Something for Conservatives to Consider

[Adam's Apple]

There's Nothing Conservative or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November
By John Hawkins, Townhall
February 8, 2008

If Ronald Reagan had been alive and had chosen to endorse a candidate in the primaries, even McCain fans should be honest enough to admit that candidate probably wouldn't have been John McCain. But, McCain's most ardent opponents should also be honest enough to note that Ronald Reagan campaigned for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, both of whom were to the left of John McCain. So, were he still alive, Ronald Reagan would almost certainly campaign for McCain against Hillary or Barack and you can be sure that he would not approve of conservatives who say that they'd rather have a liberal Democrat in the White House than a far-from-perfect Republican. So, whether the question is "What would Reagan do" or "what would a principled conservative do" in November, the answer would be the same: vote for John McCain.

for full article:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...ng_conservative_or_principled_about_helping_a democrat_beat_john_mccain_in_november (scroll down to John Hawkins)

 

[Paulie]

There's Nothing Conservative or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November
By John Hawkins, Townhall
February 8, 2008

If Ronald Reagan had been alive and had chosen to endorse a candidate in the primaries, even McCain fans should be honest enough to admit that candidate probably wouldn't have been John McCain. But, McCain's most ardent opponents should also be honest enough to note that Ronald Reagan campaigned for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, both of whom were to the left of John McCain. So, were he still alive, Ronald Reagan would almost certainly campaign for McCain against Hillary or Barack and you can be sure that he would not approve of conservatives who say that they'd rather have a liberal Democrat in the White House than a far-from-perfect Republican. So, whether the question is "What would Reagan do" or "what would a principled conservative do" in November, the answer would be the same: vote for John McCain.

for full article:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...ng_conservative_or_principled_about_helping_a democrat_beat_john_mccain_in_november (scroll down to John Hawkins)

The point is moot, because there's no difference between McCain and a Democrat anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

The point is moot, because there's no difference between McCain and a Democrat anyway.

Yes there is. Socially McCain is as liberal as Hillary or Barack. But fiscally, McCain is a deficit hawk and philosophically he is a Constitutionalist of which no true Democrat is. McCain will do a better job of keeping spending down, not initiating a lot of expensive entitlement programs that willl endure into perpetuity, and he will appoint constructionist judges to the courts, including the Supreme Court, where the Dem winner will be appointing judges who will legislate liberal principles from the bench.

McCain would not have been my choice if I had been able to make the decision, but there is nevertheless a definite choice to be made here. And anybody who values the Constitution and conservative principles in general knows what that choice must be.

 

[William Joyce]

philosophically he is a Constitutionalist

Too bad it's the Constitution of the People's Republic of Vietnam!

The column makes some fair points. Acting in anger may not be the best course of action (but it does feel good, no?) But I think America has changed too much for his reasoning vis a vis FDR, Nixon, Reagan, etc. to apply. During those years, America was 90-80 percent white. It's now 2/3 white, and in 50 years, whites will be in the minority (call it 25 with the amnesty that John McCain, Hillary and Obama propose). The absolute and unshakeable party trend is that non-whites vote Democratic, while only whites can be counted on as loyal Republican voters. Already in my state of Virginia, the Republicans are being replaced by the Democrats, owing to these demographic changes. The Republicans, in other words, are losing their natural base. And they will not get it back. Asians, whom Republicans had hoped would go with them because they are hard workers and law-abiding business types, have not. They have gone with the Democrats. And this is despite all the pathetic crap from the GOP about how it's a rainbow coalition. The Democrats are the party of the future because they are the anti-white party.

 

[Paulie]

But fiscally, McCain is a deficit hawk and philosophically he is a Constitutionalist

This is where you lose. McCain has pissed all over the constitution. McCain-Feingold is one prime example.

McCain would not have been my choice if I had been able to make the decision, but there is nevertheless a definite choice to be made here. And anybody who values the Constitution and conservative principles in general knows what that choice must be.

Conservative principles??? Are you kidding me??? See here.

If you want to contribute to another piece of shit that fucks this country up even MORE, just because you think you need to "make a choice", then you deserve the crap you get. There are other choices, you know. Like "none of the above", if you don't see anyone you truely like. Why compromise yourself?

I'd sit the election out before I voted for McCain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again I admit McCain is a social liberal and that makes him wrong on virtually every issue in my book. But he is a deficit hawk, and though he certainly got that wrong on the Bush tax cuts, he says he would now make those permanent. That's one reason to vote for him that cancels out at least a couple of minor reasons not to vote for him.

He also now admits that he was wrong on immigration and is at least moving in the right direction. He hasn't made me happy there yet, but at least he canceled out a reason not to vote for him.

I don't know if he would vote for McCain/Feingold again as it has proved to be a defnite detriment in some areas but has failed in everything it was supposed to accomplish.

He cannot close GITMO without congressional approval and I'm pretty sure the GOP conservatives in Congress will not allow that to happen.

Otherwise McCain is pro-military and pro-strong defense and pro-victory in Iraq, all three important biggies on my list of what a candidate has to have.

And he has pledged to veto any bill with earmarks. That alone should get him elected.

With Barack or Hillary you get all the social liberal crap plus close GITMO PLUS abandon Iraq PLUS higher taxes PLUS mandates on healthcare and everything else coming out our ears PLUS even more earmarks PLUS more entitlement programs that will outlive any of us PLUS judges so liberal they will further overturn the Constitution on its ear PLUS the military will be short shrifted and decimated as it was under the last two Democrat presidents.

I think all these are sufficient reasons to pick the best choice that we have intead of 'none of the above' which will see Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.

 

[Paulie]

Again I admit McCain is a social liberal and that makes him wrong on virtually every issue in my book. But he is a deficit hawk, and though he certainly got that wrong on the Bush tax cuts, he says he would now make those permanent. That's one reason to vote for him that cancels out at least a couple of minor reasons not to vote for him.

Well, to be somewhat fair to him, he SUPPOSEDLY voted against the tax cuts because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts as well. But in retrospect, the guy hasn't exactly been a low spender himself.

So... "deficit hawk"? I don't think so. His record, especially recently, shows nothing of the sort.

He conveniently skipped the vote on the stimulus package, so he didn't alienate either side of the aisle, to which he's currently pandering.

He also now admits that he was wrong on immigration and is at least moving in the right direction. He hasn't made me happy there yet, but at least he canceled out a reason not to vote for him.

Hindsight is 20/20 foxfyre. How do you know you can trust him on his positions, with how often they're changing lately, considering he's currently trying not to alienate the conservatives he's going to need? I mean, not only did he draft legislation to grant amnesty, he COLLUDED WITH DEMOCRATS on it! Ted friggin Kennedy!

A reason not to vote for him? Because he knows when to conveniently change his mind for votes? The mere fact that he's changing his tune, while not going extreme on it either way, is earning YOUR vote, while simultaneously not LOSING the Independent vote. Either he's very smart, or you're very stupid. No offense.

I don't know if he would vote for McCain/Feingold again as it has proved to be a defnite detriment in some areas but has failed in everything it was supposed to accomplish.

Um, it doesn't matter if he would do it AGAIN or not...he's already DONE it.

Otherwise McCain is pro-military and pro-strong defense and pro-victory in Iraq, all three important biggies on my list of what a candidate has to have.

"Pro-military" is just a term used to spin others as being the opposite, when the reality is there really aren't very many people who AREN'T.

As far as our defense budget, where is the money going to come from to continue financing it?

And he has pledged to veto any bill with earmarks. That alone should get him elected.

You know, earmarks that are up front and clearly visible in legislation, which benefit the districts of representatives aren't necessarily all that bad.

One job of the congressional representative is to get funding for the district they represent. If the funding goes to helping to improve economy and infrastructure, and the earmarks aren't crony hand-outs, they have merit.

Just saying "no more earmarks" is too vague, and tricks too many people into thinking there's some kind of ethics reform, when really it's all just a ruse. You don't think McCain is going to owe a few favors to some people in high places for his meteoric rise recently, and potential election? You're talking about American politics here...

With Barack or Hillary you get all the social liberal crap plus close GITMO PLUS abandon Iraq

No wars are going to be ending under Hillary especially. She doesn't get the majority of contributions from the Defense industry for nothing. Stop listening to everything the way the MSM tells it.

The REST of your beefs with the Dems, I agree with.

I think all these are sufficient reasons to pick the best choice that we have intead of 'none of the above' which will see Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.

McCain is no better a choice than the others. It's curtains for this country with ANY of them.

But you go ahead and vote on blind faith. The continuing losses of "American blood and treasure" will then ultimately be your responsibility as well.

 

[pegwinn]

There's Nothing Conservative or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November

The headline is wrong. There is nothing principled about meekly settling for the establishment candidate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, to be somewhat fair to him, he SUPPOSEDLY voted against the tax cuts because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts as well. But in retrospect, the guy hasn't exactly been a low spender himself.

So... "deficit hawk"? I don't think so. His record, especially recently, shows nothing of the sort.

He conveniently skipped the vote on the stimulus package, so he didn't alienate either side of the aisle, to which he's currently pandering.


Hindsight is 20/20 foxfyre. How do you know you can trust him on his positions, with how often they're changing lately, considering he's currently trying not to alienate the conservatives he's going to need? I mean, not only did he draft legislation to grant amnesty, he COLLUDED WITH DEMOCRATS on it! Ted friggin Kennedy!

A reason not to vote for him? Because he knows when to conveniently change his mind for votes? The mere fact that he's changing his tune, while not going extreme on it either way, is earning YOUR vote, while simultaneously not LOSING the Independent vote. Either he's very smart, or you're very stupid. No offense.


Um, it doesn't matter if he would do it AGAIN or not...he's already DONE it.


"Pro-military" is just a term used to spin others as being the opposite, when the reality is there really aren't very many people who AREN'T.

As far as our defense budget, where is the money going to come from to continue financing it?

You know, earmarks that are up front and clearly visible in legislation, which benefit the districts of representatives aren't necessarily all that bad.

One job of the congressional representative is to get funding for the district they represent. If the funding goes to helping to improve economy and infrastructure, and the earmarks aren't crony hand-outs, they have merit.

Just saying "no more earmarks" is too vague, and tricks too many people into thinking there's some kind of ethics reform, when really it's all just a ruse. You don't think McCain is going to owe a few favors to some people in high places for his meteoric rise recently, and potential election? You're talking about American politics here...


No wars are going to be ending under Hillary especially. She doesn't get the majority of contributions from the Defense industry for nothing. Stop listening to everything the way the MSM tells it.

The REST of your beefs with the Dems, I agree with.



McCain is no better a choice than the others. It's curtains for this country with ANY of them.

But you go ahead and vote on blind faith. The continuing losses of "American blood and treasure" will then ultimately be your responsibility as well.

I never vote on blind faith. My eyes are wide open. But I will vote for ANYBODY who will not push for another round of entitlements that move us ever closer to socialism when the alternative is to get those entitlements both Obama and Clinton are promising. And I will vote for ANYBODY who will not appoint the kind of judges that I know Barack Obama and Hilllary Clinton will appoint. And I will vote for ANYBODY who will make a primary priority of a strong national defense and strong national security when the alternative is a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama who won't.

To put a liberal socialist into the White House just to spite John McCain really does look like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

 

[nibor]

Well, to be somewhat fair to him, he SUPPOSEDLY voted against the tax cuts because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts as well. But in retrospect, the guy hasn't exactly been a low spender himself.

So... "deficit hawk"? I don't think so. His record, especially recently, shows nothing of the sort.

He conveniently skipped the vote on the stimulus package, so he didn't alienate either side of the aisle, to which he's currently pandering.


Hindsight is 20/20 foxfyre. How do you know you can trust him on his positions, with how often they're changing lately, considering he's currently trying not to alienate the conservatives he's going to need? I mean, not only did he draft legislation to grant amnesty, he COLLUDED WITH DEMOCRATS on it! Ted friggin Kennedy!

A reason not to vote for him? Because he knows when to conveniently change his mind for votes? The mere fact that he's changing his tune, while not going extreme on it either way, is earning YOUR vote, while simultaneously not LOSING the Independent vote. Either he's very smart, or you're very stupid. No offense.


Um, it doesn't matter if he would do it AGAIN or not...he's already DONE it.


"Pro-military" is just a term used to spin others as being the opposite, when the reality is there really aren't very many people who AREN'T.

As far as our defense budget, where is the money going to come from to continue financing it?

You know, earmarks that are up front and clearly visible in legislation, which benefit the districts of representatives aren't necessarily all that bad.

One job of the congressional representative is to get funding for the district they represent. If the funding goes to helping to improve economy and infrastructure, and the earmarks aren't crony hand-outs, they have merit.

Just saying "no more earmarks" is too vague, and tricks too many people into thinking there's some kind of ethics reform, when really it's all just a ruse. You don't think McCain is going to owe a few favors to some people in high places for his meteoric rise recently, and potential election? You're talking about American politics here...


No wars are going to be ending under Hillary especially. She doesn't get the majority of contributions from the Defense industry for nothing. Stop listening to everything the way the MSM tells it.

The REST of your beefs with the Dems, I agree with.



McCain is no better a choice than the others. It's curtains for this country with ANY of them.

But you go ahead and vote on blind faith. The continuing losses of "American blood and treasure" will then ultimately be your responsibility as well.

I've not been a big fan of McCain..................but he does possess an attribute that I see in NO other canidate.................a military familiar mind..........and if he could convince Collin Powell to be his running mate, I'd vote for him...............because compared to ANY OF THEM it's what we're going to NEED for the foreseeable future no matter what............

I don't agree with any of them on all points................especially immigration practices or where they've taken our vibrance as a nation, but he's been more honorable than most..................and minds do change!!!!

Hillary and Obama in my view will put us in the biggest cluster fuck that we've seen yet and do not command the world's respect on any level.............which is also what we need...................

 

[Adam's Apple]

The headline is wrong. There is nothing principled about meekly settling for the establishment candidate.

If you've been keeping up with the people voting in the primaries, it's Republican voters who are voting for John McCain and making him the Republican candidate, not the establishment. The "establishment" just took notice of what voters were doing and jumped on the bandwagon to endorse a man the polls have consistently said can beat Hillary Clinton. Republicans had an opportunity to choose someone other than McCain , but it was they who chose and are still choosing by their votes to go with McCain.

What is to be gained for the country by not voting for McCain or staying home on election day? The man has an 83% conservative voting record over his long career. There are no perfect candidates in this presidential race (never have been, never will be). When I voted for Ronald Reagan, it was not because I thought he was the best candidate available; it was because this is what the Republican Party made available to me, and I could not stomach Jimmy Carter or his administration.

As Hawkins said in his article, it's better to receive half a loaf as none at all. With Clinton or Obama, you can bet your sweet life that Republicans will get none at all and will have no chance in hell to influence policy. I would not count on a Republican Congress to block socialist legislation. If Republicans bolt the party rather than vote for McCain, my guess is that after the November election they'll be back in the minority, where they've so often found themselves, and unable to stop the major drive to turn the U.S. into a socialist country.

 

[midcan5]

A curious kind of non-thinking that has lead to so many bad choices in politics - W probably being the worst. McCain's position on the Iraq is the biggest issue I disagree with him on but it is an important one. We need to focus on a strong defense and not assume we can correct the neighbors faults by force alone. And in 50 years it doesn't matter what shade of beige we are so long as we are.


"If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer

 

[Adam's Apple]

McCain's position on the Iraq is the biggest issue I disagree with him on but it is an important one.

If you want to win the war against the terrorists, McCain is a realist on terrorism and will do what he can to accomplish that. If you're all for appeasement and getting out no matter the future cost, then you should go with the Democrats. They'll do everything in their power to see that your wishes are granted. But just remember when America is hit again, the Democrats are the ones who insisted on going the appeasement route. I have never heard the terrorists mention appeasement--nor will they, even if they have to use kids and the mentally disabled to do their dirty work.

We need to focus on a strong defense and not assume we can correct the neighbors faults by force alone.

Sure, we'll lay down our arms and beg the terrorists to talk to us while they use terrorist tactics and force to achieve their goals. How many times have they tried to strike America again since 9/11? It's only because of the strong measures President Bush has put in place that they have been kept from attacking us again.

"If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer

Who are the "David Dukes" in politics today? Who specifically do you have in mind in bringing that quote to the board?

 

[midcan5]

Adam, Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and to counter terrorism we fight it as we fought the kkk or the crime bosses. The quote was for all those who blindly vote based on fear.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Yep, I could have read that in the NYT, The WaPO, The Nation or any of the other ultra liberal periodicals. It is, indeed, nice to see that you can think on your own.