As someone who lost 3 friends on 9/11, I am not willing to sacrifice anymore Americans for shock value.

It’s not just shock value. It’s a reminder that there are people in the world who want to kill us. When people don’t realize that fact, they become soft and oppose all military action. Then, before you know it, we’re France.

I think it is height of complacency to stay home on election day and hand an election over to people whom AQ would rejoice over, and who would surrender at the first opportunity.

If it’s McCain versus Obama or Hillary, it won’t make a difference. You’ll be voting for a hawkish ultra-liberal or an anti-waterboarding liberal Republican who uses military spending bills as political capital to settle scores with the guy he lost the presidency to.

In this case, it really makes no difference, and I’m not giving a vote for either of them to run this country.

Warning, Republican party. I’m a Republican. I’m a Conservative. I don’t see myself voting for McCain unless the alternative is far, far worse.

And, Hillary is far, far worse, but Obama is not, and the Republican Party better get it before the election, because if they don’t and it’s Obama, the Republican Party is going to have 8 years to get it.

We have to be shocked out of our complacency until we remember that not all the world wants everyone to live in peace.

MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 5:03 PM

As someone who lost 3 friends on 9/11, I am not willing to sacrifice anymore Americans for shock value.

I think it is height of complacency to stay home on election day and hand an election over to people whom AQ would rejoice over, and who would surrender at the first opportunity.

All this bit about the candidates not being true enough to the Republican Party Platform is insane IMO, and for the most part is not even factually correct.

Anyway, ’nuff said.

If Jamie & Janet hadn’t put up a few roadblocks between FBI and CIA…. it might’ve been.

jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM

That and a few other things, like ignoring a report that Logan’s airport security was a disaster waiting to happen. Granted it’s all speculation, but Clinton was not focused on this stuff during his 8 years.

MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 5:03 PM

My point is that elections matter.

In any case, Instead of Pearl Harbor, let’s think 9/11. Were the people who died on that day sacrificial “pawns”, or, given a different prior administration, is it not fair to argue that that catastrophic event, and their deaths might have been prevented?

Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Conjecture on what didn’t happen is pointless when discussing future policy. We have to go by what did happen.

To answer your question, largely, no they weren’t pawns. However, in some sense they were. Apparently the embassy bombings, the first WTC bombing, and the USS Cole weren’t enough to make the American public wake up to the problem of Islamic terrorism. 9/11, for a time, did. In the smaller sense, it was an advantage in being able to make foreign policy without the instant cries of imperialism, etc. Unfortunately, because Bush faltered and started talking about how peaceful Islam is and what poor wretches the Palestinians are, those cries caught up to him.

The more the United States citizenry gets a front-row image of what these sick bastards want to do, the more they’ll react. In a sense, yes. We have to be shocked out of our complacency until we remember that not all the world wants everyone to live in peace.

If Jamie & Janet hadn’t put up a few roadblocks between FBI and CIA…. it might’ve been.

I’m sorry but that is not good enough. Beating Hillary isn’t my reason for voting. That was what the Dems did in 2004 and look what it got them. Sorry, not falling into that trap.

It may not be a reason to support them in the primary, but winning is essential in the general. There can be candidates who make a statement by running and losing, but Mitt, Rudy & McCain aren’t those kinds of guys. If they run and lose, I think, like Kerry, the primaries four years from now won’t include them.

I’ve got problems with each of the remaining candidates, but Mitt, Rudy & McCain are better on the issues than the Dems.

What I said is that is the reason they are being forced on us.
Gianni on January 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM

This is not some Banana Republic country with faux-elections. These candidates were not “forced on us”. They chose to run by their own volition, and a few very good ones are still standing.

MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM

You might think differently if you were living in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

In any case, Instead of Pearl Harbor, let’s think 9/11. Were the people who died on that day sacrificial “pawns”, or, given a different prior administration, is it not fair to argue that that catastrophic event, and their deaths might have been prevented?

This is good news, but isn’t it frustrating looking at these books.

MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM

and, we all know who invented the game!

I don’t think that is the reason for them running. McCain is programmed to run for President, as most Senators are. Rudy’s performance during 9/11 gave him unprecedented name-recognition and created a perception that he was a strong leader in a time or crisis. Since 9/11 he has spent his time raising and making a lot of money with people whispering in his ear that he could be president.

I didn’t say that was why they were running. What I said is that is the reason they are being forced on us. All you ever hear from the people who support them is that they are “the only candidate that can beat Hillary.” That is the answer to any attack on their positions. I’m sorry but that is not good enough. Beating Hillary isn’t my reason for voting. That was what the Dems did in 2004 and look what it got them. Sorry, not falling into that trap.

True. I’m not so fearful of the kowtowing as I am the detriment to the social fabric of this country. Lib dem or repub…I don’t see much difference any more.

If there were, say, a nuclear holocaust, what sort of nation would we have left? This is not a game of tiddlywinks we’re playing.

Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM

You’re right. It’s chess. Pearl Harbor was the sacrifice of a pawn in order to move into checkmate. It won’t be the last gambit if we want to preserve the foundation of this nation.

Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Tell me, have you looked at your childs school books lately?
Fred was the only one willing to take on the NEA in any real fashion.

jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM

I’m sorry to report that Fred has withdrawn from this race, and we will just have to slog on without him. He may end up on Mitt’s ticket which would be lovely, but if not we will carry on.

In any event, we’ve been taking on the NEA for a very long time now, and I don’t expect it to be resolved anytime soon. Meanwhile, my child is very well versed in current events and conservative principles, and is quite adept at detecting Moonbatic ideas, so I don’t worry at all that he will end up a Useful Idiot.

Really? No one? There are a few people who have sacrificed for the country who I’d put ahead of Rush.

dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM

One can be eminently patriotic without making sacrifices on the field of battle, dontcha think?

For example, my great(+3) aunt wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I think it’s fair to say that she was as great a patriot as any general.

Rush has done immeasurable good in advancing the principles of this Republic, and he deserves a full measure of credit for it.

Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Inevidable, most likely an EMP or two.

jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM

?

…and how the president reacts will be an even bigger message. Liberal democrats and liberal republicans, if they kowtow, will send a very big message to the nation.

MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM

If there were, say, a nuclear holocaust, what sort of nation would we have left? This is not a game of tiddlywinks we’re playing.

Liberal democrats and liberal republicans, if they kowtow, will send a very big message to the nation.

I’m guessing, in national security domain, Rudy would be considered hawkish enough.

Iran or AQ could be sending us a message first. And a much more poignant one at that.

Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 3:46 PM

…and how the president reacts will be an even bigger message. Liberal democrats and liberal republicans, if they kowtow, will send a very big message to the nation.

Inevidable, most likely an EMP or two.

The whole reason McCain and Rudy are being pushed is because “they can beat Hillary.” Voting for them is not going to make the party change. I am not voting for someone just because people think they can beat the opposition and no one else can.

I don’t think that is the reason for them running. McCain is programmed to run for President, as most Senators are. Rudy’s performance during 9/11 gave him unprecedented name-recognition and created a perception that he was a strong leader in a time or crisis. Since 9/11 he has spent his time raising and making a lot of money with people whispering in his ear that he could be president.

Fred is out. I think Huck can’t make it. Mitt, McCain, Rudy. They are all flawed, but if you are going to help Hillary or Obama get control of the country I think it is bad for America. Will sitting it out pay off in 2012? The cost of that “maybe” is 4 years of “change”, and not change for the better.

I’m not discounting other opinions, but from my perspective this talk about not voting is very unwise, and puts far too much emphasis on fantasies about teaching the party a lesson at the expense of the very real need to secure our country’s future.

In my opinion, that’s something worth sending a message over.

MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Iran or AQ could be sending us a message first. And a much more poignant one at that.

Tell me, have you looked at your childs school books lately?
Fred was the only one willing to take on the NEA in any real fashion.