McCain abandoned GOP principles?

[RoadVirus]

I was supporting Duncan Hunter until he dropped out. After that, I pretty much viewed the entire thing as a fiasco looking for a place to happen.

I had the same feeling, except it was when Romney bowed out.

No, the Libertarian Party is having trouble gaining traction because of the Republican and Democrat duopoly in politics.

Considering the state of both parties these days, that surprises me. The corruption that is evident in both parties should trigger a flood of people towards the Independent, Green and Libertarian parties. Before the 2006 election, i saw the corruption that polluted the GOP and decided to look for other political parties to look towards.

 

[dilloduck]

I had the same feeling, except it was when Romney bowed out.



Considering the state of both parties these days, that surprises me. The corruption that is evident in both parties should trigger a flood of people towards the Independent, Green and Libertarian parties. Before the 2006 election, i saw the corruption that polluted the GOP and decided to look for other political parties to look towards.

Thats' exactly the problem---too many parties to go to. IMHO of course.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Considering the state of both parties these days, that surprises me. The corruption that is evident in both parties should trigger a flood of people towards the Independent, Green and Libertarian parties. Before the 2006 election, i saw the corruption that polluted the GOP and decided to look for other political parties to look towards.

If more people knew, or thought, that they had a real choice then they would certainly take a hard look at the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and maybe even the Socialist Party. As it is, the Commission on Presidential Debates is headed by members of the Republican and Democrat parties that are only interested in sticking to the status quo. So they make ridiculous mandates such as polling at 15% nationally, which is basically impossible if you're not as visible as the major candidates.

Then the media will spend days at a time talking about something ridiculous, lipstick on a pig for example, when they could devote that time to the other candidates running.

 

[Gunny]

You are right.. he didn't have the support from the traditionals.. but who elected him? With Palin he gambles and lost... but she wasn't without utility. for those who can rise above throwing him under the bus I applaud you. For those who believe mccain should eat his shit sandwich alone... well... im just sayin..

I don't believe he should be eating much of the shit sandwich at all. I think that is reserved for the GOP itself, and conservatives voters who were so busy protesting city hall they allowed the party to be hijacked by RINOs. It was more like 4th and 4, busted play, and somebody lateralled the ball to him out of desperation. So he took it tried to run. Who wouldn't?

Can't blame Palin really, for being Palin. Or George Bush, Jr to the Dems/libs. She got more negative hype in 2 months than Cheney did in 8 years. Obviously, SHE was the real threat to the left.

No, the blame goes to the GOP for abandoning any pretense to conservative principles, and to conservatives votes for allowing it to. Some blame goes to the MSM and left for running a propaganda campaign Goebbels would envy.

My dislike for McCain is a dislike for McCain I've held for years. But, IMO, he shouldn't have been the Republican nominee in the first place. He represents and has always represented OPPOSING Republicans. That's how he made his name. Now suddenly they are supposed to support him?

As has become the obvious case, easier said than sold.

 

[editec]

True. I got the impression that, like Tancredo, he was really only in it to try to bring some attention to conservative issues and stances, not because he really wanted to be President.

On the other hand, I'm pretty resigned to the fact that anyone who's likely to be a strong conservative candidate is going to essentially be ignored, shunned, and silenced by the media to keep anyone from ever noticing him.

The neo-con Republican mafia smeared Pat Buchanan with the NAZI sympathizer brush, remember?


There are no truly conservative candidates because the Republican Party is controlled by people who aren't remotely conservative.

It's controlled by internationalists bent on detroying the nationstate called the United States of America, with the help of the American Taliban party who cares more about social issues than they care about the nation.

It's a damned shame, but they've bambozzled enough of you people (who truly are conservatives at leasrt) into thinking that government was the enemy of this nation.

That's was NOT Reagan's message, but I know damned well that many of you think it was.

And now you've got not only a Democratic POTUS, but a Democratic Congress, too.

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is run by the Democratic wing of the internationalists party, too.

And so both RNC and DNC created that FIX that we can ALL see was nothing more than a huge transference of cash to the insiders.

Think about it.

On the issue of free trade both parties are on the same page

On the issue of illegal immigrants both parties are on the same page

On the issue of the bail out both parties are on the same page.

On the issue of Iraq, both parties on the same page.

On the issue of Israel, both partys? Same page.

And yet partisans really do believe that the parties are philosjophically different why?

Because of three issues that really don't mean jackshit to the insiders of either party are how you were manipulated. Tjhose issue are:

abortions, gun control and homosexuality.

 

[Silence]

Of course John McCain abandoned GOP principles, he's a liberal neo-con just like George W. Bush. This election cycle we had Big Government (McCain) vs. Bigger Government (Obama). I saw no evidence of a "dramatic move to the right" from John McCain.

Can the government really get bigger than it did under Bush? and what the hell is a liberal neo-con?

 

[editec]

Can the government really get bigger than it did under Bush? and what the hell is a liberal neo-con?

Its the latest straw grasped by those conservatives to explain what it otherwise inexplicably inconsistent to them.

They are so convicned that liberal means something bad, that when the people who'd been lying to them cannot hide their lies anymore, they have to cling to the delusion that what those bastards are is some kind of liberal.

It's amusing as hell watching these people trying to cobble reality up with their myth based world views, isn't it?

MaCain is too liberal. Bush is a liberal, too.

It's hilarious.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can the government really get bigger than it did under Bush? and what the hell is a liberal neo-con?

Yes, it can always get worse. A neo-con is a liberal pretending to be a conservative, so like I said earlier I was being redundant when I said "liberal neo-con." George W. Bush for example is a neo-con, thus a liberal. There's nothing conservative about preemptive war, $11 trillion deficit, ignoring habeas corpus, spying on your own citizens, or torturing people.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, it can always get worse. A neo-con is a liberal pretending to be a conservative, so like I said earlier I was being redundant when I said "liberal neo-con." George W. Bush for example is a neo-con, thus a liberal. There's nothing conservative about preemptive war, $11 trillion deficit, ignoring habeas corpus, spying on your own citizens, or torturing people.

There's nothing liberal about any of those things, either. But keep pretending otherwise, it does so much to explain the conservative personal responsibility mantra.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's nothing liberal about any of those things, either. But keep pretending otherwise, it does so much to explain the conservative personal responsibility mantra.

Liberals favor "big," or powerful, government. These are the results of big government.

 

[RoadVirus]

I don't believe he should be eating much of the shit sandwich at all. I think that is reserved for the GOP itself, and conservatives voters who were so busy protesting city hall they allowed the party to be hijacked by RINOs. It was more like 4th and 4, busted play, and somebody lateralled the ball to him out of desperation. So he took it tried to run. Who wouldn't?

The RINOs didn't influence McCain's candidacy. It was his name recognition. The GOP thought McCain's name was familar to everyone, so he'd surely win. Oops...guess not.

Can't blame Palin really, for being Palin. Or George Bush, Jr to the Dems/libs. She got more negative hype in 2 months than Cheney did in 8 years. Obviously, SHE was the real threat to the left.

Yes the Left did feel threatened by her. She re-energized the Republican party and took away the Messiah's media coverage.

 

[Paulie]

There's nothing liberal about any of those things, either. But keep pretending otherwise, it does so much to explain the conservative personal responsibility mantra.

The fact that Kevin was saying there is nothing conservative about those things does not necessarily mean he was saying they were all liberal-only positions.

When you consider yourself a "conservative" or even "neo-conservative", you had better damn well got some positions that you can point to and say these are conservative.

None of those are, though.

What makes them liberals is that they seem to have no shame in increasing spending, increasing the military empire, increasing the size of government, increasing the subversion of liberties (i.e. habeus corpus, FISA, etc.).

Most of the original neocons are former democrats.

 

[Ravi]

The fact that Kevin was saying there is nothing conservative about those things does not necessarily mean he was saying they were all liberal-only positions.

When you consider yourself a "conservative" or even "neo-conservative", you had better damn well got some positions that you can point to and say these are conservative.

None of those are, though.

What makes them liberals is that they seem to have no shame in increasing spending, increasing the military empire, increasing the size of government, increasing the subversion of liberties (i.e. habeus corpus, FISA, etc.).

Most of the original neocons are former democrats.

None of those things are liberal ideals. Do you people just make shit up, or what? I don't care if they are former Dems, they aren't liberals.

Bush is in no shape or form a conservative or a liberal. He's an idiot that wanted to be more than he was mentally capable of being.

 

[Paulie]

None of those things are liberal ideals. Do you people just make shit up, or what? I don't care if they are former Dems, they aren't liberals.

Bush is in no shape or form a conservative or a liberal. He's an idiot that wanted to be more than he was mentally capable of being.

How is increasing spending while cutting taxes, nation-building, and subverting liberties through legislation not liberal? They aren't conservative, I'll tell you that. I'm talking about TODAY'S definition of liberal. I realize it constantly changes, but as far as how it is defined today, those positions are liberal.

If neocons are neither liberals nor conservatives, then what are they? And articluate it please, rather than just calling them names and saying they are mentally incapable. I already KNOW they're a bunch of morons. I'd like to know why they aren't liberals.

 

[Ravi]

How is increasing spending while cutting taxes, nation-building, and subverting liberties through legislation not liberal? They aren't conservative, I'll tell you that. I'm talking about TODAY'S definition of liberal. I realize it constantly changes, but as far as how it is defined today, those positions are liberal.

If neocons are neither liberals nor conservatives, then what are they? And articluate it please, rather than just calling them names and saying they are mentally incapable. I already KNOW they're a bunch of morons. I'd like to know why they aren't liberals.

You are taking everything you don't like and labeling it liberal. I understand why you do that, I used to do the same with conservative. I'm not sure what you are basing your definitions on, maybe Progressive in some cases, but in others I've no idea. Liberals aren't for increasing spending while cutting taxes. They are for a progressive tax system that covers expenses that help keep the economy viable. Nation building isn't a liberal ideal, though pressuring countries to not commit genocide is...but not invading countries just because they aren't Democracies. Subverting liberty? You must be joking. What liberties have liberals ever wanted to subvert?

 

[Paulie]

You are taking everything you don't like and labeling it liberal. I understand why you do that, I used to do the same with conservative. I'm not sure what you are basing your definitions on, maybe Progressive in some cases, but in others I've no idea. Liberals aren't for increasing spending while cutting taxes. They are for a progressive tax system that covers expenses that help keep the economy viable. Nation building isn't a liberal ideal, though pressuring countries to not commit genocide is...but not invading countries just because they aren't Democracies. Subverting liberty? You must be joking. What liberties have liberals ever wanted to subvert?

Rav, subverting liberty is what a lot of liberal policies are all about. The liberty to go to a bank and accept a stupid ass ARM. The liberty of the bank to offer it to you. The liberty of the bank to sell your mortgage. The liberty of the bank to invest in derivatives.

Regardless of how detrimental those things have been to the country, there's no reason why we as consumers, and they as businesses, should not have the liberty to make those decisions, and fail or succeed based on them. The beauty of it though, is that by failing, you have learned something. I bet there's millions of people who will never be stupid enough to accept an ARM ever again, even if it was never outlawed through regulation.

You're right though, about increasing spending and cutting taxes not necessarily being liberal. That's more of an example of NOT being conservative, then it is liberal. I will stand corrected on that.

I don't differentiate much between liberal and progressive. If nation building is progressive, then as far as I'm concerned it's liberal. It's a horrible policy, and something we are not authorized to do under the constitution. It is forcing ideals upon others, and by FORCE nonetheless.

Don't worry though, there are plenty of today's regular conservative positions that I would in no way consider to be conservative. Mostly the social issues, like constitutional amendments to ban something.

 

[sealybobo]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

Actually, it was his dramatic move to the right in order to gain the nomination that turned many of us away from him. So, basically, the republicans still don't realize how they lost so big. Figures...

So true. McCain abandoned the social GOP principles because this country is not as socially conservative as the GOP would lead us to believe.

And Bush/Delay from 2000-2006 proved the Republican party is all about the rich.

It amazes me to see people even to this day defending Bush and the GOP.

Ok, I don't like it much either when Republicans distance themselves from Bush and support McCain, because that means they want to put it all on Bush, as if his GOP Senate and House didn't help him ruin America.

But who makes me more angry? The people who distance themselves from Bush or the people who continue to suggest Bush was a good leader?

I don't know. Both irritate me.

 

[Navy1960]

The true nature of a conservative is to conserve is it not? Given that, it would seem only natural that a conservative would wish to conserve things such as federal money, natural environment, and to be cautious in when it comes to expanding the size and scope of government in general. To conserve the powers of the Federal government and let those powers reside in the hands of the people of the United States. Given these somewhat general principles it is easy to see how the Republican party has in many respects abandoned the true nature of what it means to be conservative. Take George W. Bush for example, and likewise John McCain, with the advent of the 700 Billion dollar bailout , that in and of itself flys in the face of what it means to conserve. So again it is easy to see how one can get the picture where on the surface someone may claim the title of conservative they are not acting that way and in turn the American people in the last election at least 53% of them saw it that way and gave the riens of power to the other side.

I will submit however, that for the most part IMHO that the American people are socially conservative and fiscially liberal. Let me explain. As can be seen in several states with gay marriage bans passing and many other socially conservative issues like, family, the death penalty, child abuse laws, etc. and the number of people that claim some sort of religious preference which is well above 75%. However, our nation also tends to support the notion that we should take care of those financially that cannot take care of themselves or are unable too as well as the elderly. There is also an every increasing number of people that wish a financial solution to healthcare issues.

 

[sealybobo]

I will submit however, that for the most part IMHO that the American people are socially conservative and fiscially liberal. Let me explain. As can be seen in several states with gay marriage bans passing and many other socially conservative issues like, family, the death penalty, child abuse laws, etc. and the number of people that claim some sort of religious preference which is well above 75%. However, our nation also tends to support the notion that we should take care of those financially that cannot take care of themselves or are unable too as well as the elderly. There is also an every increasing number of people that wish a financial solution to healthcare issues.

I never looked at it that way before. But as far as being fiscally liberal, I don't think we appreciate our government doubling the debt.

And no one appreciated Bush turning the surplus into a deficit.

But they sure didn't mind enough to make it stop. As long as Bush wasn't raising taxes to pay for Iraq, the American people didn't mind how much it was costing or how much we were borrowing from China.

And gay's are the last people to be picked on. We went through this shit in the 1960's with blacks and people have come a long way since then. Now a days it is not a big deal to bring a black date home if you are white. My parents are in their 60's and they freaked out when I went out with a black girl. So society is becoming more and more acceptable of gays too. They just need to know some gays to realize they deserve equal rights. Same with race. Most of my white racist friends didn't even know any black people.

It is a lot harder to discriminate against a group of people when you know them.

 

[Ravi]

Rav, subverting liberty is what a lot of liberal policies are all about. The liberty to go to a bank and accept a stupid ass ARM. The liberty of the bank to offer it to you. The liberty of the bank to sell your mortgage. The liberty of the bank to invest in derivatives.

Regardless of how detrimental those things have been to the country, there's no reason why we as consumers, and they as businesses, should not have the liberty to make those decisions, and fail or succeed based on them. The beauty of it though, is that by failing, you have learned something. I bet there's millions of people who will never be stupid enough to accept an ARM ever again, even if it was never outlawed through regulation.

You're right though, about increasing spending and cutting taxes not necessarily being liberal. That's more of an example of NOT being conservative, then it is liberal. I will stand corrected on that.

I don't differentiate much between liberal and progressive. If nation building is progressive, then as far as I'm concerned it's liberal. It's a horrible policy, and something we are not authorized to do under the constitution. It is forcing ideals upon others, and by FORCE nonetheless.

Don't worry though, there are plenty of today's regular conservative positions that I would in no way consider to be conservative. Mostly the social issues, like constitutional amendments to ban something.

Regulation is an interesting topic. I've been thinking about starting a poll about it.

Even if, as you say, regulating business is a liberal ideal (and you may be correct on this) it is certainly not a Bush ideal.