There are not enough "real conservatives" in the country to ever win a national election, and not enough in most states to win a Senate seat or a governorship. And there never will be. Those are the facts; the sooner the "real conservatives" get used to that, and start working better with those who reach out towards the center, the sooner you can start getting some of your goals accomplished.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
I disagree - we didn't have to reach across the isle to get Ronald Reagan. We didn't have to reach across for G.W. (and yeah - he let us down on fiscal conservatism but he's been rock solid with the social issues and appointing Supreme Court judges - which McCain won't be).
We're not interested in "working" with someone who believes in amnesty for illegals. We're not interested in "working" with someone who is caught up in Pope Al Gore's Alarmist Church of the imaginary Global Warming Crisis. We're not interested in working with someone that believes in government subsidies for embryonic stem cell research. We're not interested in working with those who float "class warfare" arguments.
In short - I don't think "true" Conservatives are interested in working with McCain at all. The only thing he gets us is a solid stance on the war on terror - which apparently the majority of American's don't want (if you look at the polls). His Presidency would provide a Republican scapegoat for every failure the Democratic Congress would be responsible for. He's not going to appoint judges like Alito to the SC.
Pfft! Someone needs to remind me of why I need to get off my arse and go to the polls to pull for him? To "win" an election? That's not important to me. Simply winning is not enough - we need someone who will work for OUR ideals - not Ted Kennedy's.
Sorry.
exhelodrvr
· 1 year ago
Bush has been very similar in office to what McCain would be.
You're wrong about McCain Supreme Court nominations, and as others have posted, the idea that you would rather the country suffer for four years so that you can "purify" the party is horrific.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
Not interested in "purifying" the party. I'm interested in voting for Conservatives - you can have the Republican party - but you won't have my vote - and, well I'm not the only one.
If winning at any cost is your idea of the way to run a party well - it's beyond purification it's time for a split. At this point I'll support any third party conservative that runs. Barring that - I'll watch from my sofa.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
The other problem with trying to maintain the "conservative" brand name is that the world will be unrecognizable in about 5 years. Even the oil companies are warning the shits going to hit the fan in 3 or 4 years, and it'll be all downhill for about 20 years after that. War will be limited to places where our troops can get by walking or rowboat.
viking01
· 1 year ago
Perhaps I should preface the following remarks by stating that I was kicked out (tongue in cheek) of the John Birch Society for being too Conservative.
The problem is the next 9/11 would probably be nuclear. Couple that with the Clintoons notoriously filling the CIA, Defense and State Department with patronage jobs (e.g. Bill Cohen , William Christopher) , lackeys (e.g. former CIA Director John "don't touch that porno on my classified CIA computer" Deutsch) and discontents (e.g. Mad Halfbright) while gutting our defense. Blend in terrorist appeasers like Pelosi and Reid. Shake vigorously.
Literally, shake vigorously (yourself) awake and realize that if complacency emboldens terrorists appeasement will more so. Whenever disaster hits the Clintoons they assemble focus groups whereby they'll be too busy passing out the handouts with the purty charts and graphs to notice the Battle of Britain on our own shores truly could be underway. Couple that Clintonian incompetence with martial law and those four years could rival a regency if not longer. Those wishing for a Hillary coronation to actually happen, certainly should sit the election out and watch her exploit for personal gain any power or chaos she can muster.It's a family tradition.
And poor Obambi..... What words of optimism could quell the fears of those suddenly realizing in harms way (their own back yards) that happy words and smiling stump speeches provide no armaments and refuges in the dangerous world called terrorism reality?
McCain's choice of VP will be crucial. In part because of his health problems which will be an issue the activist media will exploit. Secondly, because (see paragraph one) in a nuclear terrorist age the possibility exists that rapid promotion for a VP has increased. It will also serve to show whether McCain means what he says to CPAC. Although I would have preferred that Slick had been removed from office I can understand Fred Thompson's reasoned explanation for keeping Slick in office was to avoid Al Gore as president. Given a choice of dolts it is best to select or keep the least dangerous of the two.
Think carefully about staying home in a huff in November because if Bin Laden isn't alive watching those whom would seek his legacy certainly are. A party split is exactly what Obambi and Hillary are hoping some in the GOP will do. Who needs a Ross Perot spoiler when the Democrats best shot is a rehashing of 2006? If there's going to be some house cleaning in the GOP it had best be done after November because the current ship is already headed out of port. If any genuinely want a Jocelyn Elders equivalent placed in charge of National Security in a domestic front war on terrorism by all means be sure angry Hillary or Obambi get sworn in. A whole lot of disaster can happen in four years of wanting to regain power. None of it pretty with much of it lethal. About the only thing more painful might be explaining to our soldiers in Iraq how one expects to avenge McCain, by enabling Hillary, but at their expense.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
Well here's the frustration...
I'm a OEF / OIF veteran. I have been there - and I have lost friends. I will tell you that I'm sick and tired of seeing our young men and women who are committed 100% to the fight - who are willing to give their lives for this mission ... to DEFEND US.
And yet - we have so many of the "SILENT MAJORITY" sitting on their butts and 9 to 5'ing it in complete silence while Berkely harasses Marine recruiters and the top Democrats malign our troops. Why is Jack Murtha allowed to walk the streets in peace? Why isn't he harassed and yelled at?
Why are the only ones who seem to be committed enough to "cut up" and look like an idiot in public the ones on the OTHER side?
If you believe in the mission - let's see some civil disobedience. Let's see Conservatives mounting protests at the government offices in Berkeley - let's see them shutting their government DOWN.
Everyone is glad to have troops who are willing to DIE for their defense. But few on our side are willing to STAND UP and defend them here at home.
Just tired of fighting - let the barbarians have it all.
The problem is - none of that does any good. Boycotts? We did that with the Dixie Chicks and they've simply become hero's to liberals - who even buy their albums now.
People support the troops as long as that support is limited to sticking a magnet on their car, or a bumber sticker, or answering a telephone poll, or signing an online petition.
In short - if the activity of support doesn't burn any calories or cause any embarrassment - we're ALL for it. But if it takes some physical effort or requires us to show our actual angry face in a public place - we're no where to be found.
We don't deserve those kids over there who go out and risk their lives for us everyday when we don't have the GUTS to stand up for them here and shout down the idiots who malign them.
And that is really the bottom line.
KW64
· 1 year ago
My son and his associates go to the local recruiting station periodically to counter protest the anti-war protesters who harassed the recruiters enough that a court order limits the time they can demonstrate to Saturday Mornings.
So the court supported the recruiters, the counter protesters support the recruiters and the locals who show appreciation (including coffee etc.) for the counter protesters suggests that the soldiers are not alone. A lot of people on the home front also assist in sending useful things to the troops. Our Rotary group has helped with several efforts on those lines.
The big test is the next election. We need to keep the pressure on in Iraq until after the next parlimentary election at least so that our progress will not be lost.
MichaelSmith
· 1 year ago
We won’t gain any support by adopting the tactics of Code Pink. I know it’s frustrating, but reason is on our side and we mustn’t discard it by behaving like the left.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
Why not? The tactics work - we've been brought to our knees by them haven't we? We have been rendered completely impotent. That fact can't be denied. We're losing - even though we're WINNING that war. :(
KW64
· 1 year ago
We are not losing now and we will not lose the war if the Republicans win the White House.
Christoph
· 1 year ago
Bill Cohen was a patronage job?
viking01
· 1 year ago
To a degree, yes, although more of his willfully being patronized by Clinton than patronage. I suspect Bill Cohen had to have enough political sense to realize that if anything went really wrong he'd end up as Bill Clinton's latest fall guy. If Clinton openly noted Bin Laden was a threat in 1997 and 1998 then he certainly must have known danger was around the bend and he would need someone to blame for the problem other than himself. That happened to Les Aspin after Somalia (and also after the first World Trade Center attacks) and to a lesser degree the same thing happened to William Perry after Clinton ignored Rwanda, got bogged down in the Balkans and then in 1996 the Khobar Towers was attacked. Cohen arrived at a time when Clinton was gutting the military and in the wake of Aspin's and Perry's attempts to end our now vital Strategic Defense Initiative. Cohen was willing to step into Clinton's mess... for what?, a resume enhancement or a exit strategy for his political career? One thing certain is Clinton always needed a deflector from his draft-dodging past. Not merely a draft-dodger president and CINC but an "I loathe the military" draft dodger to use Clinton's own words.
Under Cohen's watch the USS Cole and Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies were attacked without substantive response or strategy by Slick. Too bad Cohen lacked the resolve and temper, say, of a Hyman Rickover (fmr. SecNav) type, to raise hell when necessary and to ruffle feathers to defend the military and the nation from the ever lackadaisical Clinton... even if it meant resigning from SECDEF. Certainly those in the higher echelon of national security had a clue or two about the Bin Laden threat before dumping it in W's lap on inauguration day of 2001.
Instead Cohen chose merely to play along with Bubba after the Cole attack which likely indicated to Al Qaeda / bin Laden that both Cohen and Clinton were asleep at the helm and that inattention could be exploited for what became 9/11.
The other problem I have with Cohen was his farewell tour of living it up at public expense during the latter months of Bubba's last term. I believe it was Bill Gertz who had a story or two on that topic. Apparently some of the Clinton's taste for high living instead of focusing on the job at hand had rubbed off.
Moneyrunner
· 1 year ago
Bitter Enders.
How’s that for beginning to persuade people who are not already on your side … calling them names. How …. McCain-like.
Look, Cap, there are hosts of reasons for people who believe in free speech, lower taxes, less government intrusion into our lives not to like McCain. But we do it on principal, not for personal reasons.
You call for unity in the face of the Democrats. Having read you almost daily, I know that you consider yourself an eminently reasonable person, able to see both sides.
So why do you (forget about the commenters) BEGIN with an insult?
Charles Krauthammer had an excellent comment about the tone of McCain’s call for unity: it was arrogant and condescending; a demand that we should join HIM in unity. It puts me in mind of the bed of Procrustes.
Let’s face the truth Cap, McCain is neither so inspiring a leader or so faithful to the Republican party that we now have a moral obligation to us to follow him anywhere. At this point he must give us a reason to follow. And using either Obama or Hillary as bogeymen is not good enough.
And insulting us is not making me willing to go in his direction. Insults I can get from the Left.
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
And if, instead of saying "Join me," he says "I'll morph into what you like" then he's insincere with no core principles. You've create a no-win situation.
TheYell
· 1 year ago
McCain dug himself into that pit. Reagan and Bush didn't ever have to prove something at CPAC.
Moneyrunner
· 1 year ago
I'm willing to join him if he's willing to join me. He's looking for my vote and the votes of millions like me. I’m not asking a damn thing from him.
There is a difference between sticking to principles and stubbornness.
John Maynard Keynes is famous for many things. One time he was accused of changing his mind. He responded:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
The example of McCain Feingold is a perfect way for him to begin. How did that work out, John? Did you learn anything?
When an enemy of free speech converts, I won’t be there calling him a flip-flopper. Will you?
jpm100
· 1 year ago
McCain won because Romney is a Morman and both Fred & Rudy botched their campaigns.
Add tons of friendly & free press from the Media for both Huckabee and McCain plus some cross-over voting and there you go.
I don't consider this past primary as a shining example of how the democratic process reflects the will of the people.
There's some good advice in that the Conservatives need to focus on the Senate & Congress as well as the State Level.
If "we should support McCain anyway" crowd fights Conservatives on this, its time for a party split.
Christoph
· 1 year ago
Just because you didn't get what you want, doesn't mean it wasn't the will of the people. Republican primary voters tend to be more conservative than the average. And they are leaning toward John McCain.
And that's why I say to you, jpm100, "Waa."
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
Interesting point - what do the numbers actually say on this? To me it looked like Huck and Romney were splitting the "true conservative" vote and that more people were actually voting against McCain than for him. But I could be wrong.
viking01
· 1 year ago
While McCain would get my vote against Marxist Hillary or Obambi, if it eventually comes to that, I can certainly understand the reticence about him expressed in various comments. The Gang of 14 tantrum alongside weaselly Lindsey Graham, McCain-Feingold, The Keating Five, immigration all are suggestive of someone often prowling for a cat fight for no good reason.
That reticence about McCain must be weighed against who we KNOW an angry Hillary would nominate to the Supreme Court which would be three or four Buzzy Ginsberg clones to replace physical train wreck Ginsberg, ancient Stevens, maybe Souter passing on from sloth, and perhaps Anthony Kennedy accidentally overdosing on self-worship. That's the clincher for me. McCain's Supreme Court nominees may not be precisely whom I'd like yet probably would not be flaming Marxists or ACLU shills that angry Hillary certainly would choose.
That said, I can still feel for those concerned about McCain's true loyalties because, try as I might, when reading McCain's CPAC speech, I cannot help hearing a distant echo of "I'm a changed man" which Clintoon told the nation during a scripted 60 Minutes puff piece back in 1992.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
I'll vote for McCain with zero expectations. Maybe he'll pleasantly surprise me!
And I'll work hard to elect conservatives to the Congress and state legislature. Time to plant the seeds for the next generation of conservatives.
STU2
· 1 year ago
The funny thing about the moderates is that they think their scheming has succeeded in not only seizing Republican power from the conservatives, but fielding a winning candidate for the general election.
Last point first. The absolute best thing about a Romney candidacy would have been seeing him engaged in presidential debates with the eventual Dem candidate. He’s energetic, quick of his feet and has the full function of an excellent memory. He’s not a completely instinctive conservative yet, but by the time the next phase of the race started he would have perfected some verbal illustrations of liberalism versus conservatism. He seems to me to be pretty good at painting a picture via analogy, like the U.S. becoming the France of the 21st century.
In a debate, the Democrats can’t even honestly state their own intentions, for fear of revealing the totality of their statist visions. That makes them stumble and contradict themselves. Obama doesn’t know enough about the economy to even forward a decent lie about it. Clinton can only make up a lie that you have to want to believe in order to fall for it.
But, either of them will look like geniuses-on-speed compared to McCain. He is cursed with not being able to be honest about his intentions, concerning subjects he doesn’t understand, even if he can remember what they are. Don’t believe me? Take another look at the last debate, and then compare it to some video from his run in 2000. And get used to it, because you’re going to see a lot of it on the news this year.
Sorry, center-centers…in your zeal to nominate somebody the polls (the freaking POLLS) told you could win in 2008, you’ve hung a big anchor around all our necks.
Now…the coup. A number of republicans have proven themselves to be devious and untrustworthy. The tactics they’ve used to secure the nomination have been underhanded, ranging from faith-baiting and rumor mongering to lying about opponents’ statements and using the media to distort the nature of the state-by-state contests.
The tactics they’ve used to marginalize anyone who protests this usurpation are right out of the Clinton playbook, which is to say, the Stalin playbook. The fact that they’ve chosen this moment in history to splinter the coalition shows their arrogance and recklessness, and underscores the proposition that they don’t just dislike conservatives (who annoyingly hold their feet to the fire on issue after issue), they don’t even have the intellectual capacity to understand them.
A case in point – the Bush tax cuts. McCain says he voted against them because there were no accompanying spending cuts and his sycophants throw their hands up and say, “See, he had a good conservative reason for it, he’s just so much of a deficit hawk”.
The folks on talk radio have made much of the fact that at the time he wasn’t talking about that, but rather using class warfare rhetoric about “tax cuts for the rich”. That’s bad enough but it misses the real point which is that Bush’s tax cuts were incentive based and growth oriented and anybody who understood Reaganomics would know that they would PAY FOR THEMSELVES.
The tax cuts brought more money into the treasury than the taxes would have. Spending restraint would have been nice, coming from our little club of GOP legislators, and maybe we would still be a majority party if they’d had some ability to control themselves. But, if Senator McCain’s position had won the day, the deficit would now be miles above where it is. He had zero excuse for that vote other than economic incompetence or a grudge against Bush. Great president material there.
But I digress. The point is that the D.C. GOP insiders don’t get conservatives, but we get them. We are the bare-knuckle street-fighters of the party and they are the backroom rollover specialists. We made the mistake of not realizing until it was too late, that this was not a straight-up primary race, but we won’t make that mistake again.
Oh, I’ll vote for John McCain…I promise. It won’t make any difference, but obviously he wants to be president really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad. So I’ll try to give him what he wants.
But I’ll also be using whatever meager abilities I have to ensure that the Washington cabal gets broken up in the next few election cycles and that we replace them with people who understand conservative principles and can share that vision with the misinformed electorate.
Shaun Stuart
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Your last two words say it all. The misinformed electorate?
The electorate isn't any more misinformed this cycle than it was in any other election season. We're not silly sheep wandering aimlessly, needing only a strong lasso to pull us into the conservative corral.
Mitt Romney didn't lose because the other candidates tricked us. He lost because people voted against him. Why? Well, there are lots of reasons for it, take your pick. He came across as phony, as a contrived conservative, mouthing positions that were convenient to his political goals, because evangelicals will never vote for a Mormon, because he came across as a corporate Wall Street type, divorced from the everyday realities of the middle class, because he avoided serving in Vietnam and then tried to convince people he wished he really had, because he seemed to compare the contributions of his 5 sons to his campaign as equivalent to the service of their peers in the military, because talk radio and some conservative pundits tried to shove him down our throats as their choice and therefore necessarily our choice.
In the end, it doesn't really matter why he lost. But I know this, he didn't lose because of some dirty tricks, that he was somehow shut out of the opportunity to compete fairly or because the electorate was fooled.
When the campaign season started there was something like 9-10 Republican candidates. We're supposed to believe there was some secret chamber sitting back in Washington pulling all their strings, masterminding this covert effort to keep Romney from getting the nomination? Please. Politicians aren't that bright. It's a conspiracy theory worthy of the left.
And running against Washington is as old as the hills and it never works.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
I don't think the electorate is misinformed. I think it's divided. Right down the middle. A narrow majority of the GOP, all principles aside, thinks John McCain is more electable than the others. I have my doubts, but we're about to test that proposition.
As William F. Buckley, Jr. liked to say, "51% of the electorate are not always right." But maybe they are in this case. Which is why I'll vote for John McCain, and work to put conservatives into the Congress and state legislatures.
norm
· 1 year ago
"...That’s bad enough but it misses the real point which is that Bush’s tax cuts were incentive based and growth oriented and anybody who understood Reaganomics would know that they would PAY FOR THEMSELVES..." um...that's just flat out wrong. if your argument depends on factual error then ipso facto your argument is wrong.
MichaelSmith
· 1 year ago
I don't know why you say that, norm.
Tax receipts by the Federal government are substantially higher now, after the tax cuts, than they were when Bush took office. Tax receipts in 2000 were $2,025,457; in 2007, tax receipts were 2,568,239, and increase of over $500 billion per year. You can see the data here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf...
In fact, that increase in tax receipts exceeds the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
MichaelSmith
· 1 year ago
Also, tax receipts DOUBLED over the 8 years Reagan was in office.
jr565
· 1 year ago
he says taht because hes a lefty with an axe to grind and is coming here to troll. Don't think that posting things like actual facts will dissuade him.
norm
· 1 year ago
no - but typical conservative response to make a personal attack and ignore substance - i say that because it is fact. tax cuts may lead to more revenue but not enough to pay for the tax cuts. it's a net loss. the actual fact is that this administration has thrown 9 trilion in deficit spending at the economy and in return they have gotten anemic growth and job creation that has not kept pace with job demand. those are facts. but it's easier for someone like you to call someone a troll than to actually think about what is going on and make a reasoned argument.
Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential.
TheYell
· 1 year ago
We had an economic downturn, during which revenues will take a dip regardless of rates.
We can't tax enough to keep entitlements in the black.
TyCaptains
· 1 year ago
Yeppers WRT the downturn but the link from the WH is specific towards the notion of tax cuts paying for the loss in revenues. It simply wasn't.
norm
· 1 year ago
but htye didn't exceed the cost of the tax cuts themselves.
STU2
· 1 year ago
Well, don’t just leave me ignorantly dangling out here, Norm. What’s wrong?
That Bush’s tax cuts were growth oriented, or that increased government revenue doesn’t equal a tax cut paying for itself.
If I'm wrong, fine...but I'd like to know why.
Shaun Stuart
norm
· 1 year ago
neither the bush or reagan tax cuts paid for themselves. and while bushs tax cuts may (or may not) have led to growth, if growth was the goal they were misdirected. in other words there was far bigger bang for the buck possible. not that another misdirected bush policy suprises me...
norm
· 1 year ago
somehow that ended up in the wrong place...it should have followed shaun stuarts post.
Allen Mathew
· 1 year ago
Cap'n, I agree After reading Sen. McCain's speech I conclude that the republican party is in serious trouble this election cycle. I recently was in a group of people who were also active in this last caucus. Unfortunate for me they were all of the Democratic persuasion. I came to feel their hopefulness of their movement, despite the platform or lack there of, to move forward. Oddly, they spoke of the opportunity to replace the old guard which is funny because their old guard is the group who said to not trust anyone over 30.
In contrast the Republican are talking about who are they going to vote against. In past elections one of the most well known talk show host would say that was the Republican attribute that the hopefulness of the conservative message to move forward can overcome and motivate people to support more Republicans. However, due to the deviation of the original message the Republican party has not capitalized on this original ideal. Criticism of Sen. McCain are not with out merit nor without reason. Those who call themselves conservative support many differing candidates causing fractures and frictions in what Ronald Reagan brought together. It is to be remembered that even within Reagan's cycle there were differing opinions from Dever, Regan, Stockman. Yes, that is a far difference than working with Ted "Aquaman" Kennedy.
In closed caucus settings McCain is not winning such as in Minnesota or Iowa. However, one candidate has fallen victim to prejudice which I would say is not very Reagan like. Otherwise McCain won in more open primaries. He has carried more vote but not a majority as Mr Romney observed. It is the set of rules each state has employed which has caused this electoral college like distortion.
This election is not just about McCain. I wish Mr. Romney did not leave the campaign so early as to bring about a more brokered convention and maybe help solidify more conservative ideals into the campaign. But what are they? Again the most conservative candidate have received the least overall votes in this primary season. McCain's campaign has benefitted by the early electoral season because of state parties trying to be more influential grab the spot light from Iowa and his long established campaign offices.
The Supreme Court is in play. Those nominations will have an impact long after the administration is gone. McCain has pledged to nominate conservative choices that would be a least one winning choice as compared to the Gingberg like candidates we would get from the other side. Yes there are no guarantees, but I think Harriet Meiers was a fluke. There is also the Congress. New efforts must be taken to keep things from siding back. Yes, I have issues with Sen. Coleman but will things be better with a Ciresi or Franken? MN 3rd District will loose Rep. Jim Ramstad. Will we be better off with a new Klobuchar or worse?
Despite Sen. McCain's stubbornness which is a characteristic that may have served him well in the past can come to be very irritating to say the least for those who call themselves conservative today. Yet, as in the immigration debate last year, if these many factions can speak in a clear singular voice like a choir echoing though a grand cathedral, conservatives can still be heard, not to stop sing, no screaming, just because you need a new breath. Regards
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
That Republicans find all of their candidates too far to the left may indicate that they are more acceptable to the undecideds and not-fully-committeds who outnumber the hard-conservatives. Since for me SCOTUS and terrorism are the most important issues, McCain is fine by me. I would have preferred Thompson, but it seems that you can't get elected to anything as a thoughtful man because the MSM won't cover you. To get their coverage, you have to be a demagogue. A loud or obnoxious demagogue. McCain manages the former, and has talent for the latter.
pilsener
· 1 year ago
Trust? The question for me, and I suspect for many conservatives, can I trust McCain's words.
Many remember the first President Bush's "Read My Lips" pledge that he didn't really mean. We also remember him giving us David Souter.
All of us remember George W. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" which meant little restraint on federal spending, expanded entitlements, McCain-Feingold signed into law, support for amnesty, and Harriet Meiers.
McCain is the Republican nominee and we'll all try to "make the best of it". It's just still not clear at this moment what the best course of action is regarding McCain. It is clear that we need to throw our support behind conservative Senaotrs, Representatives. Governors, and state legislators.
KW64
· 1 year ago
Waiting for the new Ronald Reagan is beginning to sound like waiting for the 12th Imam (Mehdi) to return and restore perfection to the world. Putting the present on hold while you wait for second comings if futile. Maybe some day there will be these second comings of Reagan or the 12th Imam, but they are not here now and for the time being, you better make the best of what is available. (HINT the best available is not Hillary or the most liberal member of the US Senate.)
dougf
· 1 year ago
"Waiting for the new Ronald Reagan is beginning to sound like waiting for the 12th Imam (Mehdi) to return and restore perfection to the world."
This says a LOT about a certain faction of the GOP. And none of what it says is good. A poster says that he would rather see the GOP fracture than support McCain. You know what ? A lot of people are going to start agreeing with him before this is over.
Some of them;
A. Democrats. B Independents. C.Moderates. D. Even some 'real' conservatives.
They will see the need for the Party to be rebuilt but not on the foundations that 'real conservatives' appear to insist upon. And that will be that. It might take a while but something else will arise to compete effectively in the political arena. And it won't include the dead-enders. So I guess every cloud really does have a silver lining.
Were it not for the War I would be quite happy to see the current GOP crash and burn. It is running on intellectual fumes anyway. 'Real conservatism' thinks it is the wave of the future and that the 'deviationists' are preventing it from achieving their rightful place. I happen to think they are 100% wrong in their historical analysis. 'Real conservatism' is not advancing; it is in retreat. Soon(in historical terms) it will be a rout. History is NOT on its side but rather than trying to work within that framework and 'modify' events to inject a healthy dose of 'conservative' ideals and values' into an otherwise hostile environment, the attitude is --- 'I'm taking my ball and going home. That'll teach you. You're not worthy'
Yeah that's going to work out just fine. Just fine.
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
Gee, did many of you get out of bed on the wrong side? Just exactly, with specificity please, what is your definition of conversative. If "real conservatism" is wrong, then perhaps the tinfoil hatted leftist loons have finally won their war. The Republican just like the Democratic party is in the throes of change...the Left has already moved further right then their history shows....we can only move left? That doesn't make any sense to me, explain, please.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
I'd like to know exactly WHY I owe my vote to the Republican party? If the party no longer represents my principles - I won't support it. I am a Conservative Constitutionalist first. McCain is not - he doesn't represent my principles. If I have to I will write a name on the ballot that does represent my principles. It won't be McCain's.
Now ... if that sounds "huffy" to you well - I apologize. I don't mean it to be. I believe a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the country and for the Republican party. I won't support it. I think others who believe likewise should do the same.
AW1Tim
· 1 year ago
Cap'n,
I am, at the moment, simply unable to support McCain. It's a hard thing to do, because I cannot stand the thought of HRH or Obama in the White House. And yet, what choice is a conservative, a dues-paying member of the GOP, left with?
I give the Senator props for his military service. I also flew with the Navy. I do believe that he does understand the threat that Islam and Islamo-facists pose to not only our own nation, but all of the civilized world.
However, McCain simply does not understand, or worse, looks the other way for whatever reason, on the issue of border security and illegal immigrants. This nation cannot survive such an invasion of non-citizens, nor can it claim sovereignity while doing little to nothing to control it's borders. If this nation fails to round up and deport those here illegally, then why would anyone ever bother to follow the law for immigration and the proper path to citizenship?
McCain is also far too comfortable with the DNC, and many of it's very left supporters. It is one thing to work with an opponent to find some accomodation from time to time. It is another thing entirely to embrace them.
In short, McCain is not now, nor should he be the candidate for the GOP and for conservatives. He MUST be replaced or we can stick a fork in the GOP and say it's done.
My point is that from Bush to McCain, the GOP is failing it's members in the selection of candidates. The GOP is also failing us in the list of candidates for Congress. It has become deaf to the cries of the rank and file, all the while asking for donations and to "support our candidates". Those at the top of the GOP have become no better than the King and Parliament that our founding fathers sought to overthrow. They demand money and obedience, but will not allow us a seat at the table.
I've had enough of that. I'd rather see the GOP convention fracture under a "Draft Fred" movement, than see McCain elected. If it takes the election of a stalinist liberal like Hillary or Obama to wake up the slugs that run the GOP, then so be it. Perhaps a revolt by the party faithful at the election booth would be the revolution needed to show the GOP the dissatisfaction of it's members at current policies and standards.
The GOP did it's best imitation of the left during it's recent control of Congress. Now they want us to elect McCain as our President. If that is the best that the GOP can do for America, then we need a revolution, and cleaning of the GOP leadership and stff, a new slate of conservative candidates. Or we need to simply wash our hands of the GOP and walk away amd for something else.
If mcain is the best we can hope for, then perhaps the GOP ought to adopt an appropriate symbol that represents both the party and McCain. I'd suggest an arrogant @ss. Just take the Demcrat Donkey, and paint it giving the finger to everyone, becuse that is what this election represents.
Respects,
DC_Gamer
· 1 year ago
AW1Tim, I am so sick to death of hearing petulant little children like you whine about McCain not being the perfect conservative. Do you realize how childish it sounds for you to rhetorically stomp your feet and promise to stay home on election day so that electing Hillary will teach the GOP a lesson?
The GOP, like the Democrats, is made up of factions. Conservatives are just one faction in the GOP. Yes, they are a large faction, but they are not the only one. For a GOP president -- probably McCain at this point -- to be elected, it will take the votes of ALL the factions to win. If a significant portion of the conservative faction stays home, the Democrat nominee will probably win. Do you honestly believe that 4 to 8 years of liberal government will be better than McCain? (If so, you are probably a Democrat or need therapy).
Let's say that 8 years down the road a conservative that pleases you is nominated to head the GOP. What do you think would happen if the moderate faction and the independents acted like you and failed to vote for the nominee. Guess what? He or she would not win. The conservative faction alone CANNOT elect a president.
That is why you should put your feelings for McCain aside and work with the GOP to elect him. If the conservative voice is united and strong enough, you can probably force him to pick a conservative VP candidate and a more conservative cabinet.
Finally, McCain the senator is different from McCain the potential president. In the senate, one is forced to negotiate and compromise in order to pass one's agenda. It means that we will often disagree with some of the positions taken. It is why senators are rarely elected to the Oval Office. McCain obviously has never been president. If conservatives hold his feet to the fire, they just might be pleasantly surprised by him. If Hillary is elected, you will certainly not get what you want.
AW1Tim
· 1 year ago
Your condecension and finger-wagging is exactly the attitude I am refering to. You'll make an excellent "enforcer" for your party masters, shouting fown dissent, and attacking messengers, rather than their message. Sweep it all under the carpet! Hide the malcontects! Fon't listen to a dissenting voice!
Thank you for providing a perfect example of how far the once-proud GOP has degenerated.
TheYell
· 1 year ago
But either you suck it up and do his bidding, or you don't.
It sounds like for most of your life, you have been able to follow your vision of the best, by voting Republican. If you can't do that any longer, if you have to compromise yourself and humiliate yourself to remain in what is suddenly and undemocratically proclaimed a "coalition", then as a mature adult, why do you stand for it?
dougf
· 1 year ago
"You'll make an excellent "enforcer" for your party masters, shouting fown dissent, and attacking messengers, rather than their message. Sweep it all under the carpet! Hide the malcontects! Don't listen to a dissenting voice! Thank you for providing a perfect example of how far the once-proud GOP has degenerated"
Umm now feel free to correct me here but was it not the 'real conservative' hero ,Barry Goldwater and his droogies, who basically told the unbelievers to hit the road in 1964 and not let the door hit them on the way out ? I don't recall him or his supporters being very 'inclusive', but perhaps I just missed it. This seems like a bad case of being able to dish it out with gusto, but having a bit of a problem with taking it when the shoe is on the other foot.
"Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those, those who do not care for our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks, in any case. And let our Republicanism so focused and so dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels."
DC_Gamer
· 1 year ago
The funny thing is, AW1Tim, I am not a member of the GOP. I am an independent who has never voted for a Democrat for president. If you consider my comments "condescending" or "finger-wagging," then you cannot handle the truth... again, much like a moody teenager.
You believe that if you and other conservatives stay home on election day, you will teach the GOP a lesson. What lesson do you think that will be?
Once again, let's assume that in 2012 a conservative is nominated. You even send him money and volunteer for his campaign. How would you feel if people here said, "oh, great! another right-wing, homophobic bigot. I would never vote for him. We will be better off with 4 more years with a Democrat president?" Do you honestly believe that your candidate will be elected without the moderates and independents? Why should they support your candidate if you do not support theirs?
Finally, if you are so far out on the fringe that you cannot find things to like about McCain, then perhaps you do not belong in the GOP. There are other choices. You can vote LaRouche, Libertarian, Green, etc. We all know how successful third parties are. Good luck with that.
TheYell
· 1 year ago
"How would you feel if people here said, "oh, great! another right-wing, homophobic bigot. I would never vote for him. "
What do you mean, "if"? Our guys always hear that. You don't see a conservative in federal office who hasn't heard and overcome that.
Can you discuss the federal government without psychoanalyzing other people? Personally, one of the joys of adulthood has been an integrated morality with my lifestyle. I don't do what I think is wrong, I enjoy doing what I think is right--no matter how difficult. I don't have to shut up and sit down and go along for my own good--like a moody teenager.
Spectator
· 1 year ago
Good Lord, Gamer, you're an independent and are calling people who won't vote for McCain on principle "petulant"? As an independent, shouldn't you be more tolerant? As a matter of fact, ultra tolerant?
You do not have to be "far out on the fringe" to find this candidate positively unacceptable. And before you start wagging that finger and calling me names, let me assure you I have thought it through (probably more thoroughly than you have) and it always comes up - No! No way!
bayam
· 1 year ago
This is exactly the kind of whining you can expect from some conservatives. McCain's rise is a direct result of split between social and fiscal conservatives. Wall Street can't handle another social conservative of Bush's stupidity, and neither faction seemed to like Romney, although he clearly was a much better compromise candidate. McCain reflects the party's moderates and fiscal conservatives' growing displeasure with the status quo and a is direct rebuke of Bush's policies. But social conservatives aren't left with much to get excited about.
MikeyJ
· 1 year ago
What DC Gamer and others fail to realize is that I have compromised my principles to vote for Romney. I refuse to pervert my principles to vote for McCain.
tmac
· 1 year ago
So AW1, do you think Hillary or Obama will fight the terrorists and close the border? A majority of Republicans are voting for McCain to be their nominee and staunch conservatives like John Cornyn (R-TX) are endorsing him. If you don't like it, stay home on election day, but keep your mouth shut when Hillary/Obama is elected President.
EPatrickMosman
· 1 year ago
Most conservatives if not all are well aware of Senator McCain's promise to "reach across the aisle" with arch liberal Senator Lieberman at his side but he has never made an attempt or a promise to reach out to the Republican conservatives or his critics within the party. Better for conservatives to turn their attention to the Congressional races in an effort maintain or increase conservative Republicans. Congress will be the last stand against the McCain/Reid/Pelosi combo.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Maybe the problem isn't with the candidates but with the conservative movement itself. It's all well and good to have ideas, to pick a cause but not if those ideas are unworkable and the cause not one shared by a majority of Americans.
Some conservatives remind me of the Palestinians, who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Especially on illegal immigration. Just as the Palestinians have refused over the last 60 years to do anything to better their situation, to build a viable and sustained society for themselves because their goal --the eradication of Israel-- is simply not one that can ever be accomplished, many conservatives seem willing to blow up the movement, because their goal, expelling all the illegal aliens who are here and sealing off the borders to prevent any continued infiltration-- is not one that can ever be fulfilled to their satisfaction.
A President doesn't just lead the people who voted for him. He has to be the President of all the country and that includes trying to come up with ways to accommodate at least some of the concerns and issues of the other side, without compromising his own core principles. It's called governing. I don't understand why McCain's willingness to do that is seen as the ultimate betrayal or else he is accused of being naive, of getting rolled, of being a patsy for the Democrats.
An idea isn't wrong just because it comes from the Democrats.
pilsener
· 1 year ago
Progressives have exactly the same type of complaints about Democrats.
Republican and Democrats are in business to be elected and become re-elected incumbents. While that is not mutually exclusive to support of ideals, it is close. So you get politicians who don't keep their promises and are anything but ideologically pure.
The challenge for voters in both parties is to keep enough pressure on so that we are not completely ignored. The current fear of both Conservatives and the anti-war movement is we are only getting lip service from the nominees.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
You're too young to remember Simpson-Mazzoli, Bennett. Ronald Reagan signed that legislation, which provided for a complete amnesty for all illegal aliens. Then Congress betrayed us on the enforcement provisions (border controls and a national ID card) by failing to fund them.
McCain was part of that betrayal, although he was in the company of most of the rest of the U.S. Congress in that process. My skepticism is based upon the track record, not upon abstract arguments about whether conservatives are "relevant" or not. I'm voting for McCain with zero expectations. This is a man who, together with his other Senate colleagues, has failed to keep past promises to the American people. Clinton and Obama are the same. The Clintons have bad characters. Senator McCain has suggested that Obama double-crossed him in a political deal, also suggesting an expediency and treachery that belies Obama's "saintly" image. That's interesting information. Is there more?
They're all members of a D.C. political class that doesn't keep its promises. It's impossible to be enthusiastic about most of them.
And Bennett, trying to blame conservatives for D.C.'s past failures is a non-starter. It's a losing strategy for you, and a losing strategy for Senator McCain. You'd do better to focus on his efforts to stop the corruption. That's probably his strong suit.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Why do you always accuse people of being too young? You have no idea how old anyone here is. It makes you come across as some crotchedy greybeard rambling on about how you remember when you did your homework by candle light.
Blame conservatives for D.C.'s last failures? What are you talking about? I blame some conservatives for being irrational on the issue of illegal immigration (which seems to be their main complaint against McCain) and I compared them to the Palestinians who personify irrational and self-defeating behavior.
This country isn't going to expel 12 million of its residents. It will never ever happen. And we are never going to spend the kind of money and devote the kinds of resources to establish the fortress America that some conservatives dream about on our borders. These are not viable goals. And to the extent they come to define the conservative movement, then the movement will fail.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
I'm scratching out these words with my quill pen, which badly needs sharpening! But you keep sidestepping Simpson-Mazzoli, Bennett. An immigration statute enacted by the Congress (including Senator McCain) in 1986, and signed by President Reagan. And Bennett, IT'S THE LAW! RIGHT NOW!
Those illegal aliens who were here in 1986 were granted amnesty by Simpson-Mazzoli. Full, unconditional amnesty. They're not illegal. Only those who arrived AFTER 1986 weren't covered by the statute. They're here illegally. Simpson-Mazzoli never was funded by the Congress, and Congress betrayed the American people in failing to fund Simpson-Mazzoli. Because enforcement of Simpson-Mazzoli would have kept out the 12 million illegals who now are here.
So Bennett, Simpson-Mazzoli is emblematic of Congress's betrayal of the American people on the immigration issue. They struck a deal, and then passed a law to fulfill the deal. And then they failed to fund it, so that the enforcement mechanism never was put in place. And 12 million more illegals entered this country because of that betrayal.
What's my point? I don't trust Senator McCain, or Senators Clinton or Obama, to keep their words on immigration or anything else. And your "we're not going to expel 12 million residents" doesn't address the trust issue, except to say, "So we lied. So what?"
Understand that this is what you're peddling. And I'm not being an arrogant conservative to call this breach of trust to your attention. It's why Saint Obama is soaring, and Senator McCain could get stalled at the starting gate.
McCain kept his promises to his fellow soldiers. Did he keep his promises to the people of Arizona, and to the American people?
Bennett
· 1 year ago
There's a reason S/M didn't get funded. Because nobody cared! Don't you get it? (and like that's the only gov't program that doesn't get fully funded).
What some conservatives don't seem to understand is that for generations American boys and girls have gone to school and been taught that America is the great melting pot, that we are the country everybody comes to for freedom and opportunity and peace, that we are a nation of immigrants, taking in the huddled masses yearning to be free. And from these many, comes one nation.
For many Americans the fact that someone comes here whether legally or illegally, it fits with what we've been taught to believe. Of course they want to come here, it makes perfect sense. And yes, they don't have papers but you know? what are papers when it comes to the soul's desire to make a better life, to be free from oppression and poverty, to have a chance at something new?
This fundamental understanding of what motivates people to come here is what makes the cause of rounding up illegal immigrants and trucking them across the border or sticking them on ships to nowhere seem totalitarian, cruel and inhumane and ultimately simply un-American.
So yeah, people will say yes, we have to do something about immigration, especially in the context of terrorism, people who come here legally (as did the 19 hijackers) and then overstay their visas and hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
But that's not really what some conservatives mean when they talk about immigration. What they mean is all those brown-skinned people speaking Spanish who come up here from Mexico and parts south and mow lawns and wash dishes and work construction. We gotta kick 'em out and we gotta keep 'em from coming back in.
If you really want to do something about illegal immigration then you need to start in the public schools. Start teaching that immigrants are a pox on our society, that they don't really come here from freedom and opportunity, they come to suck the lifeblood from this great country of ours, they are evil and bad and we must stop them before we are overrun. Supplant in the minds of the next generation of American boys and girls that this is not a nation taking in huddled masses yearning to be free, this is a nation that needs to keep those huddled masses from knocking down the door and taking part in this great experiment called America.
Then maybe the next generation or the generation after that will be willing to fund S/M or whatever pet government program you think is suitable to keep the unwanted from crashing the party.
This will never be a winning issue for the GOP. And it will never be a winning issue for the conservatives. The battle is already lost. The best that can be hoped for is some sensible reforms in how the INS is run and some coherent strategy with controlling the flow of illegals across the southern border. And even then, they will still want to come, they will still come.
Because you know what? I'd come too. Papers or no papers.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Re-hashing the "conservatives who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens hate people of color" shibboleth? Shame on you! And blurring the distinction between legal immigrants, who built this country, and illegal aliens who fly the Mexican flag, and scream about returning U.S. territory to Mexico? You place yourself in very bad company, Bennett. You sound like Senators McCain and Graham! It didn't work before, and it won't work now.
We have laws in this country, Bennett. If "no one cares" (i.e., Congress) about their own laws enough to enforce them, then Congress is unworthy of our respect or deference. And Congress's laws are unworthy of our respect or obedience if Congress itself won't respect and obey its own laws. And unless you're an imbecile (which I doubt), you can see where that argument leads. It's why Congress remains "the only native American criminal class", as Mark Twain liked to say.
The rest of your platitudinous B.S. has nothing to do with the issue of an effective immigration enforcement mechanism. If we need more immigrants for our labor force, we should let them in legally. We must be able to distinguish between those who are here legally, and those who are here illegally, and to enforce U.S. law about the distinction. That's called exercise of sovereignty.
And if you're saying that immigration laws shouldn't exist, and enforcement mechanisms shouldn't exist, and that everyone should be afforded free and open entry to this country without restriction, I'd call that national suicide.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
You completely missed the point as you usually do.
The majority of the citizens in this country haven't rallied to your cause of cutting off illegal immigration and expelling those illegal immigrants who are already here. You rail about betrayal, how the government isn't enforcing this or that law and how you can't support a presidential candidate who won't line the tanks up and point the turrets south and get the trucks roaming the streets of east L.A. and every other barrio rounding up the illegals. But ask yourself why? And why are you (and a few others) such a lonely voice crying this plaintive song?
What you advocate doesn't resonate because it is completely contrary to what we as Americans have been taught in our schools. It is also contrary to what our politicians and many others spread around the globe, America, America, the land of milk and honey, the place everyone wants to come. Home of the brave and land of the free.
You and others can call it lefty tripe or mushy sentimentalism or whatever you want. It's simply the truth. Most Americans don't look around and see people of different races speaking with an accent and immediately think, oh there's another law breaker. Call the INS.
And you can blab on all you want about the laws, the laws, nobody 's respecting the laws. But laws have to be enforceable to be enforced, there has to be the will and the means to do it. And there simply isn't in this country for your solution to the problem.
And as is usual with extremists, the opportunity to do something meaningful on this issue is lost because you refuse to accept the reality of the situation and work for a fair and rational resolution.
While you rant about the illegals streaming across the southern border, I can guarantee you there are terrorists coming here legally, absolutely legally, with their papers in order. What do you propose to do about that?
Bennett
· 1 year ago
William Stuntz in The Weekly Stndard explains it all much better than I have:
I remember tripe like that written about the Soviet bloc not going anywhere, either.
There is a thread in common with all of Stuntz's points: stop holding government accountable for its failures.
Can't deport 17 million? Could we deport 1 million? Why not do that? Because the party doesn't want to. What is the point of voting for a pro-life statute given current federal law? That is like voting to blow a couple dozen million tax dollars losing a lawsuit. Doesn't matter--it "proves" we will always lose. The center-right "knows" the future and it is suprisingly enough, the status quo.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Ask Senator McCain whether the American people rallied to his amnesty bill, co-sponsored by Teddy Kennedy, and supported by President Bush, and many Democrats and Republicans. I'd say I'm in good company.
And sticks and stone can break my bones, but "extremist"? I'll grant you that America is a magnet to the world, but it's also "a nation of laws, not men." Recognize that quote, Bennett? Because until you acknowledge the rule of law, you're the immigration, open-borders extremist.
And until Simpson-Mazzoli, which is currently the law of the land, is enforced, I won't believe a word any U.S. Senator, McCain, Clinton, or Obama, says about immigration.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
You're in good company? You've expended energy in several comments here ranting about how S/M isn't being enforced. Where's the outrage over that? Over the last 30+ years? It looks like you're in a select group. And a small one at that.
And once again you fail to address my point. How do you explan why the American people have not joined you in your crusade? Why is there no stomach in this country for rounding up the illegals, putting them in interment camps and then shipping them off to whatever country will take them? Why is there no great cry to militarize the border?
You have no answer. Which means, I guess, that you do agree with me. It's because we've been taught that what you advocate is contrary to our history and our national self-image.
TheYell
· 1 year ago
And I'd throw you back.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Bennett, Not doing too good a job getting people to rally around your guy if the only thing you can offer as to why someone wouldn't be for totally open borders is because they hate brown people. Reagan signed S/M but it was on the assumption that it would end the argument not allowing 15 million more people to flood into the country and still do nothing about it. Even Mccain has said at thtis point that he understands the need to secure the border before addressing the issue of how to deal with the illegal immigrants here (whether he is sincere or not remains to be seen). Why don't you grow up, and stop with the racial demagoguery?
jr565
· 1 year ago
and of course your screed sounds about as lefty as one of John Edwards two americas speeches. You bring out your trite argument about the poor huddled masses completely ignoring that the US cannot house everyone in the world, but more importantly we already have a policy to deal with LEGAL IMMMIGRATION.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
If you don't want to hear about the huddled masses, get the government to knock the Statute of Liberty down. Because that's where it's written.
If you don't want to hear about how America is a place of hope and refuge, an irresistible beacon call to people from around the world, then demand that educators stop teaching it in the schools.
The policy regarding legal immigration got us 19 people who killed 3000 of us.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Statue of Liberty...
I was typing too fast.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
I don't see the world LEGAL in there anywhere. Maybe we need to get the stone masons out there, cut a new line:
BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A PROPERLY ISSUED VISA FROM THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN YOUR HOME COUNTRY.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Hey, Bennett! You should come to New York some time, and tour the statue of Lady Liberty, more properly called "Liberty Enlightening the World". You'd enjoy it. And Emma Lazarus's poem, which you quote, is somewhere on the grounds of Liberty Island too.
But when you're on your way out to Liberty Island on the ferry, look over at another island in N.Y. Harbor called Ellis Island. That's where the government of the U.S. set up its processing facility to process and admit immigrants LEGALLY to America. Most were admitted, but some were rejected.
Ellis Island is the symbol of American immigration policy, and of U.S. sovereignty in controlling immigration into this country. It's as important as Lady Liberty herself.
You really should have studied your U.S. history a little harder back in school! ;-)
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Are you this condescending in real life? Your spouse must be a saint.
Does Ellis Island get taught in our schools as the necessary mechanism for proper enforcement of controlled immigration? Or is it taught as part of the romantic story of how America is the last best hope for mankind, the shining story on a hill?
And perhaps while you're preparing your travelogue on NY you can include Brighton Beach and your explanation as to how the Russian Mafia came here in droves after the collapse of communism in the 1990s, presumably with their papers in order. All straight up and legal. By your standards anyway.
jr565
· 1 year ago
So then by your standard, what''s truly wrong with immigration is not that those opposing it are racist, but that those who are advocating open borders are uninformed idiots.
jr565
· 1 year ago
or to put it another way, those advocating open borders are in fact engaged in romantisizing immigration in this country and not basing their arguments on facts but emotion not based on reality. 'That would describe you to a tee.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Ellis Island gets taught as the gateway through which the ancestors of most Americans now in this country legally entered this country. The museum now on Ellis Island teaches that story.
The Russians immigrants in New York are overwhelmingly Republican, because they worship Ronald Reagan for engineering the fall of communism in their country. The vast majority of them are law-abiding.
So you've just slandered another ethnic group that's here legally, and is overwhelmingly Republican. Are you going for the record? LOL!
jr565
· 1 year ago
engage in hyperbole much? We have a legal immigration program. Mexicans streaming across the border in the millions are in fact cutting the line, which is unfair to legal immigrants who follow all the rules and jump through hoops to get here. Yes its a place of refuge and hope, but realistically we can't' house every one who wants to come here. There are protocols and rules which you seem to want to ignore. I reject your argument that I don't want to hear about the huddled masses. We do deal with the huddled masses but it doesn't mean that we house everyone who ever lived and put them in our country. If we have an immigration policy then that means we set limits and guidelines. That is simply a fact that I'm sorry you are to obtuse to understand. And the policy of open borders and illegal immigration is what got us 9/11. Because I guess the terrorists are considered part of the huddled masses and they could always use the illegal documentation too. I
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Are you really this dense?
I'm making a point about our history (apparently very poorly), about how our history is taught, not advocating a position in favor of illegal immigration.
I'm trying to explain why I believe that the majority of Americans do not support the hard right conservative view that all illegals should be expelled and the border turned into a version of the 38th parallel.
Open borders and illegal immigration most definitely did not get us 9/11. A complete and utter falsehood. Every hijacker got here legally. And they didn't come across the southern border. Trucking the illegals across the border or sealing the southern border will not prevent another 9/11.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Again, another person who missed the point.
I'm not trying to get anyone to rally around anybody. Not everything in the world has to do with the 2008 presidential election. And believe me, the illegal immigration issue isn't going to be resolved by November or anytime thereafter. Well, then again it might be. The Democrats already control Congress, if they win the W.H. then I think we can see full citizenship expeditiously moved through Congress and signed into law and minimal dollars budgeted for border security and enforcement.
I was attempting to explain why I believe the issue doesn't resonate with a majority of Americans. Why aren't there massive demonstrations in the streets against illegal immigrants? Why aren't the majority of Americans demanding that the police round up the illegals and stand posts every 10 feet along the border and shoot them down as they try and come across?
Because it's contrary to what we've been taught and because it comes across as racist.
If you have people who come here legally from other countries, live and move freely among us, do everything they want to prepare an attack, mount it successfully and the present government apparatus was completely incapable of stopping it (then and now) and nobody in this country even cares about that, why on earth would you illegal immigration kooks think the country is going to line up behind you on trucking the Mexican nationals back across the border?
Ask yourself why. And if you have a better explanation than mine, I'd be happy to hear it.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Im sorry that we have laws in this country and that we can't solve the problem of everyone on the earth. We have a legal immigration program, and there are immmigrants waiting in line who have been going through the legal process for 10 or more years. These illegals are simply cutting the line. My step father is a LEGAL immigrant and you dont want to know the hoops he had to jump through to become legal. I don't want to hear that I'm against immigrants or lack compassion because 15 million people are demanding citizenship who violated our laws to get here. Screw you you sanctimonious jerk.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Obviously blog commenting doesn't always allow someone's intelligence to shine through and I'm going to assume your insult is a reflection of a deliberate unwillingness to grasp my particular argument about why Americans don't support your radical views on illegal immigration and is not instead evidence of your general lack of mental fire power.
Not all blog comments are intended to advocate. And mine are often meant to explain my own observations about a situation, it's causes and effects. As in this case.
And you didn't bother trying to answer why the majority of Americans don't agree with what IS advocacy on your part.
TheYell
· 1 year ago
Who says they don't? Amnesty got smashed despite bipartisan support and the President.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Then why hasn't the wall been built?
Amnesty was "smashed" because we were heading into an election year. And the GOP had enough problems already.
And they managed to retreat by "understanding" that border enforcement had to come first before resolution of the status of 12 million illegals. Which means all of you got played, who care so much about this, because there isn't going to be any serious border enforcement. All you've done is play to a stalemate.
Again, no one who is "responding" to me can explain why my theory about the lack of support for your position is incorrect.
jr565
· 1 year ago
The wall is being built. Slower than we'd like, but it is happening.
jr565
· 1 year ago
so you're suggesting that Mccain is not sincere on enforcing the border. and we should vote for Mcain why again?
jr565
· 1 year ago
oh yeah, you explained by basically saying that anyone who disagreed with completely open borders hates brown people. You're a race huckster, with a race card replacing an actual argument.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
That's a Democrat trick, call a name, play some identity politics and not actually respond.
If I am wrong, and it isn't because Americans have been taught to value immigrants and diversity and to see your views as extreme, counter to our history and racist, then explain why your position seen as extreme and so completely in the minority?
You clearly don't have an answer.
But you do have another chance to rant incoherently.
jr565
· 1 year ago
You're the one engaging in identity politics. You suggest that the only reason any one could possibly have for objecting to immigration and illegal immigration at that is because they are racist. I would have some respect for you if you argued for fixing immigration through a worker program for example, if you argued the case on the merits. But you don't You fall back on rank demagoguery, completely ignoring any possible alternative to your view which would be legitimate and demonize those who have a disagreement with your bizzare, unrealistic and absolutist position.
You, in your screed, completely ignore that we have a LEGAL IMMIGRATION policy which does value legal immigrants. You completely ignore that even when we had a mass influx of immigrants come in to the country in the early 19th century, they had to stop at Ellis Island to be processed and checked for things like disease, and not everyone was allowed in. This too was in the confines of legal immigration. And we allow people into this country LEGALLY every year now. So you'r'e fundamentallly arguing a position that noone is arguing against on this board. I value LEGAL immigration and certainly don't want to stop our immigration program as it stands. I can even buy many of the arguments for a guest worker program as it will allow us to monitor who is in this country (which again is one reason why illegal immigration is so destructive, one of many). But once you get into your screed about us being against openborders because we hate brown people then it reveals you for the demagogue you are. I can get my demagoguery from Jesse Jackson, and John Edwards thanks. But if you think its going to win over anyone on this board I would think again
Bennett
· 1 year ago
You truly are dense.
All my posts have been about why no one in this country is in favor of your radical views. My theory is that it is because of our history, a nation of immigrants, and the way that history is taught, as a celebration of our immigrant past and the contributions of cultural and ethnic diversity and that attacks on that history, AS TAUGHT, are viewed as racist. Not that they ARE racist, not that the history IS correct as it is taught, but how it is all perceived.
You have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about that. You are incapable of explaining why the majority of Americans don’t favor your view or why mine is wrong. There is no point in continuing a discussion with you.
As to the great benefits of LEGAL immigration, see my post above in re collapse of communism, Brighton Beach, Russian Mafia.
jr565
· 1 year ago
My radical views? Open borders is a radical view. and you are a demagogue plain and simple.Peddle that somewhere else. S/M was not a legislative triumph for Reagan. It was supposed to end the issue of illegal immigration, not expand on it. Every country under the sun has borders and recognize those borders including mexico (which also is very strict about who comes into its country).And every country has an immigration policy.
The Yell
· 1 year ago
"Perceived as extreme"...capitalism is perceived as extreme, if you listen to Pacifica radio. You haven't shown that a majority of Americans hate our views, because you can't
TheYell
· 1 year ago
Meant to say, Amnesty was smashed because 72% of the USA opposes it. If you want to argue that a majority of POLITICIANS want amnesty, no argument. But the country is not behind them.
MalCarne
· 1 year ago
The waiting list to get into America from Mexico is roughly a decade long. We've frozen the number of "legal" immigrants that can come into the country for years. Don't talk about the "legal" process. Like everything else about our current immigration policy, it's a joke.
I'm going to in-your-face here. I not only want to see more Hispanic immigrants here, I want them to sire as many children upon American women as possible while they're here. Because bluntly, America needs more of their virtues in our gene pool. Work ethic? Ambition? Courage? They've got more than you do, I'm dead certain. When's the last opportunity you walked across the desert for the chance to work 12-hour days?
Every time you see a news article about some idiot in Hollywood doing something asinine, repeat this phrase: "There are 12 million people in this country work work hard for a living, love their families, and have courage in spades. I want to drive there people out of my country as soon as possible, but keep fools like this in place. God bless America."
jr565
· 1 year ago
What a bunch of racist pablum. Why are you favoring Hispanic immigration over all other immigration? Are Koreans, japanese, chinese, jamaicain, Irish people not hardworking? Somehow Hispanics have a higher work ethic than any other group? So we should allow Mexicans in at the expense of other groups,simply because their border is close to ours? You say the waiting list is 10 years in Mexico. Is there no waiting lists from other countries and do those people deserve no consideration because Hispanics decided, rather than waiting for the ten years to simply jump the line?
Spectator
· 1 year ago
I echo what jr just said. And add the following: If our forefathers, those who first formulated immigration policy had said something like: "Let's have some immigration. Let's admit a huge group, overwhelmingly from one nation, who all speak the same foreign language and have a strong attachment to their native land. And knowing full well, by the way, that this group has a well funded, well organized ethnocentric organization already here, with bold political aims. That should just about insure these people will cling together as a group and not assimilate and become Americans."
This would have been early national suicide for the U.S.A. We would have never become the great melting pot, made up of many people from many lands, who assimilated and helped us became the great nation we are. I doubt we would have been able to fight World War II in this state; we would have been fighting each other like those in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which countries finally broke up into factions.
While they have learned from their experience, we haven't. We are slogging inexorably toward balkanization. The amnesty lovers like to call it multicultural. But it isn't multi anything. It's bi. Bicultural. Our country, if amnesty is granted to so many illegals and their chain migration relatives, will implode within four decades.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Finally, someone who has at least half a decent point. Because to extend my theory about how our history is perceived and taught –that we are a nation of immigrants and that we celebrate that status—we have lost one essential ingredient to the absorption of immigrants which was critical in the past: assimilation. Now it is politically incorrect to demand that everyone speak English –when was the last time someone even mounted an “English Only” referendum drive—to learn our history and to become “Americanized.” It is now possible to live in this country, in your little enclave, and never learn anything about this country, to reject completely our history and to hold onto your old ways and your old grievances. See for example the recent effort by Armenian émigrés to force a Congressional reprimand of Turkey for the Armenian genocide back in the early 1900s (covered extensively here at CQ several months ago).
The problem in the end isn’t so much how many immigrants and where from or whether they are legal or illegal, the issue ultimately is what is expected of them and us once they are here. And of course the longer they stay illegal, the less likely they will ever become assimilated. This is also why guest worker programs are unworkable (see Germany on this issue).
jr565
· 1 year ago
If you have open borders then there is no need to assimilate. Also ,correct me if Im wrong but doesn't mccain kennedy include a guest worker program.
MalCarne
· 1 year ago
Because I know, have worked with, and respect Hispanic immigrants. I can personally testify to their work ethic.
I can tell you about the 18-year old kid who worked in my kitchen for 8 hours, changed uniforms, and did it again for the restaurants across the street.
I'm dying for you to explain how this is racism. From my experience, it's the hardcore conservatives who are willing to paint all the Hispanics as dirty drug-dealing welfare-sucking thieves.
I've met these people. And I can say from personal experience, it's just not so.
jr565
· 1 year ago
You don't respect non hispanic immigrants? You think they''re lazy or that it should be more difficult for them to come into the country because the hispanics are better workers? Is that your position?
MalCarne
· 1 year ago
No. It's simply that I've only met Hispanic immigrants. I can't talk about Lithuanian or Chinese or whatever immigrants, because I've never met any. If I worked with Chinese or Lithuanian immigrants in the kitchen, I could talk about them. But I haven't, so I'm not.
So, tell me, how many immigrants do you know? Or is this all just a theoretical debate for you?
jr565
· 1 year ago
as I stated, my step father is a legal immigrant, who is not hispanic. So unlike hispanics here in the millions he had to go through a long drawn out process to get his papers. And he works hard too, just to let you know. Notwithstanding the fact that he isn't Hispanic.
Maybe you should expand your horizons beyond simply hispanics when it comes to immigration. The fact that you haven't worked with anyone who is an immigrant other than hispanics doesn't' negate the fact that others are trying to also get into this country, are also hard working.
Spectator
· 1 year ago
Mal, your one anecdotal reference to a Hispanic who is a good worker is almost meaningless in this discussion. You seem to be saying that just because this one person is a good worker, we should amnesty all the Hispanic illegals who have come into this country by breaking its laws. (Most of them have also committed document fraud, a felony that American citizens would be prosecuted for, not to mention other crimes)
There are many millions of "good workers" all around the world who would just love to come to the U.S. and get a chance to work toward citizenship. The question is, "Which ones should we LEGALLY take in?"
I believe we should never reward illegality; it only begets more of it. And I would certainly like to see the rest of the world represented here. That way there would not be the problem with people who are speaking only Spanish. There would be so many languages, people would be competing to learn English, the native tongue of this country, more rapidly. And that's the way it used to be. And it worked perfectly.
The system is now broken and we should fix it the right way. And I don't believe that should start with saying, "What should we do with those that are here?". It should start with: "What are our needs? What kind of immigration policy should we have"? And my answer to that would never include amnesty.
(By the way, there are plenty of Hispanic-Americans who are fine citizens - Americans first, who want what is best for America, and who abhor the concept of illegal immigration - by anyone.)
MalCarne
· 1 year ago
Not "a Hispanic".
Every Hispanic. Bar none. All of them.
And if you know anything at all about the racial makeup of the food service industry (50% Hispanic), you'd know that's a lot.
As for them being felonious lawbreakers... tell me, when's the last time you exceeded the speed limit on the interstate?
Which crime is more likely to result in actual harm to a living person?
American have a long and fine history of disregarding the law when it suits them. (Case in point B: Prohibition.) Why should we expect others to be different?
jharp
· 1 year ago
"Maybe the problem isn't with the candidates but with the conservative movement itself"
The sooner the GOP figures this out the sooner the rebuilding of the party begins.
How long have the conservatives candidates been in charge? Congress, 15 years? President 7.
Looks where it has gotten us. Every single gripe of conservatives can be blamed on their own candidates.
They are happy about the war but that is soon to change . 5 years of failure they seem to have accept. 6,7,8 years of failure I would like even a die hard will see the light.
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
I don't believe it has been that long, but, for nearly the entire Bush term, Republicans were not in so large a majority they could do anything without the other side. Kind if like the Democrats were last year. Perhaps what is needed is a definition of conservatism that is so clear, you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to understand it. And, while I am at it, perhaps we can blame those folk who vote blindly across the country on both sides and keep those politicians who could not care less in office.
Old Goat
· 1 year ago
What is better? Having a liberal minded person in the White House is a foregone conclusion regardless of the party name.
McCain or Hillary or Obama are all driving the country left.
So, my question is what is better? Another President from the Republican party that keeps the march of that party moving left or a President from the Democrat party that move the country leftward? Isn't it the same thing under a different name?
The Republican party isn't Conservative. It is a mixture. It has been the only vehicle for conservatives to be a part of things, but with the defeat of the House and Senate, the Republicans have moved leftward.
When the party fails its constituents then those people need to decide if they want to keep getting lip service or abandon the party.
The party is leaving the people who supported it most.
There are no viable candidates left in this race, when given that "choice", then mine will be clear. I will go vote, but leave President blank. When there is no choice I can live with then I will with hold my vote.
norm
· 1 year ago
interesting how this political thing works out. mccain doesn't stand for a whole lot of what you stand for but you still gotta get in lock-step. party is more important than principals. well that's long been the republican way. bush is anything but a conservative, yet his support...what is left of it...is cult-like nonetheless. despite the efforts of the current administration it is still a free country and what you do in the voting booth is a private thing. i can only speak for myself and say that if clinton is nominated i will not vote for her...even if it means another four years of failed bush policies under mccain. george bush likes to talk about principles. i actually believe in them.
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
I am sorry you are so negative about this whole thing. No, I certainly am not in lock-step. I just know what the other side is truly about. The 10-20% of Americans who have hated this country and its values since before the Revolution, have been at destroying us from within. They have made great inroads throughout the past 70 years. We stop it now or forget it. That simple.
norm
· 1 year ago
so ridiculous...you know what the other side is about...americans who hate this country and its values. but you aren't in lock step. right. i'd be indignant that you accuse me of hating my country...if it wasn't just so stupid. i can tell you this...the values of this country do not include torture, they do not include holding us citizens without due process, they do not include the illegal spying on us citizens, and they do not include exposing covert operatives. yeah i know you need to support your party and it's so-called leader so you resort to legal semantics and cowardly rationalizations to pretend these things didn't happen. but they did. and its these things i hate. not my country. now get back in line for mccain.
jr565
· 1 year ago
hyperbole
norm
· 1 year ago
no...mushroom clouds over our cities is hyperbole. the things i listed happened.
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
Norm lets examine your points one by one:
Illegal spying on our citizens: Currently, we are in a state of war with a culture that will surely destroy us in time should we not face it. Some of these people live in our country, many are not our citizens, but some are. Considering this, I think you would agree that spying on a few people is acceptable, or do you think we should put them all in camps like we did with the Japanese in WW2? If you choose neither, then you are not willing to fight to win.
On Torture: Defining torture as the UN and Senator McCain would like means that we cannot interrogate anyone in any way they find stressful or uncomfortable. Do you define this as torture? If you do, then you are not truly fighting the war. As for "water boarding" This has only been used once, and against the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. If this is too harsh for you, then you need to consider the thousands of dead and their families, as well as the many more that were saved by that interrogation.
Holding of our citizens without due process: This is not occurring in the jurisdiction of the United States. We give all our citizens due process. I am not sure we need to offer foreign nationals the same rights however, as it does not say we need to in the Constitution. The military might be able to hold one of our citizens longer than normal should they face a US citizen who is training in a foreign country and actively trying to kill our soldiers. This is simply the law of the battefield. Be happy they still don't shoot these people on the spot. If all this seems too harsh to you, then you are not ready to fight and win a war on Islamofascism.
Exposing of covert operatives: You must be speaking of Valerie Plame, and surely by now you realise that during the time her name came out, she was not considered a covert operative. This according to one of the attornies who wrote the law in question, Victoria Tensing. Further, it was common knowledge that Plame liked to go to parties and make it clear she worked for the CIA, but as little more than a paper shuffler. The only reason that people don't know this is that the media continues to perpetuate the Plame myths for their own agenda.
What it all comes down to is that we will continue to face a power of massively growing influence in Islamofascism. They are expanding in Europe rapidly as the average Europeaan fails to produce offspring. There will come a time of a sizeable war between the World and Islam, of which we have yet to gauge the depth of their goals and hatred. These people do not care about our high ideals, and will truly torture, kill, and mutilate us if they get the chance.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Actually we waterboarded 3 people not one (but they were all high ranking members of Al Qaeda) And don't forget that in additon to the fact that she wasn't covered under the statute, her identity was leaked by Armitage anyway, and he didn't do so because he was trying to get Plame. He hasn't been indicted both because she isn't' covered by the statute, but also because there is no underlying crime there.
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
Norm, you make a good point. At what stage will we stop the Leftward shift of the Republican party? Perhaps the only way this will happen is via another stunning defeat. I don't wish for such a defeat, but it seems that the "moderates" in our party do. Why vote for the guy who simply says, "Well I am slightly less Liberal than you"? Some choice. I will only tax you half as much, I will only legalize half the illegals, I will only spend 3/4 of the money that he will spend on national healthcare. ect, ect.
Is this all we are? Simply the brakes of a nation, and forever the capitulator?
Gary_Gross
· 1 year ago
If you think that guy's bad, check out this Huckabee Campaign memo's rantings. I guess everyone's entitled to their delusions.
In reading Sen. McCain's speech I conclude that the republican party is in serious trouble this election cycle. I recently was in a group of people who were also active in this last caucus. Unfortunate for me they were all of the Democratic persuasion. I came to feel their hopefulness of their movement, despite the platform or lack there of, to move forward. Oddly, they spoke of the opportunity to replace the old guard which is funny because their old guard is the group who said to not trust anyone over 30.
In contrast the Republican are talking about who are they going to vote against. In past elections one of the most well known talk show host would say that was the Republican attribute that the hopefulness of the conservative message to move forward can overcome and motivate people to support more Republicans. However, due to the deviation of the original message the Republican party has not capitalized on this original ideal. Criticism of Sen. McCain are not with out merit nor without reason. Those who call themselves conservative support many differing candidates causing fractures and frictions in what Ronald Reagan brought together. It is to be remembered that even within Reagan's cycle there were differing opinions from Dever, Regan, Stockman. Yes, that is a far difference than working with Ted "Aquaman" Kennedy.
In closed caucus settings McCain is not winning such as in Minnesota or Iowa. However, one candidate has fallen victim to prejudice which I would say is not very Reagan like. Otherwise McCain won in more open primaries. He has carried more vote but not a majority as Mr Romney observed. It is the set of rules each state has employed which has caused this electoral college like distortion.
This election is not just about McCain. I wish Mr. Romney did not leave the campaign so early as to bring about a more brokered convention and maybe help solidify more conservative ideals into the campaign. But what are they? Again the most conservative candidate have received the least overall votes in this primary season. McCain's campaign has benefitted by the early electoral season because of state parties trying to be more influential grab the spot light from Iowa and his long established campaign offices.
The Supreme Court is in play. Those nominations will have an impact long after the administration is gone. McCain has pledged to nominate conservative choices that would be a least one winning choice as compared to the Gingberg like candidates we would get from the other side. Yes there are no guarantees, but I think Harriet Meiers was a fluke. There is also the Congress. New efforts must be taken to keep things from siding back. Yes, I have issues with Sen. Coleman but will things be better with a Ciresi or Franken? MN 3rd District will loose Rep. Jim Ramstad. Will we be better off with a new Klobuchar or worse?
Despite Sen. McCain's stubbornness which is a characteristic that may have served him well in the past can come to be very irritating to say the least for those who call themselves conservative today. Yet, as in the immigration debate last year, if these many factions can speak in a clear singular voice like a choir echoing though a grand cathedral conservatives can still be heard, not to stop sing, no screaming, just because you need a new breath.
Jimmy
· 1 year ago
"If we didn't get anyone who could pass muster over the last year, what makes anyone think we could produce one now? And who would it be, anyway?"
Brilliant. This really should end of the discussion (calm down! ha ha). Instead of continued critism of McCain, leave the room, good luck to you, and find a third party candidate
BoWowBoy
· 1 year ago
I agree. Even though I have yet to vote for a candidate in a primary election .................. the Republican Party has chosen John McCain.
Now they will have to live with him. Or ........die with him ...... it is a great year for both.
KJBtruth
· 1 year ago
NO!
McCain has done more to sabotage the conservative movement than any democrat!
He abandoned conservatives at every important turn. Every important issue we should have advanced, McCain blocked.
I for one, will not turn my back on my principles.
Fred
· 1 year ago
Did everyone forget this is a free country? If the Republicans lose this time it is because of the Republicans themselves. What kind of nonsense has the Republicans blowing this election and then saying, "Hey, You conservatives over there! Thi is your fault."
I am free to vote my own conscience and interests as I choose. I will do just that.
The followup to the 1994 Contract with America days ways a slide into corruption and alienation. It wasn't conservatives who did that. You Repubs just keep slip slidin' away.
Mikey NTH
· 1 year ago
Simply put, if you want to have any influence on the politics of the country you have to be involved in the two main political parties. The system, as designed, defaults that way, the only time a new political party arose is when another folded and its members went over to the new one - and that was just before the Civil War. That is unlikely to happen now because the level of political tension is not there, the widespread ideological lockdown is not at that point in the general population.
As noted above, unless one party has a veto-proof and fillibuster-proof majority in both houses of congress a party's complete agenda cannot be passed. Compromise is forced in on the system by its very nature. Principles can be kept, but political power is needed to get any part of those principles enacted.
Lily
· 1 year ago
McCain has stuck his finger in the eye of conservatives too many times to get my vote.McCain and Obama are two candidates that I will never vote for. Now that Romney's gone there is only one candidate I'd even consider voting for and that's Hillary Clinton and I don't know that I could hold my nose and vote for her.I'm look forward to seeing McCain debate either Obama or Clinton. McCain looks old and sounds old and should be disposed of easily by either of the democrats. Yes, Ronald Reagan was old but he neither looked or sounded old, he also was a conservative. That's the difference between Reagan and RINO McCain.Given the disappointing selection of Presidential candidates I'm looking past the Presidential field and concentrating on Congressional candidates. I'm hoping to see true conservatives elected to Congress who can limited the damage caused by the next Liberal or RINO President.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
The 2008 Presidential election is over for me – wow that was quick … depressing.
I will not be voting for McCain in November – as a Conservative, I thought I might be able to hold my nose and do it but … I know I won’t be able to. McCain is not only NOT a Conservative – I’m even sure he’s a totally “balanced” individual. Do you remember how, after both John Kerry and Al Gore lost their presidential bids – the MSM finally starting publishing reports about how “flaky” both of them were? I believe that McCain is the same way – and I have to agree with Harry Reid – McCain doesn’t have the temperament to serve in the oval office. He would be an embarrassment to Republicans because he will not hold to Conservative principles. He’s an “imitation” Democrat – and why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing? This is all so sad for me to write.
In addition – there are so many Republicans retiring this year from Congress they won’t be able to hold the House and Senate – and Democrats will wielding Veto and Filibuster-proof majorities very soon. “President McCain” would do nothing but go along with their every whim – and when the economy melts down because of it – Republicans would get the blame!
Best let the country have what it seems to want – a Liberal Democratic government. We’ll have a shot in four years after they’ve screwed everything up (which they will).
McCain’s only saving grace is his stance on the War on Terror. I’m 100% with him there – but most American’s aren’t. Most American’s have forgotten 9-11. Sadly – we probably need another 9-11 to wake us up. For me personally – my family and I could withstand that because we live in the heartland. Any terrorist attack would likely be aimed at an urban population that is decidedly liberal – and those are the people who need to be convinced the war is worth it. Perhaps they need to see a few more of their loved-ones killed by Islamo-fascists in order to be convinced of that.
Thank God for George Bush! The man has sacrificed all … and become the most hated man in America in order to keep us safe. UNDENIABLY – he has done that. I hope history remembers him kindly and I think they will.
But McCain … nope – I’ll watch the party from my sofa but he won’t get my vote.
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
The Deep Liberals would not take another 9-11 as indication that they need more backbone. They would take it as a correction from on high. These are people who are taught to be dependents, not to stand up for themselves, who believe that the police should protect them rather than that they should protect themselves, who believe it's a crime for their children to stand up to a bully. If they won't take the correct lesson from such an attack, maybe it's best they don't have one.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
I agree with you there - I guess what I'm saying is that it will take something to make the "silent majority" stand up for itself and shout these idiots down instead of coddling them.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
Anyone checked the correlation between Ronulan leanings and the composition of the anyone but McCain group?
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
I had to "Google" that and, I think what you mean by "Ronulan" is someone that supports Ron Paul?
I'm not sure who the "anyone but McCain" group is. I don't know them. I don't like McCain - but I wouldn't insist that Ron Paul be nominated. McCain is still a better candidate than Ron Paul - there you have it - about the best thing I can say about McCain! LOL :P
retire05
· 1 year ago
Do conservatives have a reason to be concerned about McCain? Sure, and with good reason. McCain's loyalties to the GOP are so strong that after he was rejected by Republican voters in 2000, he seriously considered switching parties. McCain has not reached out across the aisle unless it was reaching out to conservatives because he had already decided to stand with the left side of the aisle. Anyone who has listened to his CPAC "I'm trying to make nice" speech knows it is not what he said there, but what he didn't say. He said he would secure the border FIRST. First before what? Amnesty, that was a mistake under Reagan and for which Reagan expressed that it was probably his single greatest mistake because the Congress and Senate failed to carry out the entire package, is what we will now see with 12-20 million illegals who will bring another 36-60 million family members and dump them onto our social welfare systems. The only way to do that, is to raise taxes to cover the expenditures. McCain said that there had been disagreements between him and the base and that there would be disagreements again. And while he agreed to listen to the other side of his liberal policies, he did not agree to work with them. If you know McCain, if you witnessed his arrogance when the families of American POWs left behind in Vietnam were trying to get answers and not excuses like "that information has not been declassified", if you understand his hardheadedness when it came to the Shamnesty Bill and his attempt to shove it down American's throats by bypassing the committee hearings, if you understand that as we speak, the Democrats are trying to expand the McCain/Feingold Bill and he will back that because it is his baby, or that the gallon of milk you paid $5.00 for yesterday that was only $3.29 last year is partly due to McCain/Lieberman, you have cause to worry. If you realize that while he was "making nice" at CPAC, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey (tell the racists to shut up) Graham were standing in the wings while Juan Hernandez, the open borders, North American Union advocate who is McCain's "Hispanic Outreach" director was waiting at his hotel room but is still on the McCain Reform Institute payroll, you have cause to worry. If you understand that Reagan was a "maverick" in the sense that he tried to pull the GOP farther right and that McCain, the maverick, has tried to pull the GOP farther left, you have cause to worry.
Reagan brought the party together by saying that we had certain values that were American in form and anyone was welcome to join us in making this the greatest country in the world and not being ashamed of our "superpower" status. He did not bend to the demands of the moderates or left of center independents becoming more like them.
Republicans lost big in 2006. Not because of conservative values, but because they had become nothing more than "liberal lite" and if voters were going to vote for liberals, they might as well elect the real thing instead of electing Republicans who said they were conservative but gave us the "tax and spend" policies of the Democrats.
McCain presents conservatives with a lose-lose situation. It all boils down to how badly we want to lose. And we know that should McCain reach the end of the road that takes him to the Oval Office, he will, as he has always done, tell those who opposed him the same thing he told Senator John Cornyn (F-you) and make a hard left. McCain has always stuck his finger in the eye of conservatives that have opposed him. The only difference now is that he is asking you to "suck it up" and accept it. We know what we will be getting and I promise, we are not going to like it. McCain is like the man who beats his wife. He is not sorry he beat her, but he is very, very sorry the police hauled him to jail for it. And once she opens the door to him after he tells her he will never do it again, it becomes her fault when he does because she provoked him by not agreeing with him.
The black eyes are only the beginning.
MichaelSmith
· 1 year ago
For those considering voting for McCain, here is an interesting article about a Wall Street Journal interview with him:
And note the date of the WSJ interview: Nov 2005. More than two years ago. Sounds like the McCain of Feb 2008. That is in his favor.
A modern day TR indeed. Teddy busted trusts and preserved huge amounts of national scenery. He built the Panama Canal - and Jimmy Carter gave it away. Go figure.
hg
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
· 1 year ago
No one can get elected in this democracy and a right winged, true conservative, on a national level. That only works in some congessional districts. The only way a Republican can get elected on a national ticket is to attract quite a few moderate and independent voters. McCain is the only candidate who is or will be able to attract these votes for this election. The idea that either Romney or Huckabee is more conservative than McCain is bazaar. First of all, for the "flat earth" people, Romney had no chance to win this election because he is from Mass. and is a Mormon. The idea that this country would ever elect a Southern Baptist who states he does not believe in evolution is silly and quite bazaar. This country is not in the Daniel Boone era. This is a different era. I have been a Republican my whole adult life. I will be quite happy when the right-winged kooks go off the cliff which the guy from this election who attracted less than 10% of the votes.
In Clinton's words...what "is"....and the meaning of "is"...remains...
People have a choice. They can be "head in the sand" purists or they can vote for either McCain or one of the other two. Suicide bombers have made the headlines the past few years. Some of the kooks in this country are as foolish..and will do a "suicide" vote....
That is human nature...
McCain is what this country can elect in 2008. There is no one else except Obama and Senator Clinton. Anyone who is thoughtful will have "issues" with McCain and one would have issues with any of the others who were running.
For the "purists"....most of you are filled with "hatred" above all. We see this with the terrorists in the Middle East and we see it in this country. That is why a true democracy has a certain life-span....and then it ends. It always does. It is human nature....filled with hate and emotions and not one lick of common sense. Trash talking is the result....
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
You are getting this all wrong. I don't believe that most Conservatives hate McCain as a person, they simply dislike his actions. We do not like people who wish to swerve this country to the Left, be they Democrats OR Republicans.
As for electability, you are correct in that any candidate needs to inspire people from all places to vote for him/her. However, you must also realize that they greatest win against the Democrats was by Ronald Reagan against Fritz Mondale in the Presidential race. Mondale won one state, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. And he did this all on a Conservative agenda, mind you.
People from all groups generally see Conserative priniciples as good. Just run down these questions and ask yourself if you agree with them:
1. I would prefer that Govt kept out of my business as much as possible, true? 2. Would you like to keep more of your paycheck each week? 3. Do you believe we need to prosecute crime and criminals effectively? 4. Would you like our borders secure and jobs to be in the hands of Americans? 5. Do you dislike the "Pornification" of America, and it's children? 6. Do you want America to have a strong Defense? 7. Would you prefer a safe family structure for raising children?
There are many more questions one could ask, but if you generally answered "Yes" to most of those questions, then you are in line with the Conservative agenda.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Hmmm. I am a liberal and thought I'd take the time to answer your quiz. Interesting.
1. I would prefer that Govt kept out of my business as much as possible, true?
Yes, including my bedroom and phone calls and e mail.
2. Would you like to keep more of your paycheck each week?
Yes.
3. Do you believe we need to prosecute crime and criminals effectively?
Yes.
4. Would you like our borders secure and jobs to be in the hands of Americans?
Yes
5. Do you dislike the "Pornification" of America, and it's children?
No sure what you mean here so I'll leave blank.
6. Do you want America to have a strong Defense?
Yes 7. Would you prefer a safe family structure for raising children?
Yes
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
I'm not thrilled over McCain's being the presumptive candidate for reasons that have been well-stated by others, but the endorsement by John Bolton at CPAC is an ojbective, reasoned argument, delivered with dry, sly wit. (Oh, would I love to see a John Bolton as president.)
mylegsareswollen
· 1 year ago
In the current hysterical, polarized political environment; with the far left rabid and with momentum - John McCain may be the absolutely best hope for the Republican party this year.
His military record gives him some needed teflon and his storied bi-partisan outreach deflects many of the attacks that could have been laid on other candidates.
Along with the predictable Swift Boating by the hysterical left (which will backfire) that's soon to come - I do not think the Republican electorate could have picked a more electable candidate.
Rush Limburger and Company should take another look and have a bit more respect for the electorate - the Republicans may have done themselves a big favor by choosing the most electable candidate in a year of Bush derangement and left wing momentum.
KathyfromAustin
· 1 year ago
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. McCain will peel off a lot of the anti-Clinton vote from the left. Those with the tin foil hats are very spiteful and what the Clinton's will have to do to win the delegate count (super delegates, machinations in FL and MI) will throw votes to the Republican ticket.
Who do we want fighting the War on Terror or finishing the job in Iraq with dignity? It's McCain. No matter how much you hate his other moves--rightfully so---my bread and butter issue is the war and I cannot in good conscience leave it to the Democrats to screw up.
Arjuna
· 1 year ago
"n the current hysterical, polarized political environment; with the far left rabid and with momentum - John McCain may be the absolutely best hope for the Republican party this year."
Listen to what you're saying - because Liberals are upset - we need to compromise OUR principles and nominate someone that is appealing to them?
Well - you didn't nominate the right candidate in McCain. My God - the guy's temperament alone should disqualify him from the office he's running for. By the time the MSM is done with him - he'll be lucky if he carries his home state. Seriously - the guy was a fighter pilot - and dated strippers. He is about the most fertile ground for personal attacks to come along for the MSM in many years. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that the MSM isn't watering at the mouth just thinking about it.
But good luck.
KathyfromAustin
· 1 year ago
OK, but you never answered my point. Who would you rather have fighting the GWOT? Hillary, Obama or McCain?? You are so, so wrong.
My bigger point was that he has cross over potential because of the Clinton's backroom dealings. Where is your response to that? Also, what are your thoughts on the Democratic convention? You sound emotional and senseless. Did you read my post?
Read the Kos kids. What are your priorities, for God's sake? And specifically what are you referring to when you say the media will scorch him? Frankly, and with all respect, you sound very emotional and devoid of logic.
Homer_Gomez
· 1 year ago
"Listen to what you're saying - because Liberals are upset - we need to compromise OUR principles and nominate someone that is appealing to them?"
No - not because liberals are upset. But rather because they stand to dominate both houses AND the White House, and then appoint judges which will legislate not interpret. Are your principles so important you'll let HillaryBama bankrupt us with entitlement programs? Will you live with bigger and more invasive government because of your principles? Will you continue to let them earmark your money without budgeting, without debate and without the knowledge of your congressional representative? I will not.
"Listen to what you are saying." Please.
hg
jharp
· 1 year ago
Homer,
You need to compromise because you don't have the votes. Pretty simple.
Judges do not legislate. Never have and doubt if they ever will.
They are a 1/3 co equal branch of our government and interpret the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
HillaryBama bankrupting us? You have got to be kidding.
GWB and the republicans increased the debt by 4 trillion.
And you're worried about the Democrats. I've got news for you Bill Clinton, left with a surplus.
Homer_Gomez
· 1 year ago
Jharp:
“Judges do not legislate.” See: Anna Diggs Taylor. See: “Active Liberty” McCain has stated – in very plain English – that he will not nominate judges who'll do an end run on the legislative branch with a “living constitution.”
“Bill Clinton left with a surplus.” To his credit. He also had help: the House and the Senate were Republican majorities for the last two thirds of his administration. Give a little credit to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.
“HillaryBama bankrupting us? You have got to be kidding.” No, I am not. McCain has targeted Medicare and Social Security reform as one of his top priorities. HillaryBama have targeted universal healthcare as theirs. Go figure.
“GWB and the republicans increased the debt by 4 trillion.” Correct. It’s a disgrace and a major departure from conservative values. Assuming the Democrats retain the House and the Senate, who is most likely to return us to those conservative fiscal values? a) HillaryBama b) McCain It is, of course, your choice to debate based on history. My vote goes to what I think WILL happen.
hg
exhelodrvr
· 1 year ago
He was a bomber pilot.
Mercutio
· 1 year ago
When confornted with McCain vs. Obama/Clinton, I find I must fall back on advice from Patrick O'Brien: "You must always choose the lesser of two weevils".
richard mcenroe
· 1 year ago
I will support McCain when he shows me something instead of talking about something. He was tough on the war? Big deal. He showed how 'tough' he was by second-guessing Bush while leaving the President to take the heat for actually doing something. Has he introduced legislation to, oh, say, raise two or three more divisions or pull our forces out of their outdated garrisions in Westerm Europe? Has he fired Juan Hernandez while he was talking tough about closing the borders in his campaign phone calls?
I don't owe John McCain a damned thing, no matter what he feels entitled to. Let him make me an offer.
Homer_Gomez
· 1 year ago
He's offering to keep one of the branches out of the hands of liberals.
Will you offer him your support to do that?
hg
richard mcenroe
· 1 year ago
Assumes facts not in evidence, Homer. How did he keep anything out of the hands of 'liberals' with McCain-Feingold, Kennedy-Feingold, the Gang of 14 or leaning on Federal investigators for Keating? Or by setting up his little Reform Institute to bypass his own campaign law and take money from George Soros. Or hiring an official from a foreign government who says he doesn't even recognize our borders?
Homer_Gomez
· 1 year ago
Richard:
Touche', he's not a choir boy. But your "facts in evidence" do not make John McCain a liberal.
Please compare his policies to those of the Democrats about earmarks, entitlements reform, management of radical Islam, immigration reform (Europe has had a guest worker program for decades - it works), Iraq (if you pick a fight, do what it takes to win it), government spending, free trade, school choice, strong defense, smaller government. None of this is new ground but they sure as heck trump your "facts in evidence."
Answer me this: will you live with McCains' flaws or (in Ed's words) "four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo." If you won't or can't answer that, please provide a third and equally credible scenario.
hg
richard mcenroe
· 1 year ago
I don't believe McCain will support or fight for srict constructionist or conservative judges. Convince me,
Homer_Gomez
· 1 year ago
OK. Let’s go back to last week at CPAC, where he had an opportunity to pander but did not. He said: “I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws;” In the same speech he said “All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep.”
Is there something else you’d like? If you cannot accept this commitment, made before an audience of national networks, you’re indirectly calling him a liar and far be it from ANYONE to “convince” you.
Before you even think "Gang of 14" please consider this: in my opinion the larger issue was "nuking" the organized use of filibuster. If the "nuclear option" had been deployed, can you imagine what 2006 would have brought in the legislative branch? Hint 1: Democrat majorities in the Senate and the House. Hint 2: taxpayer provided health care for families with incomes approaching $80K. Hint 3: self inflicted defeat and victory by radical Islam.
Now kindly answer my question from two days ago: “will you live with McCain's flaws or (in Ed's words) 'four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo.' If you won't or can't answer that, please provide a third and equally credible scenario."
Regards, hg
Nozzle
· 1 year ago
Let's hope McCain gives as much trouble to the next democrat in the Whitehouse as he did the last Republican... The Captain nailed it when he said "McCain hasn't generated wild enthusiasm from conservatives." If he can't motivate his own party, motivating the country will remain a bridge too far I'm afraid...Let's face it, we as a party have been snakebit from the word go. We had too many candidates from the beginning. Even now, we still have a couple of them too many who have put ego and personal aggrandizement above party and the people. McCain won the majority as voters were swooned by the idea of a swashbuckling war hero. But, a majority of Republican voters with the rest more or less disenchanted will not be nearly enough to stop an electrified electorate. The democrats are more engergized than they have been in a generation. And, there is massive resentment of the war and fear for our economic future that crosses party lines. Republicans will pay the price this time for the war and recession, or economic slow-down. Whatever it turns out to be in the end. Fair or not, right or wrong, we will pay as a party. I wish it were different but its not...Here's to McCain. May he continue to make our party proud in the Senate.
TyCaptains
· 1 year ago
Agree with pretty much everything you mention except that McCain CAN pull votes from Independents and even get a healthy swath to move over from the Dems...particularly if Hillary is their candidate.
But yes, Republicans are paying for 8 years of Bush incompetence.
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
Well, right now it might be a mute point. I am really getting the vibe that Obama will probably beat Hillary Clinton, then go on to beat McCain. It all comes down to the excitement factor, and quite frankly, McCain doesn't excite the base to vote FOR him. Having little more than the "Vote for me or you will elect Democrat X", McCain does not have any vision for America save winning in Iraq.
Obama, whose own vision is clearly Leftwing, seems to at least make Democrats want to be excited about something. I would never vote for the guy, but I am not sure I would simply vote against him either.....
Theflyman
· 1 year ago
to paraphrase Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now " I love the smell of compromise in the morning"
STU2
· 1 year ago
to paraphrase Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now " I love the smell of compromise in the morning"
All Comments
We're not interested in "working" with someone who believes in amnesty for illegals. We're not interested in "working" with someone who is caught up in Pope Al Gore's Alarmist Church of the imaginary Global Warming Crisis. We're not interested in working with someone that believes in government subsidies for embryonic stem cell research. We're not interested in working with those who float "class warfare" arguments.
In short - I don't think "true" Conservatives are interested in working with McCain at all. The only thing he gets us is a solid stance on the war on terror - which apparently the majority of American's don't want (if you look at the polls). His Presidency would provide a Republican scapegoat for every failure the Democratic Congress would be responsible for. He's not going to appoint judges like Alito to the SC.
Pfft! Someone needs to remind me of why I need to get off my arse and go to the polls to pull for him? To "win" an election? That's not important to me. Simply winning is not enough - we need someone who will work for OUR ideals - not Ted Kennedy's.
Sorry.
You're wrong about McCain Supreme Court nominations, and as others have posted, the idea that you would rather the country suffer for four years so that you can "purify" the party is horrific.
If winning at any cost is your idea of the way to run a party well - it's beyond purification it's time for a split. At this point I'll support any third party conservative that runs. Barring that - I'll watch from my sofa.
The problem is the next 9/11 would probably be nuclear. Couple that with the Clintoons notoriously filling the CIA, Defense and State Department with patronage jobs (e.g. Bill Cohen , William Christopher) , lackeys (e.g. former CIA Director John "don't touch that porno on my classified CIA computer" Deutsch) and discontents (e.g. Mad Halfbright) while gutting our defense. Blend in terrorist appeasers like Pelosi and Reid. Shake vigorously.
Literally, shake vigorously (yourself) awake and realize that if complacency emboldens terrorists appeasement will more so. Whenever disaster hits the Clintoons they assemble focus groups whereby they'll be too busy passing out the handouts with the purty charts and graphs to notice the Battle of Britain on our own shores truly could be underway. Couple that Clintonian incompetence with martial law and those four years could rival a regency if not longer. Those wishing for a Hillary coronation to actually happen, certainly should sit the election out and watch her exploit for personal gain any power or chaos she can muster.It's a family tradition.
And poor Obambi..... What words of optimism could quell the fears of those suddenly realizing in harms way (their own back yards) that happy words and smiling stump speeches provide no armaments and refuges in the dangerous world called terrorism reality?
McCain's choice of VP will be crucial. In part because of his health problems which will be an issue the activist media will exploit. Secondly, because (see paragraph one) in a nuclear terrorist age the possibility exists that rapid promotion for a VP has increased. It will also serve to show whether McCain means what he says to CPAC. Although I would have preferred that Slick had been removed from office I can understand Fred Thompson's reasoned explanation for keeping Slick in office was to avoid Al Gore as president. Given a choice of dolts it is best to select or keep the least dangerous of the two.
Think carefully about staying home in a huff in November because if Bin Laden isn't alive watching those whom would seek his legacy certainly are. A party split is exactly what Obambi and Hillary are hoping some in the GOP will do. Who needs a Ross Perot spoiler when the Democrats best shot is a rehashing of 2006? If there's going to be some house cleaning in the GOP it had best be done after November because the current ship is already headed out of port. If any genuinely want a Jocelyn Elders equivalent placed in charge of National Security in a domestic front war on terrorism by all means be sure angry Hillary or Obambi get sworn in. A whole lot of disaster can happen in four years of wanting to regain power. None of it pretty with much of it lethal. About the only thing more painful might be explaining to our soldiers in Iraq how one expects to avenge McCain, by enabling Hillary, but at their expense.
I'm a OEF / OIF veteran. I have been there - and I have lost friends. I will tell you that I'm sick and tired of seeing our young men and women who are committed 100% to the fight - who are willing to give their lives for this mission ... to DEFEND US.
And yet - we have so many of the "SILENT MAJORITY" sitting on their butts and 9 to 5'ing it in complete silence while Berkely harasses Marine recruiters and the top Democrats malign our troops. Why is Jack Murtha allowed to walk the streets in peace? Why isn't he harassed and yelled at?
Why are the only ones who seem to be committed enough to "cut up" and look like an idiot in public the ones on the OTHER side?
If you believe in the mission - let's see some civil disobedience. Let's see Conservatives mounting protests at the government offices in Berkeley - let's see them shutting their government DOWN.
Everyone is glad to have troops who are willing to DIE for their defense. But few on our side are willing to STAND UP and defend them here at home.
Just tired of fighting - let the barbarians have it all.
Scroll down to read about the “Boycott Berkeley in Support of Marines”.
Go here to sign the petition: http://capitalismcenter.org/Advocacy/Marine_Pet...
Thank you for serving in the military.
People support the troops as long as that support is limited to sticking a magnet on their car, or a bumber sticker, or answering a telephone poll, or signing an online petition.
In short - if the activity of support doesn't burn any calories or cause any embarrassment - we're ALL for it. But if it takes some physical effort or requires us to show our actual angry face in a public place - we're no where to be found.
We don't deserve those kids over there who go out and risk their lives for us everyday when we don't have the GUTS to stand up for them here and shout down the idiots who malign them.
And that is really the bottom line.
So the court supported the recruiters, the counter protesters support the recruiters and the locals who show appreciation (including coffee etc.) for the counter protesters suggests that the soldiers are not alone. A lot of people on the home front also assist in sending useful things to the troops. Our Rotary group has helped with several efforts on those lines.
The big test is the next election. We need to keep the pressure on in Iraq until after the next parlimentary election at least so that our progress will not be lost.
Under Cohen's watch the USS Cole and Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies were attacked without substantive response or strategy by Slick. Too bad Cohen lacked the resolve and temper, say, of a Hyman Rickover (fmr. SecNav) type, to raise hell when necessary and to ruffle feathers to defend the military and the nation from the ever lackadaisical Clinton... even if it meant resigning from SECDEF. Certainly those in the higher echelon of national security had a clue or two about the Bin Laden threat before dumping it in W's lap on inauguration day of 2001.
Instead Cohen chose merely to play along with Bubba after the Cole attack which likely indicated to Al Qaeda / bin Laden that both Cohen and Clinton were asleep at the helm and that inattention could be exploited for what became 9/11.
The other problem I have with Cohen was his farewell tour of living it up at public expense during the latter months of Bubba's last term. I believe it was Bill Gertz who had a story or two on that topic. Apparently some of the Clinton's taste for high living instead of focusing on the job at hand had rubbed off.
How’s that for beginning to persuade people who are not already on your side … calling them names. How …. McCain-like.
Look, Cap, there are hosts of reasons for people who believe in free speech, lower taxes, less government intrusion into our lives not to like McCain. But we do it on principal, not for personal reasons.
You call for unity in the face of the Democrats. Having read you almost daily, I know that you consider yourself an eminently reasonable person, able to see both sides.
So why do you (forget about the commenters) BEGIN with an insult?
Charles Krauthammer had an excellent comment about the tone of McCain’s call for unity: it was arrogant and condescending; a demand that we should join HIM in unity. It puts me in mind of the bed of Procrustes.
Let’s face the truth Cap, McCain is neither so inspiring a leader or so faithful to the Republican party that we now have a moral obligation to us to follow him anywhere. At this point he must give us a reason to follow. And using either Obama or Hillary as bogeymen is not good enough.
And insulting us is not making me willing to go in his direction. Insults I can get from the Left.
There is a difference between sticking to principles and stubbornness.
John Maynard Keynes is famous for many things. One time he was accused of changing his mind. He responded:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
The example of McCain Feingold is a perfect way for him to begin. How did that work out, John? Did you learn anything?
When an enemy of free speech converts, I won’t be there calling him a flip-flopper. Will you?
Add tons of friendly & free press from the Media for both Huckabee and McCain plus some cross-over voting and there you go.
I don't consider this past primary as a shining example of how the democratic process reflects the will of the people.
There's some good advice in that the Conservatives need to focus on the Senate & Congress as well as the State Level.
If "we should support McCain anyway" crowd fights Conservatives on this, its time for a party split.
And that's why I say to you, jpm100, "Waa."
That reticence about McCain must be weighed against who we KNOW an angry Hillary would nominate to the Supreme Court which would be three or four Buzzy Ginsberg clones to replace physical train wreck Ginsberg, ancient Stevens, maybe Souter passing on from sloth, and perhaps Anthony Kennedy accidentally overdosing on self-worship. That's the clincher for me. McCain's Supreme Court nominees may not be precisely whom I'd like yet probably would not be flaming Marxists or ACLU shills that angry Hillary certainly would choose.
That said, I can still feel for those concerned about McCain's true loyalties because, try as I might, when reading McCain's CPAC speech, I cannot help hearing a distant echo of "I'm a changed man" which Clintoon told the nation during a scripted 60 Minutes puff piece back in 1992.
And I'll work hard to elect conservatives to the Congress and state legislature. Time to plant the seeds for the next generation of conservatives.
Last point first. The absolute best thing about a Romney candidacy would have been seeing him engaged in presidential debates with the eventual Dem candidate. He’s energetic, quick of his feet and has the full function of an excellent memory. He’s not a completely instinctive conservative yet, but by the time the next phase of the race started he would have perfected some verbal illustrations of liberalism versus conservatism. He seems to me to be pretty good at painting a picture via analogy, like the U.S. becoming the France of the 21st century.
In a debate, the Democrats can’t even honestly state their own intentions, for fear of revealing the totality of their statist visions. That makes them stumble and contradict themselves. Obama doesn’t know enough about the economy to even forward a decent lie about it. Clinton can only make up a lie that you have to want to believe in order to fall for it.
But, either of them will look like geniuses-on-speed compared to McCain. He is cursed with not being able to be honest about his intentions, concerning subjects he doesn’t understand, even if he can remember what they are. Don’t believe me? Take another look at the last debate, and then compare it to some video from his run in 2000. And get used to it, because you’re going to see a lot of it on the news this year.
Sorry, center-centers…in your zeal to nominate somebody the polls (the freaking POLLS) told you could win in 2008, you’ve hung a big anchor around all our necks.
Now…the coup. A number of republicans have proven themselves to be devious and untrustworthy. The tactics they’ve used to secure the nomination have been underhanded, ranging from faith-baiting and rumor mongering to lying about opponents’ statements and using the media to distort the nature of the state-by-state contests.
The tactics they’ve used to marginalize anyone who protests this usurpation are right out of the Clinton playbook, which is to say, the Stalin playbook. The fact that they’ve chosen this moment in history to splinter the coalition shows their arrogance and recklessness, and underscores the proposition that they don’t just dislike conservatives (who annoyingly hold their feet to the fire on issue after issue), they don’t even have the intellectual capacity to understand them.
A case in point – the Bush tax cuts. McCain says he voted against them because there were no accompanying spending cuts and his sycophants throw their hands up and say, “See, he had a good conservative reason for it, he’s just so much of a deficit hawk”.
The folks on talk radio have made much of the fact that at the time he wasn’t talking about that, but rather using class warfare rhetoric about “tax cuts for the rich”. That’s bad enough but it misses the real point which is that Bush’s tax cuts were incentive based and growth oriented and anybody who understood Reaganomics would know that they would PAY FOR THEMSELVES.
The tax cuts brought more money into the treasury than the taxes would have. Spending restraint would have been nice, coming from our little club of GOP legislators, and maybe we would still be a majority party if they’d had some ability to control themselves. But, if Senator McCain’s position had won the day, the deficit would now be miles above where it is. He had zero excuse for that vote other than economic incompetence or a grudge against Bush. Great president material there.
But I digress. The point is that the D.C. GOP insiders don’t get conservatives, but we get them. We are the bare-knuckle street-fighters of the party and they are the backroom rollover specialists. We made the mistake of not realizing until it was too late, that this was not a straight-up primary race, but we won’t make that mistake again.
Oh, I’ll vote for John McCain…I promise. It won’t make any difference, but obviously he wants to be president really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad. So I’ll try to give him what he wants.
But I’ll also be using whatever meager abilities I have to ensure that the Washington cabal gets broken up in the next few election cycles and that we replace them with people who understand conservative principles and can share that vision with the misinformed electorate.
Shaun Stuart
The electorate isn't any more misinformed this cycle than it was in any other election season. We're not silly sheep wandering aimlessly, needing only a strong lasso to pull us into the conservative corral.
Mitt Romney didn't lose because the other candidates tricked us. He lost because people voted against him. Why? Well, there are lots of reasons for it, take your pick. He came across as phony, as a contrived conservative, mouthing positions that were convenient to his political goals, because evangelicals will never vote for a Mormon, because he came across as a corporate Wall Street type, divorced from the everyday realities of the middle class, because he avoided serving in Vietnam and then tried to convince people he wished he really had, because he seemed to compare the contributions of his 5 sons to his campaign as equivalent to the service of their peers in the military, because talk radio and some conservative pundits tried to shove him down our throats as their choice and therefore necessarily our choice.
In the end, it doesn't really matter why he lost. But I know this, he didn't lose because of some dirty tricks, that he was somehow shut out of the opportunity to compete fairly or because the electorate was fooled.
When the campaign season started there was something like 9-10 Republican candidates. We're supposed to believe there was some secret chamber sitting back in Washington pulling all their strings, masterminding this covert effort to keep Romney from getting the nomination? Please. Politicians aren't that bright. It's a conspiracy theory worthy of the left.
And running against Washington is as old as the hills and it never works.
As William F. Buckley, Jr. liked to say, "51% of the electorate are not always right." But maybe they are in this case. Which is why I'll vote for John McCain, and work to put conservatives into the Congress and state legislatures.
um...that's just flat out wrong. if your argument depends on factual error then ipso facto your argument is wrong.
Tax receipts by the Federal government are substantially higher now, after the tax cuts, than they were when Bush took office. Tax receipts in 2000 were $2,025,457; in 2007, tax receipts were 2,568,239, and increase of over $500 billion per year. You can see the data here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf...
In fact, that increase in tax receipts exceeds the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential.
We can't tax enough to keep entitlements in the black.
That Bush’s tax cuts were growth oriented, or that increased government revenue doesn’t equal a tax cut paying for itself.
If I'm wrong, fine...but I'd like to know why.
Shaun Stuart
After reading Sen. McCain's speech I conclude that the republican party is in serious trouble this election cycle. I recently was in a group of people who were also active in this last caucus. Unfortunate for me they were all of the Democratic persuasion. I came to feel their hopefulness of their movement, despite the platform or lack there of, to move forward. Oddly, they spoke of the opportunity to replace the old guard which is funny because their old guard is the group who said to not trust anyone over 30.
In contrast the Republican are talking about who are they going to vote against. In past elections one of the most well known talk show host would say that was the Republican attribute that the hopefulness of the conservative message to move forward can overcome and motivate people to support more Republicans. However, due to the deviation of the original message the Republican party has not capitalized on this original ideal. Criticism of Sen. McCain are not with out merit nor without reason. Those who call themselves conservative support many differing candidates causing fractures and frictions in what Ronald Reagan brought together. It is to be remembered that even within Reagan's cycle there were differing opinions from Dever, Regan, Stockman. Yes, that is a far difference than working with Ted "Aquaman" Kennedy.
In closed caucus settings McCain is not winning such as in Minnesota or Iowa. However, one candidate has fallen victim to prejudice which I would say is not very Reagan like. Otherwise McCain won in more open primaries. He has carried more vote but not a majority as Mr Romney observed. It is the set of rules each state has employed which has caused this electoral college like distortion.
This election is not just about McCain. I wish Mr. Romney did not leave the campaign so early as to bring about a more brokered convention and maybe help solidify more conservative ideals into the campaign. But what are they? Again the most conservative candidate have received the least overall votes in this primary season. McCain's campaign has benefitted by the early electoral season because of state parties trying to be more influential grab the spot light from Iowa and his long established campaign offices.
The Supreme Court is in play. Those nominations will have an impact long after the administration is gone. McCain has pledged to nominate conservative choices that would be a least one winning choice as compared to the Gingberg like candidates we would get from the other side. Yes there are no guarantees, but I think Harriet Meiers was a fluke. There is also the Congress. New efforts must be taken to keep things from siding back. Yes, I have issues with Sen. Coleman but will things be better with a Ciresi or Franken? MN 3rd District will loose Rep. Jim Ramstad. Will we be better off with a new Klobuchar or worse?
Despite Sen. McCain's stubbornness which is a characteristic that may have served him well in the past can come to be very irritating to say the least for those who call themselves conservative today. Yet, as in the immigration debate last year, if these many factions can speak in a clear singular voice like a choir echoing though a grand cathedral, conservatives can still be heard, not to stop sing, no screaming, just because you need a new breath. Regards
Many remember the first President Bush's "Read My Lips" pledge that he didn't really mean. We also remember him giving us David Souter.
All of us remember George W. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" which meant little restraint on federal spending, expanded entitlements, McCain-Feingold signed into law, support for amnesty, and Harriet Meiers.
McCain is the Republican nominee and we'll all try to "make the best of it". It's just still not clear at this moment what the best course of action is regarding McCain. It is clear that we need to throw our support behind conservative Senaotrs, Representatives. Governors, and state legislators.
This says a LOT about a certain faction of the GOP. And none of what it says is good. A poster says that he would rather see the GOP fracture than support McCain. You know what ?
A lot of people are going to start agreeing with him before this is over.
Some of them;
A. Democrats.
B Independents.
C.Moderates.
D. Even some 'real' conservatives.
They will see the need for the Party to be rebuilt but not on the foundations that 'real conservatives' appear to insist upon. And that will be that. It might take a while but something else will arise to compete effectively in the political arena. And it won't include the dead-enders. So I guess every cloud really does have a silver lining.
Were it not for the War I would be quite happy to see the current GOP crash and burn. It is running on intellectual fumes anyway. 'Real conservatism' thinks it is the wave of the future and that the 'deviationists' are preventing it from achieving their rightful place. I happen to think they are 100% wrong in their historical analysis. 'Real conservatism' is not advancing; it is in retreat. Soon(in historical terms) it will be a rout. History is NOT on its side but rather than trying to work within that framework and 'modify' events to inject a healthy dose of 'conservative' ideals and values' into an otherwise hostile environment, the attitude is --- 'I'm taking my ball and going home. That'll teach you. You're not worthy'
Yeah that's going to work out just fine. Just fine.
Now ... if that sounds "huffy" to you well - I apologize. I don't mean it to be. I believe a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the country and for the Republican party. I won't support it. I think others who believe likewise should do the same.
I am, at the moment, simply unable to support McCain. It's a hard thing to do, because I cannot stand the thought of HRH or Obama in the White House. And yet, what choice is a conservative, a dues-paying member of the GOP, left with?
I give the Senator props for his military service. I also flew with the Navy. I do believe that he does understand the threat that Islam and Islamo-facists pose to not only our own nation, but all of the civilized world.
However, McCain simply does not understand, or worse, looks the other way for whatever reason, on the issue of border security and illegal immigrants. This nation cannot survive such an invasion of non-citizens, nor can it claim sovereignity while doing little to nothing to control it's borders. If this nation fails to round up and deport those here illegally, then why would anyone ever bother to follow the law for immigration and the proper path to citizenship?
McCain is also far too comfortable with the DNC, and many of it's very left supporters. It is one thing to work with an opponent to find some accomodation from time to time. It is another thing entirely to embrace them.
In short, McCain is not now, nor should he be the candidate for the GOP and for conservatives. He MUST be replaced or we can stick a fork in the GOP and say it's done.
My point is that from Bush to McCain, the GOP is failing it's members in the selection of candidates. The GOP is also failing us in the list of candidates for Congress. It has become deaf to the cries of the rank and file, all the while asking for donations and to "support our candidates". Those at the top of the GOP have become no better than the King and Parliament that our founding fathers sought to overthrow. They demand money and obedience, but will not allow us a seat at the table.
I've had enough of that. I'd rather see the GOP convention fracture under a "Draft Fred" movement, than see McCain elected. If it takes the election of a stalinist liberal like Hillary or Obama to wake up the slugs that run the GOP, then so be it. Perhaps a revolt by the party faithful at the election booth would be the revolution needed to show the GOP the dissatisfaction of it's members at current policies and standards.
The GOP did it's best imitation of the left during it's recent control of Congress. Now they want us to elect McCain as our President. If that is the best that the GOP can do for America, then we need a revolution, and cleaning of the GOP leadership and stff, a new slate of conservative candidates. Or we need to simply wash our hands of the GOP and walk away amd for something else.
If mcain is the best we can hope for, then perhaps the GOP ought to adopt an appropriate symbol that represents both the party and McCain. I'd suggest an arrogant @ss. Just take the Demcrat Donkey, and paint it giving the finger to everyone, becuse that is what this election represents.
Respects,
The GOP, like the Democrats, is made up of factions. Conservatives are just one faction in the GOP. Yes, they are a large faction, but they are not the only one. For a GOP president -- probably McCain at this point -- to be elected, it will take the votes of ALL the factions to win. If a significant portion of the conservative faction stays home, the Democrat nominee will probably win. Do you honestly believe that 4 to 8 years of liberal government will be better than McCain? (If so, you are probably a Democrat or need therapy).
Let's say that 8 years down the road a conservative that pleases you is nominated to head the GOP. What do you think would happen if the moderate faction and the independents acted like you and failed to vote for the nominee. Guess what? He or she would not win. The conservative faction alone CANNOT elect a president.
That is why you should put your feelings for McCain aside and work with the GOP to elect him. If the conservative voice is united and strong enough, you can probably force him to pick a conservative VP candidate and a more conservative cabinet.
Finally, McCain the senator is different from McCain the potential president. In the senate, one is forced to negotiate and compromise in order to pass one's agenda. It means that we will often disagree with some of the positions taken. It is why senators are rarely elected to the Oval Office. McCain obviously has never been president. If conservatives hold his feet to the fire, they just might be pleasantly surprised by him. If Hillary is elected, you will certainly not get what you want.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of how far the once-proud GOP has degenerated.
It sounds like for most of your life, you have been able to follow your vision of the best, by voting Republican. If you can't do that any longer, if you have to compromise yourself and humiliate yourself to remain in what is suddenly and undemocratically proclaimed a "coalition", then as a mature adult, why do you stand for it?
Thank you for providing a perfect example of how far the once-proud GOP has degenerated"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm now feel free to correct me here but was it not the 'real conservative' hero ,Barry Goldwater and his droogies, who basically told the unbelievers to hit the road in 1964 and not let the door hit them on the way out ? I don't recall him or his supporters being very 'inclusive', but perhaps I just missed it. This seems like a bad case of being able to dish it out with gusto, but having a bit of a problem with taking it when the shoe is on the other foot.
"Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those, those who do not care for our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks, in any case. And let our Republicanism so focused and so dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels."
You believe that if you and other conservatives stay home on election day, you will teach the GOP a lesson. What lesson do you think that will be?
Once again, let's assume that in 2012 a conservative is nominated. You even send him money and volunteer for his campaign. How would you feel if people here said, "oh, great! another right-wing, homophobic bigot. I would never vote for him. We will be better off with 4 more years with a Democrat president?" Do you honestly believe that your candidate will be elected without the moderates and independents? Why should they support your candidate if you do not support theirs?
Finally, if you are so far out on the fringe that you cannot find things to like about McCain, then perhaps you do not belong in the GOP. There are other choices. You can vote LaRouche, Libertarian, Green, etc. We all know how successful third parties are. Good luck with that.
What do you mean, "if"? Our guys always hear that. You don't see a conservative in federal office who hasn't heard and overcome that.
Can you discuss the federal government without psychoanalyzing other people? Personally, one of the joys of adulthood has been an integrated morality with my lifestyle. I don't do what I think is wrong, I enjoy doing what I think is right--no matter how difficult. I don't have to shut up and sit down and go along for my own good--like a moody teenager.
You do not have to be "far out on the fringe" to find this candidate positively unacceptable. And before you start wagging that finger and calling me names, let me assure you I have thought it through (probably more thoroughly than you have) and it always comes up - No! No way!
A majority of Republicans are voting for McCain to be their nominee and staunch conservatives like John Cornyn (R-TX) are endorsing him. If you don't like it, stay home on election day, but keep your mouth shut when Hillary/Obama is elected President.
Some conservatives remind me of the Palestinians, who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Especially on illegal immigration. Just as the Palestinians have refused over the last 60 years to do anything to better their situation, to build a viable and sustained society for themselves because their goal --the eradication of Israel-- is simply not one that can ever be accomplished, many conservatives seem willing to blow up the movement, because their goal, expelling all the illegal aliens who are here and sealing off the borders to prevent any continued infiltration-- is not one that can ever be fulfilled to their satisfaction.
A President doesn't just lead the people who voted for him. He has to be the President of all the country and that includes trying to come up with ways to accommodate at least some of the concerns and issues of the other side, without compromising his own core principles. It's called governing. I don't understand why McCain's willingness to do that is seen as the ultimate betrayal or else he is accused of being naive, of getting rolled, of being a patsy for the Democrats.
An idea isn't wrong just because it comes from the Democrats.
Republican and Democrats are in business to be elected and become re-elected incumbents. While that is not mutually exclusive to support of ideals, it is close. So you get politicians who don't keep their promises and are anything but ideologically pure.
The challenge for voters in both parties is to keep enough pressure on so that we are not completely ignored. The current fear of both Conservatives and the anti-war movement is we are only getting lip service from the nominees.
McCain was part of that betrayal, although he was in the company of most of the rest of the U.S. Congress in that process. My skepticism is based upon the track record, not upon abstract arguments about whether conservatives are "relevant" or not. I'm voting for McCain with zero expectations. This is a man who, together with his other Senate colleagues, has failed to keep past promises to the American people. Clinton and Obama are the same. The Clintons have bad characters. Senator McCain has suggested that Obama double-crossed him in a political deal, also suggesting an expediency and treachery that belies Obama's "saintly" image. That's interesting information. Is there more?
They're all members of a D.C. political class that doesn't keep its promises. It's impossible to be enthusiastic about most of them.
And Bennett, trying to blame conservatives for D.C.'s past failures is a non-starter. It's a losing strategy for you, and a losing strategy for Senator McCain. You'd do better to focus on his efforts to stop the corruption. That's probably his strong suit.
Blame conservatives for D.C.'s last failures? What are you talking about? I blame some conservatives for being irrational on the issue of illegal immigration (which seems to be their main complaint against McCain) and I compared them to the Palestinians who personify irrational and self-defeating behavior.
This country isn't going to expel 12 million of its residents. It will never ever happen. And we are never going to spend the kind of money and devote the kinds of resources to establish the fortress America that some conservatives dream about on our borders. These are not viable goals. And to the extent they come to define the conservative movement, then the movement will fail.
Those illegal aliens who were here in 1986 were granted amnesty by Simpson-Mazzoli. Full, unconditional amnesty. They're not illegal. Only those who arrived AFTER 1986 weren't covered by the statute. They're here illegally. Simpson-Mazzoli never was funded by the Congress, and Congress betrayed the American people in failing to fund Simpson-Mazzoli. Because enforcement of Simpson-Mazzoli would have kept out the 12 million illegals who now are here.
So Bennett, Simpson-Mazzoli is emblematic of Congress's betrayal of the American people on the immigration issue. They struck a deal, and then passed a law to fulfill the deal. And then they failed to fund it, so that the enforcement mechanism never was put in place. And 12 million more illegals entered this country because of that betrayal.
What's my point? I don't trust Senator McCain, or Senators Clinton or Obama, to keep their words on immigration or anything else. And your "we're not going to expel 12 million residents" doesn't address the trust issue, except to say, "So we lied. So what?"
Understand that this is what you're peddling. And I'm not being an arrogant conservative to call this breach of trust to your attention. It's why Saint Obama is soaring, and Senator McCain could get stalled at the starting gate.
McCain kept his promises to his fellow soldiers. Did he keep his promises to the people of Arizona, and to the American people?
What some conservatives don't seem to understand is that for generations American boys and girls have gone to school and been taught that America is the great melting pot, that we are the country everybody comes to for freedom and opportunity and peace, that we are a nation of immigrants, taking in the huddled masses yearning to be free. And from these many, comes one nation.
For many Americans the fact that someone comes here whether legally or illegally, it fits with what we've been taught to believe. Of course they want to come here, it makes perfect sense. And yes, they don't have papers but you know? what are papers when it comes to the soul's desire to make a better life, to be free from oppression and poverty, to have a chance at something new?
This fundamental understanding of what motivates people to come here is what makes the cause of rounding up illegal immigrants and trucking them across the border or sticking them on ships to nowhere seem totalitarian, cruel and inhumane and ultimately simply un-American.
So yeah, people will say yes, we have to do something about immigration, especially in the context of terrorism, people who come here legally (as did the 19 hijackers) and then overstay their visas and hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
But that's not really what some conservatives mean when they talk about immigration. What they mean is all those brown-skinned people speaking Spanish who come up here from Mexico and parts south and mow lawns and wash dishes and work construction. We gotta kick 'em out and we gotta keep 'em from coming back in.
If you really want to do something about illegal immigration then you need to start in the public schools. Start teaching that immigrants are a pox on our society, that they don't really come here from freedom and opportunity, they come to suck the lifeblood from this great country of ours, they are evil and bad and we must stop them before we are overrun. Supplant in the minds of the next generation of American boys and girls that this is not a nation taking in huddled masses yearning to be free, this is a nation that needs to keep those huddled masses from knocking down the door and taking part in this great experiment called America.
Then maybe the next generation or the generation after that will be willing to fund S/M or whatever pet government program you think is suitable to keep the unwanted from crashing the party.
This will never be a winning issue for the GOP. And it will never be a winning issue for the conservatives. The battle is already lost. The best that can be hoped for is some sensible reforms in how the INS is run and some coherent strategy with controlling the flow of illegals across the southern border. And even then, they will still want to come, they will still come.
Because you know what? I'd come too. Papers or no papers.
We have laws in this country, Bennett. If "no one cares" (i.e., Congress) about their own laws enough to enforce them, then Congress is unworthy of our respect or deference. And Congress's laws are unworthy of our respect or obedience if Congress itself won't respect and obey its own laws. And unless you're an imbecile (which I doubt), you can see where that argument leads. It's why Congress remains "the only native American criminal class", as Mark Twain liked to say.
The rest of your platitudinous B.S. has nothing to do with the issue of an effective immigration enforcement mechanism. If we need more immigrants for our labor force, we should let them in legally. We must be able to distinguish between those who are here legally, and those who are here illegally, and to enforce U.S. law about the distinction. That's called exercise of sovereignty.
And if you're saying that immigration laws shouldn't exist, and enforcement mechanisms shouldn't exist, and that everyone should be afforded free and open entry to this country without restriction, I'd call that national suicide.
The majority of the citizens in this country haven't rallied to your cause of cutting off illegal immigration and expelling those illegal immigrants who are already here. You rail about betrayal, how the government isn't enforcing this or that law and how you can't support a presidential candidate who won't line the tanks up and point the turrets south and get the trucks roaming the streets of east L.A. and every other barrio rounding up the illegals. But ask yourself why? And why are you (and a few others) such a lonely voice crying this plaintive song?
What you advocate doesn't resonate because it is completely contrary to what we as Americans have been taught in our schools. It is also contrary to what our politicians and many others spread around the globe, America, America, the land of milk and honey, the place everyone wants to come. Home of the brave and land of the free.
You and others can call it lefty tripe or mushy sentimentalism or whatever you want. It's simply the truth. Most Americans don't look around and see people of different races speaking with an accent and immediately think, oh there's another law breaker. Call the INS.
And you can blab on all you want about the laws, the laws, nobody 's respecting the laws. But laws have to be enforceable to be enforced, there has to be the will and the means to do it. And there simply isn't in this country for your solution to the problem.
And as is usual with extremists, the opportunity to do something meaningful on this issue is lost because you refuse to accept the reality of the situation and work for a fair and rational resolution.
While you rant about the illegals streaming across the southern border, I can guarantee you there are terrorists coming here legally, absolutely legally, with their papers in order. What do you propose to do about that?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar...
There is a thread in common with all of Stuntz's points: stop holding government accountable for its failures.
Can't deport 17 million? Could we deport 1 million? Why not do that? Because the party doesn't want to.
What is the point of voting for a pro-life statute given current federal law? That is like voting to blow a couple dozen million tax dollars losing a lawsuit. Doesn't matter--it "proves" we will always lose.
The center-right "knows" the future and it is suprisingly enough, the status quo.
And sticks and stone can break my bones, but "extremist"? I'll grant you that America is a magnet to the world, but it's also "a nation of laws, not men." Recognize that quote, Bennett? Because until you acknowledge the rule of law, you're the immigration, open-borders extremist.
And until Simpson-Mazzoli, which is currently the law of the land, is enforced, I won't believe a word any U.S. Senator, McCain, Clinton, or Obama, says about immigration.
And once again you fail to address my point. How do you explan why the American people have not joined you in your crusade? Why is there no stomach in this country for rounding up the illegals, putting them in interment camps and then shipping them off to whatever country will take them? Why is there no great cry to militarize the border?
You have no answer. Which means, I guess, that you do agree with me. It's because we've been taught that what you advocate is contrary to our history and our national self-image.
Not doing too good a job getting people to rally around your guy if the only thing you can offer as to why someone wouldn't be for totally open borders is because they hate brown people.
Reagan signed S/M but it was on the assumption that it would end the argument not allowing 15 million more people to flood into the country and still do nothing about it.
Even Mccain has said at thtis point that he understands the need to secure the border before addressing the issue of how to deal with the illegal immigrants here (whether he is sincere or not remains to be seen).
Why don't you grow up, and stop with the racial demagoguery?
You bring out your trite argument about the poor huddled masses completely ignoring that the US cannot house everyone in the world, but more importantly we already have a policy to deal with LEGAL IMMMIGRATION.
If you don't want to hear about how America is a place of hope and refuge, an irresistible beacon call to people from around the world, then demand that educators stop teaching it in the schools.
The policy regarding legal immigration got us 19 people who killed 3000 of us.
I was typing too fast.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
I don't see the world LEGAL in there anywhere. Maybe we need to get the stone masons out there, cut a new line:
BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A PROPERLY ISSUED VISA FROM THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN YOUR HOME COUNTRY.
But when you're on your way out to Liberty Island on the ferry, look over at another island in N.Y. Harbor called Ellis Island. That's where the government of the U.S. set up its processing facility to process and admit immigrants LEGALLY to America. Most were admitted, but some were rejected.
Ellis Island is the symbol of American immigration policy, and of U.S. sovereignty in controlling immigration into this country. It's as important as Lady Liberty herself.
You really should have studied your U.S. history a little harder back in school! ;-)
Does Ellis Island get taught in our schools as the necessary mechanism for proper enforcement of controlled immigration? Or is it taught as part of the romantic story of how America is the last best hope for mankind, the shining story on a hill?
And perhaps while you're preparing your travelogue on NY you can include Brighton Beach and your explanation as to how the Russian Mafia came here in droves after the collapse of communism in the 1990s, presumably with their papers in order. All straight up and legal. By your standards anyway.
'That would describe you to a tee.
The Russians immigrants in New York are overwhelmingly Republican, because they worship Ronald Reagan for engineering the fall of communism in their country. The vast majority of them are law-abiding.
So you've just slandered another ethnic group that's here legally, and is overwhelmingly Republican. Are you going for the record? LOL!
Yes its a place of refuge and hope, but realistically we can't' house every one who wants to come here. There are protocols and rules which you seem to want to ignore.
I reject your argument that I don't want to hear about the huddled masses. We do deal with the huddled masses but it doesn't mean that we house everyone who ever lived and put them in our country.
If we have an immigration policy then that means we set limits and guidelines. That is simply a fact that I'm sorry you are to obtuse to understand.
And the policy of open borders and illegal immigration is what got us 9/11. Because I guess the terrorists are considered part of the huddled masses and they could always use the illegal documentation too.
I
I'm making a point about our history (apparently very poorly), about how our history is taught, not advocating a position in favor of illegal immigration.
I'm trying to explain why I believe that the majority of Americans do not support the hard right conservative view that all illegals should be expelled and the border turned into a version of the 38th parallel.
Open borders and illegal immigration most definitely did not get us 9/11. A complete and utter falsehood. Every hijacker got here legally. And they didn't come across the southern border. Trucking the illegals across the border or sealing the southern border will not prevent another 9/11.
I'm not trying to get anyone to rally around anybody. Not everything in the world has to do with the 2008 presidential election. And believe me, the illegal immigration issue isn't going to be resolved by November or anytime thereafter. Well, then again it might be. The Democrats already control Congress, if they win the W.H. then I think we can see full citizenship expeditiously moved through Congress and signed into law and minimal dollars budgeted for border security and enforcement.
I was attempting to explain why I believe the issue doesn't resonate with a majority of Americans. Why aren't there massive demonstrations in the streets against illegal immigrants? Why aren't the majority of Americans demanding that the police round up the illegals and stand posts every 10 feet along the border and shoot them down as they try and come across?
Because it's contrary to what we've been taught and because it comes across as racist.
If you have people who come here legally from other countries, live and move freely among us, do everything they want to prepare an attack, mount it successfully and the present government apparatus was completely incapable of stopping it (then and now) and nobody in this country even cares about that, why on earth would you illegal immigration kooks think the country is going to line up behind you on trucking the Mexican nationals back across the border?
Ask yourself why. And if you have a better explanation than mine, I'd be happy to hear it.
My step father is a LEGAL immigrant and you dont want to know the hoops he had to jump through to become legal. I don't want to hear that I'm against immigrants or lack compassion because 15 million people are demanding citizenship who violated our laws to get here. Screw you you sanctimonious jerk.
Not all blog comments are intended to advocate. And mine are often meant to explain my own observations about a situation, it's causes and effects. As in this case.
And you didn't bother trying to answer why the majority of Americans don't agree with what IS advocacy on your part.
Amnesty was "smashed" because we were heading into an election year. And the GOP had enough problems already.
And they managed to retreat by "understanding" that border enforcement had to come first before resolution of the status of 12 million illegals. Which means all of you got played, who care so much about this, because there isn't going to be any serious border enforcement. All you've done is play to a stalemate.
Again, no one who is "responding" to me can explain why my theory about the lack of support for your position is incorrect.
You're a race huckster, with a race card replacing an actual argument.
If I am wrong, and it isn't because Americans have been taught to value immigrants and diversity and to see your views as extreme, counter to our history and racist, then explain why your position seen as extreme and so completely in the minority?
You clearly don't have an answer.
But you do have another chance to rant incoherently.
I would have some respect for you if you argued for fixing immigration through a worker program for example, if you argued the case on the merits. But you don't You fall back on rank demagoguery, completely ignoring any possible alternative to your view which would be legitimate and demonize those who have a disagreement with your bizzare, unrealistic and absolutist position.
You, in your screed, completely ignore that we have a LEGAL IMMIGRATION policy which does value legal immigrants. You completely ignore that even when we had a mass influx of immigrants come in to the country in the early 19th century, they had to stop at Ellis Island to be processed and checked for things like disease, and not everyone was allowed in. This too was in the confines of legal immigration.
And we allow people into this country LEGALLY every year now. So you'r'e fundamentallly arguing a position that noone is arguing against on this board. I value LEGAL immigration and certainly don't want to stop our immigration program as it stands. I can even buy many of the arguments for a guest worker program as it will allow us to monitor who is in this country (which again is one reason why illegal immigration is so destructive, one of many).
But once you get into your screed about us being against openborders because we hate brown people then it reveals you for the demagogue you are. I can get my demagoguery from Jesse Jackson, and John Edwards thanks. But if you think its going to win over anyone on this board I would think again
All my posts have been about why no one in this country is in favor of your radical views. My theory is that it is because of our history, a nation of immigrants, and the way that history is taught, as a celebration of our immigrant past and the contributions of cultural and ethnic diversity and that attacks on that history, AS TAUGHT, are viewed as racist. Not that they ARE racist, not that the history IS correct as it is taught, but how it is all perceived.
You have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about that. You are incapable of explaining why the majority of Americans don’t favor your view or why mine is wrong. There is no point in continuing a discussion with you.
As to the great benefits of LEGAL immigration, see my post above in re collapse of communism, Brighton Beach, Russian Mafia.
S/M was not a legislative triumph for Reagan. It was supposed to end the issue of illegal immigration, not expand on it.
Every country under the sun has borders and recognize those borders including mexico (which also is very strict about who comes into its country).And every country has an immigration policy.
You haven't shown that a majority of Americans hate our views, because you can't
I'm going to in-your-face here. I not only want to see more Hispanic immigrants here, I want them to sire as many children upon American women as possible while they're here. Because bluntly, America needs more of their virtues in our gene pool. Work ethic? Ambition? Courage? They've got more than you do, I'm dead certain. When's the last opportunity you walked across the desert for the chance to work 12-hour days?
Every time you see a news article about some idiot in Hollywood doing something asinine, repeat this phrase: "There are 12 million people in this country work work hard for a living, love their families, and have courage in spades. I want to drive there people out of my country as soon as possible, but keep fools like this in place. God bless America."
So we should allow Mexicans in at the expense of other groups,simply because their border is close to ours?
You say the waiting list is 10 years in Mexico. Is there no waiting lists from other countries and do those people deserve no consideration because Hispanics decided, rather than waiting for the ten years to simply jump the line?
This would have been early national suicide for the U.S.A. We would have never become the great melting pot, made up of many people from many lands, who assimilated and helped us became the great nation we are. I doubt we would have been able to fight World War II in this state; we would have been fighting each other like those in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which countries finally broke up into factions.
While they have learned from their experience, we haven't. We are slogging inexorably toward balkanization. The amnesty lovers like to call it multicultural. But it isn't multi anything. It's bi. Bicultural. Our country, if amnesty is granted to so many illegals and their chain migration relatives, will implode within four decades.
The problem in the end isn’t so much how many immigrants and where from or whether they are legal or illegal, the issue ultimately is what is expected of them and us once they are here. And of course the longer they stay illegal, the less likely they will ever become assimilated. This is also why guest worker programs are unworkable (see Germany on this issue).
I can tell you about the 18-year old kid who worked in my kitchen for 8 hours, changed uniforms, and did it again for the restaurants across the street.
I'm dying for you to explain how this is racism. From my experience, it's the hardcore conservatives who are willing to paint all the Hispanics as dirty drug-dealing welfare-sucking thieves.
I've met these people. And I can say from personal experience, it's just not so.
Is that your position?
So, tell me, how many immigrants do you know? Or is this all just a theoretical debate for you?
And he works hard too, just to let you know. Notwithstanding the fact that he isn't Hispanic.
Maybe you should expand your horizons beyond simply hispanics when it comes to immigration. The fact that you haven't worked with anyone who is an immigrant other than hispanics doesn't' negate the fact that others are trying to also get into this country, are also hard working.
There are many millions of "good workers" all around the world who would just love to come to the U.S. and get a chance to work toward citizenship. The question is, "Which ones should we LEGALLY take in?"
I believe we should never reward illegality; it only begets more of it. And I would certainly like to see the rest of the world represented here. That way there would not be the problem with people who are speaking only Spanish. There would be so many languages, people would be competing to learn English, the native tongue of this country, more rapidly. And that's the way it used to be. And it worked perfectly.
The system is now broken and we should fix it the right way. And I don't believe that should start with saying, "What should we do with those that are here?". It should start with: "What are our needs? What kind of immigration policy should we have"? And my answer to that would never include amnesty.
(By the way, there are plenty of Hispanic-Americans who are fine citizens - Americans first, who want what is best for America, and who abhor the concept of illegal immigration - by anyone.)
Every Hispanic. Bar none. All of them.
And if you know anything at all about the racial makeup of the food service industry (50% Hispanic), you'd know that's a lot.
As for them being felonious lawbreakers... tell me, when's the last time you exceeded the speed limit on the interstate?
Which crime is more likely to result in actual harm to a living person?
American have a long and fine history of disregarding the law when it suits them. (Case in point B: Prohibition.) Why should we expect others to be different?
The sooner the GOP figures this out the sooner the rebuilding of the party begins.
How long have the conservatives candidates been in charge? Congress, 15 years? President 7.
Looks where it has gotten us. Every single gripe of conservatives can be blamed on their own candidates.
They are happy about the war but that is soon to change . 5 years of failure they seem to have accept. 6,7,8 years of failure I would like even a die hard will see the light.
McCain or Hillary or Obama are all driving the country left.
So, my question is what is better? Another President from the Republican party that keeps the march of that party moving left or a President from the Democrat party that move the country leftward? Isn't it the same thing under a different name?
The Republican party isn't Conservative. It is a mixture. It has been the only vehicle for conservatives to be a part of things, but with the defeat of the House and Senate, the Republicans have moved leftward.
When the party fails its constituents then those people need to decide if they want to keep getting lip service or abandon the party.
The party is leaving the people who supported it most.
There are no viable candidates left in this race, when given that "choice", then mine will be clear. I will go vote, but leave President blank. When there is no choice I can live with then I will with hold my vote.
Illegal spying on our citizens: Currently, we are in a state of war with a culture that will surely destroy us in time should we not face it. Some of these people live in our country, many are not our citizens, but some are. Considering this, I think you would agree that spying on a few people is acceptable, or do you think we should put them all in camps like we did with the Japanese in WW2? If you choose neither, then you are not willing to fight to win.
On Torture: Defining torture as the UN and Senator McCain would like means that we cannot interrogate anyone in any way they find stressful or uncomfortable. Do you define this as torture? If you do, then you are not truly fighting the war. As for "water boarding" This has only been used once, and against the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. If this is too harsh for you, then you need to consider the thousands of dead and their families, as well as the many more that were saved by that interrogation.
Holding of our citizens without due process: This is not occurring in the jurisdiction of the United States. We give all our citizens due process. I am not sure we need to offer foreign nationals the same rights however, as it does not say we need to in the Constitution. The military might be able to hold one of our citizens longer than normal should they face a US citizen who is training in a foreign country and actively trying to kill our soldiers. This is simply the law of the battefield. Be happy they still don't shoot these people on the spot. If all this seems too harsh to you, then you are not ready to fight and win a war on Islamofascism.
Exposing of covert operatives: You must be speaking of Valerie Plame, and surely by now you realise that during the time her name came out, she was not considered a covert operative. This according to one of the attornies who wrote the law in question, Victoria Tensing. Further, it was common knowledge that Plame liked to go to parties and make it clear she worked for the CIA, but as little more than a paper shuffler. The only reason that people don't know this is that the media continues to perpetuate the Plame myths for their own agenda.
What it all comes down to is that we will continue to face a power of massively growing influence in Islamofascism. They are expanding in Europe rapidly as the average Europeaan fails to produce offspring. There will come a time of a sizeable war between the World and Islam, of which we have yet to gauge the depth of their goals and hatred. These people do not care about our high ideals, and will truly torture, kill, and mutilate us if they get the chance.
And don't forget that in additon to the fact that she wasn't covered under the statute, her identity was leaked by Armitage anyway, and he didn't do so because he was trying to get Plame. He hasn't been indicted both because she isn't' covered by the statute, but also because there is no underlying crime there.
Is this all we are? Simply the brakes of a nation, and forever the capitulator?
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=2439
In contrast the Republican are talking about who are they going to vote against. In past elections one of the most well known talk show host would say that was the Republican attribute that the hopefulness of the conservative message to move forward can overcome and motivate people to support more Republicans. However, due to the deviation of the original message the Republican party has not capitalized on this original ideal. Criticism of Sen. McCain are not with out merit nor without reason. Those who call themselves conservative support many differing candidates causing fractures and frictions in what Ronald Reagan brought together. It is to be remembered that even within Reagan's cycle there were differing opinions from Dever, Regan, Stockman. Yes, that is a far difference than working with Ted "Aquaman" Kennedy.
In closed caucus settings McCain is not winning such as in Minnesota or Iowa. However, one candidate has fallen victim to prejudice which I would say is not very Reagan like. Otherwise McCain won in more open primaries. He has carried more vote but not a majority as Mr Romney observed. It is the set of rules each state has employed which has caused this electoral college like distortion.
This election is not just about McCain. I wish Mr. Romney did not leave the campaign so early as to bring about a more brokered convention and maybe help solidify more conservative ideals into the campaign. But what are they? Again the most conservative candidate have received the least overall votes in this primary season. McCain's campaign has benefitted by the early electoral season because of state parties trying to be more influential grab the spot light from Iowa and his long established campaign offices.
The Supreme Court is in play. Those nominations will have an impact long after the administration is gone. McCain has pledged to nominate conservative choices that would be a least one winning choice as compared to the Gingberg like candidates we would get from the other side. Yes there are no guarantees, but I think Harriet Meiers was a fluke. There is also the Congress. New efforts must be taken to keep things from siding back. Yes, I have issues with Sen. Coleman but will things be better with a Ciresi or Franken? MN 3rd District will loose Rep. Jim Ramstad. Will we be better off with a new Klobuchar or worse?
Despite Sen. McCain's stubbornness which is a characteristic that may have served him well in the past can come to be very irritating to say the least for those who call themselves conservative today. Yet, as in the immigration debate last year, if these many factions can speak in a clear singular voice like a choir echoing though a grand cathedral conservatives can still be heard, not to stop sing, no screaming, just because you need a new breath.
Brilliant. This really should end of the discussion (calm down! ha ha). Instead of continued critism of McCain, leave the room, good luck to you, and find a third party candidate
Now they will have to live with him. Or ........die with him ...... it is a great year for both.
McCain has done more to sabotage the conservative movement than any democrat!
He abandoned conservatives at every important turn. Every important issue we should have advanced, McCain blocked.
I for one, will not turn my back on my principles.
I am free to vote my own conscience and interests as I choose. I will do just that.
The followup to the 1994 Contract with America days ways a slide into corruption and alienation. It wasn't conservatives who did that. You Repubs just keep slip slidin' away.
As noted above, unless one party has a veto-proof and fillibuster-proof majority in both houses of congress a party's complete agenda cannot be passed. Compromise is forced in on the system by its very nature. Principles can be kept, but political power is needed to get any part of those principles enacted.
I will not be voting for McCain in November – as a Conservative, I thought I might be able to hold my nose and do it but … I know I won’t be able to. McCain is not only NOT a Conservative – I’m even sure he’s a totally “balanced” individual. Do you remember how, after both John Kerry and Al Gore lost their presidential bids – the MSM finally starting publishing reports about how “flaky” both of them were? I believe that McCain is the same way – and I have to agree with Harry Reid – McCain doesn’t have the temperament to serve in the oval office. He would be an embarrassment to Republicans because he will not hold to Conservative principles. He’s an “imitation” Democrat – and why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing? This is all so sad for me to write.
In addition – there are so many Republicans retiring this year from Congress they won’t be able to hold the House and Senate – and Democrats will wielding Veto and Filibuster-proof majorities very soon. “President McCain” would do nothing but go along with their every whim – and when the economy melts down because of it – Republicans would get the blame!
Best let the country have what it seems to want – a Liberal Democratic government. We’ll have a shot in four years after they’ve screwed everything up (which they will).
McCain’s only saving grace is his stance on the War on Terror. I’m 100% with him there – but most American’s aren’t. Most American’s have forgotten 9-11. Sadly – we probably need another 9-11 to wake us up. For me personally – my family and I could withstand that because we live in the heartland. Any terrorist attack would likely be aimed at an urban population that is decidedly liberal – and those are the people who need to be convinced the war is worth it. Perhaps they need to see a few more of their loved-ones killed by Islamo-fascists in order to be convinced of that.
Thank God for George Bush! The man has sacrificed all … and become the most hated man in America in order to keep us safe. UNDENIABLY – he has done that. I hope history remembers him kindly and I think they will.
But McCain … nope – I’ll watch the party from my sofa but he won’t get my vote.
Anyone checked the correlation between Ronulan leanings and the composition of the anyone but McCain group?
I'm not sure who the "anyone but McCain" group is. I don't know them. I don't like McCain - but I wouldn't insist that Ron Paul be nominated. McCain is still a better candidate than Ron Paul - there you have it - about the best thing I can say about McCain! LOL :P
Anyone who has listened to his CPAC "I'm trying to make nice" speech knows it is not what he said there, but what he didn't say. He said he would secure the border FIRST. First before what? Amnesty, that was a mistake under Reagan and for which Reagan expressed that it was probably his single greatest mistake because the Congress and Senate failed to carry out the entire package, is what we will now see with 12-20 million illegals who will bring another 36-60 million family members and dump them onto our social welfare systems. The only way to do that, is to raise taxes to cover the expenditures.
McCain said that there had been disagreements between him and the base and that there would be disagreements again. And while he agreed to listen to the other side of his liberal policies, he did not agree to work with them. If you know McCain, if you witnessed his arrogance when the families of American POWs left behind in Vietnam were trying to get answers and not excuses like "that information has not been declassified", if you understand his hardheadedness when it came to the Shamnesty Bill and his attempt to shove it down American's throats by bypassing the committee hearings, if you understand that as we speak, the Democrats are trying to expand the McCain/Feingold Bill and he will back that because it is his baby, or that the gallon of milk you paid $5.00 for yesterday that was only $3.29 last year is partly due to McCain/Lieberman, you have cause to worry. If you realize that while he was "making nice" at CPAC, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey (tell the racists to shut up) Graham were standing in the wings while Juan Hernandez, the open borders, North American Union advocate who is McCain's "Hispanic Outreach" director was waiting at his hotel room but is still on the McCain Reform Institute payroll, you have cause to worry. If you understand that Reagan was a "maverick" in the sense that he tried to pull the GOP farther right and that McCain, the maverick, has tried to pull the GOP farther left, you have cause to worry.
Reagan brought the party together by saying that we had certain values that were American in form and anyone was welcome to join us in making this the greatest country in the world and not being ashamed of our "superpower" status. He did not bend to the demands of the moderates or left of center independents becoming more like them.
Republicans lost big in 2006. Not because of conservative values, but because they had become nothing more than "liberal lite" and if voters were going to vote for liberals, they might as well elect the real thing instead of electing Republicans who said they were conservative but gave us the "tax and spend" policies of the Democrats.
McCain presents conservatives with a lose-lose situation. It all boils down to how badly we want to lose. And we know that should McCain reach the end of the road that takes him to the Oval Office, he will, as he has always done, tell those who opposed him the same thing he told Senator John Cornyn (F-you) and make a hard left. McCain has always stuck his finger in the eye of conservatives that have opposed him. The only difference now is that he is asking you to "suck it up" and accept it. We know what we will be getting and I promise, we are not going to like it.
McCain is like the man who beats his wife. He is not sorry he beat her, but he is very, very sorry the police hauled him to jail for it. And once she opens the door to him after he tells her he will never do it again, it becomes her fault when he does because she provoked him by not agreeing with him.
The black eyes are only the beginning.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature...
A modern day TR indeed. Teddy busted trusts and preserved huge amounts of national scenery. He built the Panama Canal - and Jimmy Carter gave it away. Go figure.
hg
In Clinton's words...what "is"....and the meaning of "is"...remains...
People have a choice. They can be "head in the sand" purists or they can vote for either McCain or one of the other two. Suicide bombers have made the headlines the past few years. Some of the kooks in this country are as foolish..and will do a "suicide" vote....
That is human nature...
McCain is what this country can elect in 2008. There is no one else except Obama and Senator Clinton. Anyone who is thoughtful will have "issues" with McCain and one would have issues with any of the others who were running.
For the "purists"....most of you are filled with "hatred" above all. We see this with the terrorists in the Middle East and we see it in this country. That is why a true democracy has a certain life-span....and then it ends. It always does. It is human nature....filled with hate and emotions and not one lick of common sense. Trash talking is the result....
As for electability, you are correct in that any candidate needs to inspire people from all places to vote for him/her. However, you must also realize that they greatest win against the Democrats was by Ronald Reagan against Fritz Mondale in the Presidential race. Mondale won one state, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. And he did this all on a Conservative agenda, mind you.
People from all groups generally see Conserative priniciples as good. Just run down these questions and ask yourself if you agree with them:
1. I would prefer that Govt kept out of my business as much as possible, true?
2. Would you like to keep more of your paycheck each week?
3. Do you believe we need to prosecute crime and criminals effectively?
4. Would you like our borders secure and jobs to be in the hands of Americans?
5. Do you dislike the "Pornification" of America, and it's children?
6. Do you want America to have a strong Defense?
7. Would you prefer a safe family structure for raising children?
There are many more questions one could ask, but if you generally answered "Yes" to most of those questions, then you are in line with the Conservative agenda.
1. I would prefer that Govt kept out of my business as much as possible, true?
Yes, including my bedroom and phone calls and e mail.
2. Would you like to keep more of your paycheck each week?
Yes.
3. Do you believe we need to prosecute crime and criminals effectively?
Yes.
4. Would you like our borders secure and jobs to be in the hands of Americans?
Yes
5. Do you dislike the "Pornification" of America, and it's children?
No sure what you mean here so I'll leave blank.
6. Do you want America to have a strong Defense?
Yes
7. Would you prefer a safe family structure for raising children?
Yes
His military record gives him some needed teflon and his storied bi-partisan outreach deflects many of the attacks that could have been laid on other candidates.
Along with the predictable Swift Boating by the hysterical left (which will backfire) that's soon to come - I do not think the Republican electorate could have picked a more electable candidate.
Rush Limburger and Company should take another look and have a bit more respect for the electorate - the Republicans may have done themselves a big favor by choosing the most electable candidate in a year of Bush derangement and left wing momentum.
Who do we want fighting the War on Terror or finishing the job in Iraq with dignity? It's McCain. No matter how much you hate his other moves--rightfully so---my bread and butter issue is the war and I cannot in good conscience leave it to the Democrats to screw up.
Listen to what you're saying - because Liberals are upset - we need to compromise OUR principles and nominate someone that is appealing to them?
Well - you didn't nominate the right candidate in McCain. My God - the guy's temperament alone should disqualify him from the office he's running for. By the time the MSM is done with him - he'll be lucky if he carries his home state. Seriously - the guy was a fighter pilot - and dated strippers. He is about the most fertile ground for personal attacks to come along for the MSM in many years. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that the MSM isn't watering at the mouth just thinking about it.
But good luck.
My bigger point was that he has cross over potential because of the Clinton's backroom dealings. Where is your response to that? Also, what are your thoughts on the Democratic convention? You sound emotional and senseless. Did you read my post?
Read the Kos kids. What are your priorities, for God's sake? And specifically what are you referring to when you say the media will scorch him? Frankly, and with all respect, you sound very emotional and devoid of logic.
No - not because liberals are upset. But rather because they stand to dominate both houses AND the White House, and then appoint judges which will legislate not interpret. Are your principles so important you'll let HillaryBama bankrupt us with entitlement programs? Will you live with bigger and more invasive government because of your principles? Will you continue to let them earmark your money without budgeting, without debate and without the knowledge of your congressional representative? I will not.
"Listen to what you are saying." Please.
hg
You need to compromise because you don't have the votes. Pretty simple.
Judges do not legislate. Never have and doubt if they ever will.
They are a 1/3 co equal branch of our government and interpret the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
HillaryBama bankrupting us? You have got to be kidding.
GWB and the republicans increased the debt by 4 trillion.
And you're worried about the Democrats. I've got news for you Bill Clinton, left with a surplus.
“Judges do not legislate.” See: Anna Diggs Taylor. See: “Active Liberty”
McCain has stated – in very plain English – that he will not nominate judges who'll do an end run on the legislative branch with a “living constitution.”
“Bill Clinton left with a surplus.” To his credit. He also had help: the House and the Senate were Republican majorities for the last two thirds of his administration. Give a little credit to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.
“HillaryBama bankrupting us? You have got to be kidding.” No, I am not. McCain has targeted Medicare and Social Security reform as one of his top priorities. HillaryBama have targeted universal healthcare as theirs. Go figure.
“GWB and the republicans increased the debt by 4 trillion.” Correct. It’s a disgrace and a major departure from conservative values. Assuming the Democrats retain the House and the Senate, who is most likely to return us to those conservative fiscal values?
a) HillaryBama
b) McCain
It is, of course, your choice to debate based on history. My vote goes to what I think WILL happen.
hg
I don't owe John McCain a damned thing, no matter what he feels entitled to. Let him make me an offer.
Will you offer him your support to do that?
hg
Touche', he's not a choir boy. But your "facts in evidence" do not make John McCain a liberal.
Please compare his policies to those of the Democrats about earmarks, entitlements reform, management of radical Islam, immigration reform (Europe has had a guest worker program for decades - it works), Iraq (if you pick a fight, do what it takes to win it), government spending, free trade, school choice, strong defense, smaller government. None of this is new ground but they sure as heck trump your "facts in evidence."
Answer me this: will you live with McCains' flaws or (in Ed's words) "four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo." If you won't or can't answer that, please provide a third and equally credible scenario.
hg
Let’s go back to last week at CPAC, where he had an opportunity to pander but did not. He said:
“I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws;”
In the same speech he said “All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep.”
Is there something else you’d like? If you cannot accept this commitment, made before an audience of national networks, you’re indirectly calling him a liar and far be it from ANYONE to “convince” you.
Before you even think "Gang of 14" please consider this: in my opinion the larger issue was "nuking" the organized use of filibuster. If the "nuclear option" had been deployed, can you imagine what 2006 would have brought in the legislative branch? Hint 1: Democrat majorities in the Senate and the House. Hint 2: taxpayer provided health care for families with incomes approaching $80K. Hint 3: self inflicted defeat and victory by radical Islam.
Now kindly answer my question from two days ago:
“will you live with McCain's flaws or (in Ed's words) 'four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo.' If you won't or can't answer that, please provide a third and equally credible scenario."
Regards,
hg
But yes, Republicans are paying for 8 years of Bush incompetence.
Obama, whose own vision is clearly Leftwing, seems to at least make Democrats want to be excited about something. I would never vote for the guy, but I am not sure I would simply vote against him either.....
Smells like.....chicken. :-)