reaction without much or any rational thought or research is really scary to me. Makes me glad that the founding fathers didn't trust the general populace to 100% directly elect their representatives.

For McCain - I can see why die hard conservatives have an issue with him; however I don't think that he has gone so far as to "shame" the GOP.

[Gags]

Did anyone see McCain interviewed in the documentary "Why We Fight?"

[Waifer2112]

I'm not real happy with McCain but what choice do I have now? To me he is still better than the alternative.


peter

I think this was exactly the mindset a lot of folks had while pulling the lever for Kerry last time 'round.

[Steve]

I think this was exactly the mindset a lot of folks had while pulling the lever for GWB last time 'round.

Fixed it for ya. ;) I think it applied equally both ways 4 years ago.

[Tom N]

I don't get it

X2.

[Waifer2112]

Fixed it for ya. ;) I think it applied equally both ways 4 years ago.

Exactly!

Would you rather drown, or burn to death?

NOt much of a choice.

[Sound_Man]

The best our Country has to offer are running things like Apple and Microsoft, or teaching at Harvard or Yale, or are putting peoples' hearts back together...

I don't think our options are all "that" bad.

In my opinion we have not been given a good choice. Not for a long time has there been a candidate that I agreed with 100%. Honestly I don't think there has been a candidate that I agree 100% with in the time that I have been able to vote.

[DaJudge]

Honestly I don't think there has been a candidate that I agree 100% with in the time that I have been able to vote.
...and there never will be. Such a creature would be shunned by the general electorate! :flipoff2:

[Gags]

In my opinion we have not been given a good choice. Not for a long time has there been a candidate that I agreed with 100%. Honestly I don't think there has been a candidate that I agree 100% with in the time that I have been able to vote.

Sh!t man, how many people do you know as friends whom you agree with 100%? I don't know any. But that's OK if their heart and mind is in the right place.

[DaJudge]

My problem with this mentality is this: You can either vote for someone who has at least SOME of your concerns in common, or you can surrender to the other party who have none of your intrests covered. I just don't get the "I don't like the canidates, so I am not going to vote mentality. But that is just me.
My old buddy Teeter agrees with you:



Lt Col [Ret] Harold A. Teeter
Box 728
La Luz NM 88337
Phone 575-434-3639

Thursday, February 07, 2008


Alamogordo Daily News
Letter to the Editor
Hand Carry

Gentlemen:

Romney was my choice for president and today he withdrew his candidacy. I can hardly blame him after Super Tuesday. It would have taken a miracle for him to gain the republican nomination. So where do I go from here? [1] stay home ? don?t vote. [2] vote for McCain who has the nomination virtually locked up? [3} vote for the democrat nominee?

People in hell will be enjoying their long awaited ice water when I vote for either Clinton or Obama; not because one is a woman and the other black, but because both are socialists. If either gains the presidency, we will make a sharp left turn into socialism, essentially starve our military establishment and the United States, as we know it, probably will never recover. So option 3 is out. Option 1 is essentially a vote for socialism, and I?m smarter than that, so that leaves me with option 2 = vote for McCain.

I shall therefore support McCain for president in the general election this November. I think I can say the McCain essentially means well. It is just that he has amazingly bad political judgment; McCain/Feingold, [free speech]; Kennedy/McCain [immigration amnesty]; closure of Guantanamo Bay without regard to the legal consequences of plugging our federal courts with Habeas Corpus cases, which we shall lose and then have to turn loose the present prisoners. Most of them are intent on murdering Americans simply because they are Americans.

McCain?s motivation for these cases of shocking bad judgment is his love of bi-partisanship. While bi-partisanship is a good idea, it cannot consist solely of simply giving in to the most liberal democrats. For that reason alone, I shall never trust him. I also will not trust him because, in my judgment, he deliberately lied, for political advantage, the afternoon before the Florida primary election 29 January, when he claimed that Romney wanted to fix a day certain for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Other than just claiming such to be true, McCain has presented no evidence that Romney ever wanted to do so and in fact Romney?s position was quite the contrary. Now we have seen political dirty tricks before in political campaigns, however to deliberaty lie about an opponents position, at a time when the opponent has no opportunity to rebut before a crucial election, and for naked political advantage is beyond any decent political tactic and deserves withdrawal of any future trust. So while I will support his election, as the lesser of evils, I will keep a critical eye on any of his future promises.


Sincerely



Harold A. Teeter

[Gags]

My old buddy Teeter agrees with you:



Lt Col [Ret] Harold A. Teeter
Box 728
La Luz NM 88337
Phone 575-434-3639

Thursday, February 07, 2008


Alamogordo Daily News
Letter to the Editor
Hand Carry

Gentlemen:

Romney was my choice for president and today he withdrew his candidacy. I can hardly blame him after Super Tuesday. It would have taken a miracle for him to gain the republican nomination. So where do I go from here? [1] stay home ? don?t vote. [2] vote for McCain who has the nomination virtually locked up? [3} vote for the democrat nominee?

People in hell will be enjoying their long awaited ice water when I vote for either Clinton or Obama; not because one is a woman and the other black, but because both are socialists. If either gains the presidency, we will make a sharp left turn into socialism, essentially starve our military establishment and the United States, as we know it, probably will never recover. So option 3 is out. Option 1 is essentially a vote for socialism, and I?m smarter than that, so that leaves me with option 2 = vote for McCain.

I shall therefore support McCain for president in the general election this November. I think I can say the McCain essentially means well. It is just that he has amazingly bad political judgment; McCain/Feingold, [free speech]; Kennedy/McCain [immigration amnesty]; closure of Guantanamo Bay without regard to the legal consequences of plugging our federal courts with Habeas Corpus cases, which we shall lose and then have to turn loose the present prisoners. Most of them are intent on murdering Americans simply because they are Americans.

McCain?s motivation for these cases of shocking bad judgment is his love of bi-partisanship. While bi-partisanship is a good idea, it cannot consist solely of simply giving in to the most liberal democrats. For that reason alone, I shall never trust him. I also will not trust him because, in my judgment, he deliberately lied, for political advantage, the afternoon before the Florida primary election 29 January, when he claimed that Romney wanted to fix a day certain for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Other than just claiming such to be true, McCain has presented no evidence that Romney ever wanted to do so and in fact Romney?s position was quite the contrary. Now we have seen political dirty tricks before in political campaigns, however to deliberaty lie about an opponents position, at a time when the opponent has no opportunity to rebut before a crucial election, and for naked political advantage is beyond any decent political tactic and deserves withdrawal of any future trust. So while I will support his election, as the lesser of evils, I will keep a critical eye on any of his future promises.


Sincerely



Harold A. Teeter


Sorry but he's kinda full of sh!t. We are not going to all of the sudden become a socialist nation if a Dem is elected. Ridiculous.

[firefighter184]

so adamant about not liking him?

His immigrant stance? Not a big thing IMHO look up Reagan.

Not supporting the tax cuts? We have a big enough deficit.

Discuss....:P


McCainnedy = Closed rivers, open borders.

[Budman]

Sorry but he's kinda full of sh!t. We are not going to all of the sudden become a socialist nation if a Dem is elected. Ridiculous.

Here is where the President has lots and lots of power. Federal funding. Yes it is approved by congress, but the president sets the tone. Take a look at what Clinton did to the military's numbers, funding etc. He cut/chopped/hacked us terribly, and it is still killing us. Keep in mind that all the Secretaries work for the President, and do as he says. That is Sec Def, Sec State, Sec Interior etc. You want to see guns taken away, trails closed, our military chopped even more, More welfare, and nanny state money going to freeloaders and illegals, then cast your vote for who ever wins the dem nomination. It is what they are best at.

[Sound_Man]

McCainnedy = Closed rivers, open borders.


If he closes the rivers and stops these I will be happy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/08/eajelly108.xml




:flipoff2:

[osue077]

I guess I always thought the pesimist party were the dems? It's becoming clear to me that I was wrong. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[TheCopperCowboy]

I guess I always thought the pesimist party were the dems? It's becoming clear to me that I was wrong. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Now, now! Be nice! :tisk: You know over the last 7 years they always made sure to never step on our toes. :D

[osue077]

I guess my frustration is with all of the sell outs. "Well if that is who we have to choose from, I just won't vote!" What childish nonsence!
Is he my first choice? No, but is that who the majority of the party is nominating? Yes, therefor I will suport the masses. That is what makes up the republican party.

[jtw2]

you're missing our point. Point is that if that is the values of the party then perhaps we should no longer be part of the party.

You really need to look up the definition of "sell out" and see who the sell outs really are.

[jredmond]

Ok Im not a fan of mccain, but, the arguments that are going here about how you have to be a party liner is pretty much silly.. I dont believe the part line, and yet I consider myself to be pretty conservative. There are things I strongly disagree with in my party, and others I agree with.

So I wonder where that puts me. I believe in smaller govt, less taxes, strong military, and an end to illegal immigration. However I believe that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body, that Marijuana should be legalized, and that there are way to many nanny laws on the books. I dont like the patriot act, not the whole big brother thing.

Im against gun control, Im against, a lot of things that take place in washington thses days.


Hmmm I just dunno what that makes me?? Still aint voting for a democrat tho.:flipoff2:

Thats it I am voting for Clyde:D He is the only one I agree with 100% so far.

From what I have seen on the debates I agree with McCain on a few more issues then Obama but I think Obama will do much better getting the US on better terms with the rest of the world which is why I will vote for Obama 1st, McCain 2nd. Also when Obama says he wants to end the war I am not afraid that he will just pack everything up and go home. I feel that he will work toward a resolution ASAP then go home which is what I want.

Hilary is a worthless pile. She has flip-flopped on issues in the same debate and cant be trusted. It seems like she is fishing for what is popular at the time (more so then the others), this is the same problem I had with Kerry, and why I feel cost Kerry the office. As far as dealing with the rest of the world she is just as bull-headed as Bush which is not what we need right now. We need someone that can work well with other governments. I admit I hate fem-a-nazi's so I have never liked her.

[jtw2]

if you really believe that about Obama prepare to be sorely disappointed if he gets in.

[jnschwie]

if you really believe that about Obama prepare to be sorely disappointed if he gets in.

.

[1BGDOG]

if you really believe that about Obama prepare to be sorely disappointed if he gets in.

No matter who the politician is be prepared to be sorely disappointed. :)

[jtw2]

agreed

[cheftyler]

Obama has waaaaaaaaaaaay too little experience to tie his shoes much less deal with international leaders on any sort of even footing. He's too inexperienced to make any sort of informed decision on anything military, so how do you figure he's going to have any cohesive plan on how to be Commander in Chief...you do realize that is his title, right?

[Steve]

If the mailroom kid at your company was an inspirational speaker would you make him the CEO and think he could succeed? Why would you do it with the President of the United States? :shrug:

[jredmond]

No matter who the politician is be prepared to be sorely disappointed. :)

I should have 1BGDOG's statement as my disclaimer.

Hil-dawg has a little more experiance she has proven her self to be horrable.

McCain in my opinion is ok and will do much better then Obama when dealing with the Military. I just never liked or trusted McCain that at all.

I think Obama better get some good advisors cause he is going to need them and I also know his lack of experiance is an issue. I just trust him more to make a halfway decent decision (which is all I can hope for given who is left) when dealing with other countries which, for now, is more then I can say for McCain.

[creepycrawler]

McCain sucks & he gets my vote.

[cheftyler]

If the mailroom kid at your company was an inspirational speaker would you make him the CEO and think he could succeed? Why would you do it with the President of the United States? :shrug:

Damn you for saying it better than I did!

[creepycrawler]

It is pretty amazing to see the numbers of people who have jumped on the Oboma bandwagon. What kills me is that anytime you ask any of them why they for him, all they have to say is that he is for "change." Well who the hell isn't & what ed zachery is he planning on changing? He hasen't said a damn thing about what his great "changes" are going to be. :shrug:

[TheCopperCowboy]

Obama ain't going to be Prez if they stay in a tie. Usually a junior Dem will concede, which means Hillary is the candidate. She could choose him as a running mate and then he can make a run at it in 4 / 8 years. Nobody seems to realize that Grandpa McCain is 71, with that in mind, add Depends, Geritol and a full-time nurse's aid to the federal budget. McCain's fawked! :D

[Jeff Mason]

Nice that you think so highly of someone in their 70s.

Seems to me that the campaigns he's been on the last few cycles have been grueling and long, and he seemed to do fine there. Frail and old are not words to describe him.

[Tom N]

It is pretty amazing to see the numbers of people who have jumped on the Oboma bandwagon. What kills me is that anytime you ask any of them why they for him, all they have to say is that he is for "change." Well who the hell isn't & what ed zachery is he planning on changing? He hasen't said a damn thing about what his great "changes" are going to be. :shrug:

Repost :flipoff2:

[DaJudge]

you're missing our point. Point is that if that is the values of the party then perhaps we should no longer be part of the party.

You really need to look up the definition of "sell out" and see who the sell outs really are.
And you are missing our point. There isn't any other party with a chance of winning closer to what you prefer that the 'R's' so hold your nose, if that's what it takes, and vote that way.

[creepycrawler]

Repost :flipoff2:



Yeah, & still noone has an answer to what he's going to change.

[Tom N]

Yeah, & still noone has an answer to what he's going to change.


Right but we have a thread dedicated to that subject already.

[jredmond]

Yeah, & still noone has an answer to what he's going to change.

You can look here for your answer

www.barackobama.com



Here are a few things he wants to do that I can think of:

inforce immagration laws
start a government health care system
cut taxes for the middle class

[Steve]

Here are a few things he wants to do that I can think of:

start a government health care system
cut taxes for the middle class

Anybody that believes you can do both of those things is smoking some good stuff. :rolleyes:

If you think McCain is too old he'll send his 96 year old mom to kick your ass. :spit:

[jredmond]

Anybody that believes you can do both of those things is smoking some good stuff. :rolleyes:

If you think McCain is too old he'll send his 96 year old mom to kick your ass. :spit:

John McCains and Hil-dawgs web sites aren't much better.
www.johnmccain.com
www.hillaryclinton.com

there is alot of that crap in all 3 of the sites:shrug:

[jtw2]

And you are missing our point. There isn't any other party with a chance of winning closer to what you prefer that the 'R's' so hold your nose, if that's what it takes, and vote that way.

well after this fiasco there very well might be.

[DaJudge]

you're missing our point. Point is that if that is the values of the party then perhaps we should no longer be part of the party.

You really need to look up the definition of "sell out" and see who the sell outs really are.
And you are missing our point. There isn't any other party with a chance of winning closer to what you prefer that the 'R's' so hold your nose, if that's what it takes, and vote that way.
well after this fiasco there very well might be.

Good. If and when that party takes the field it will enjoy your full support. Until then, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. :tisk:

[Budman]

if you really believe that about Obama prepare to be sorely disappointed if he gets in.

Obama has waaaaaaaaaaaay too little experience to tie his shoes much less deal with international leaders on any sort of even footing. He's too inexperienced to make any sort of informed decision on anything military, so how do you figure he's going to have any cohesive plan on how to be Commander in Chief...you do realize that is his title, right?

Obama's foriegn policy will be a train wreck. Actually Clinton's was a train wreck. What ever is 10X worse than a train wreck. That is what Obama's will be.

You can look here for your answer

www.barackobama.com



Here are a few things he wants to do that I can think of:

inforce immagration laws
start a government health care system
cut taxes for the middle class

Yeah, a canidate's webpage is where I will look for that they are all about.

My question to all three of the statements is... How???

John McCains and Hil-dawgs web sites aren't much better.
www.johnmccain.com
www.hillaryclinton.com

there is alot of that crap in all 3 of the sites:shrug:

See comments above.

[jtw2]

Good. If and when that party takes the field it will enjoy your full support. Until then, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. :tisk:

if everyone shows up and votes for any damned fool with an R after his name the R party won't see that there is a problem.

[Tom N]

So now it's "The next backlash will be greater than the current backlash". :confused:

[jnschwie]

LOL.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h132/HappyJeep/ClintonProsperity.jpg

[TheCopperCowboy]

Rumor has it that if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, (and he will won't), then he will run as a third party candidate on the Libertarian platform. Now, that's good news, right? :)

[starbreaker666]

Rumor has it that if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, (and he will won't), then he will run as a third party candidate on the Libertarian platform. Now, that's good news, right? :)

At least I'll have someone to vote for.

[1BGDOG]

W calls MCain a true conservative

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/politics/11cnd-bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[scottycards]

I can't believe I read all this.

I want my 10 minutes back. Holy cats........kinda sad.

The world is a good place, and it's been fine for a long time. It'll be fine for a long time after we're gone.

Exhale, people.

[Steve]

I can't believe I read all this.

I want my 10 minutes back. Holy cats........kinda sad.

Shoulda known better. :P

The world is a good place, and it's been fine for a long time. It'll be fine for a long time after we're gone.

Exhale, people.

Well said. :thumbsup:

[TheCopperCowboy]

McCain just got an endorsement from the "Decider". If that ain't a green light, I don't know what is. :D

[creepycrawler]

W calls MCain a true conservative

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/politics/11cnd-bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


The problem with that is that W probably thinks of himself as a "true conservative" but he's not.

[scottycards]

Former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is to formally endorse frontrunner John McCain later today, according to a report.

Officials have told the AP news agency that former Massachusetts governor Romney, who dropped out of the race last week, would make an announcement later in the day.

Romney will then formally release his 288 delegates and urge them to back McCain.

[jtw2]

yup. bet the farm that Romney will now be the VP nominee.

[jtw2]

ich nine

[creepycrawler]

ich nine

Your what hurts?

[TheCopperCowboy]

Might be nothing, might be the end. :cool:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12333/thumbs/s-JOHN-MCCAIN-large.jpghttp://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12341/thumbs/s-ISEMAN-large.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html

[Budman]

Might be nothing, might be the end. :cool:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12333/thumbs/s-JOHN-MCCAIN-large.jpghttp://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12341/thumbs/s-ISEMAN-large.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html

You know cowboy, I came on here to slam you. But then when I got here, i read your first line. Can't wait to hear the press conference. Of course I will be in bed before it comes on. I have to say, I think he is going to hit the NYT right in the teeth. If so, I think it will help him. It is one of the things that I have disliked about the current admin is that they will not knock the media on thier arse when they make shat up, or blow things way out of proportion.

[potter]

I know it's sad. But I hope nothing comes of that. If McCain dropped out. Hukabee would be the primary republican candidate ::shudders::

[DaJudge]

I know it's sad. But I hope nothing comes of that. If McCain dropped out. Hukabee would be the primary republican candidate ::shudders::
Romney didn't quit; he 'suspended' his campaign.

[Gags]

Ah yes, let the smirring begin. Completely irrelevant to me if McCain even did have relations with this woman. We can't pretend to know the inner workings of anyone elses relationships but our own. I thought it was BS with Bill Clinton and it's a BS move with McCain.

[Steve]

Ah yes, let the smirring begin. Completely irrelevant to me if McCain even did have relations with this woman. We can't pretend to know the inner workings of anyone elses relationships but our own. I thought it was BS with Bill Clinton and it's a BS move with McCain.

Agreed. Unfortunately smearing is what the media does best, and even more unfortunately lots of people DO care about this kind of crap.

[scottycards]

McCain's wife is actually not to shabby, for an older woman. A little nip here, a tuck there, and she's every bit as good looking as the chick above......

I don't believe this poop for a second. McCain is a stand up guy, and would make a heck of a president.

[Gags]

I'm one of those who really believe that the media holds tremendous power over how people think and react within popular culture. I wish they would be more f@cking responsible than what they are. Jounalists have a friggin room that they stay in during the debates called the "spin" room...They don't even try to hide the fact that they are "spinning" the truth.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Romney didn't quit; he 'suspended' his campaign.

That's right. This smacks of something Karl Rove would do. ;)

[jtw2]

I'm pretty disgusted with the NY Times right now.

[TheCopperCowboy]

The Washington Post was ready to throw this down this morning. The NYT had 4 credible leads in the story and decided to buff McCain's lawsuit threat. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's undercover, expose it. :cool:

[stewp97]

The Washington Post was ready to throw this down this morning. The NYT had 4 credible leads in the story and decided to buff McCain's lawsuit threat. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's undercover, expose it. :cool:

Credible? How do we know that? They wanted to remain anonymous :rolleyes:

The NYT has been working on the story since December. Why did they endorse him in January, when they knew they would be running this story at a later date? Seems a little odd to me.

This will backfire on the NYT. After listening to several interviews with people who know a lot more about the situation, I actually have a lot more respect for McCain.

peter

[LONEWOLF]

If they didn't endorse him, and he lost they wouldn't have had a story. The only way to have the story is to keep him in the running. I think what they are doing is B.S. even if he did have relations or what ever whos business is it any way.