…

I think you have a valid point here…….

\”Three-legged-stool conservatives\” should have voted against McCain for all the reasons Rush laid out. Social conservatives should have voted against McCain for all the reasons Dobson gave. (Is it social issues you care about Senator? Oh.) Fiscal…

Back in November I predicted, for the millionth time, that John McCain would be the Republican nominee. In a piece for Jewcy, called “John McCain Can Win (Don’t Laugh)”, I wrote: So, alarmed by Rudy, bored by Romney, suspicious of……

AP, are you trying to get me to like McCain? It’s working. If you keep this up, I could even end voting for him–no matter how much I threaten to vote for Obama. When will these so called social cons get into their head that they have already lost the gay issue? Gay marriage is simply a matter of time. Every time I meet a right-wing young person who opposes gay marriage, it turns out that they support “domestic partnerships” or gay marriage by another name. Of course, I really welcome the social cons continuing to fight this issue as it discredits them some on the abortion issue.

thuja on February 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM

The answer is that they won’t.

This is why I supported Rudy before he left the primaries. It’s why I detest some of the vitriolic furvor over the presumptive McCain nomination – lots of people here arguing about how you need Mitt to “save the future of the GOP”. Those people are not pragmatic, or being realistic about the situation.

Which is, to a large extent, they’ve already LOST this aspect of the culture war. The party has shifted to a more moderate position, which is what is has had to do to survive. Social conservativism is rapidly failing. Gay marriage is not going to go away. Abortion is not going to be made illegal. This does not mean that one cannot oppose either, because if those are your principles than so be it. But the rest of America has shifted away from you and I do not forsee that changing. This isn’t a pendulum where momentum is going to shift back your way.

Since they beat the “inevitable” team Patriots, the Romney camp has the public acceptance of the possibility for his come-from-behind to take the lead by 4 points before the whistle.

Will Romney seize the day, or will McCain blow him to bits in the line of friendly fire? “My friend” preceding every address exposes McCain as the Caesar wanna-be that he is. Caesar suffered death by the alliance of senators including his trusted Brutus. Bloggers can’t take down McCain. But bloggers can barrage their senators to WITHDRAW any support for McCain.

To date, Mitt has failed to create a reason for senatorial unity toward his campaign for presidency. Senators probably have many established reasons to NOT ally with Mitt. But the barrage of phone calls and e-mails AGAINST MCCAIN with the ultimate constituent vote against their legislator would make an impact on current “good” behavior from senators towards McCain’s POTUS campaign.

Grassroots successful influence on Capitol Hill depends on unity, and at present there is none. Mitt’s camp should get beyond amnesty for illegal aliens as it alone does not make Americans unite AGAINST McCain’s campaign for POTUS. It is amnesty for McCain’s crimes against America that would bind the grassroots movement to prevent him from taking hold of the presidency.

It is McCain’s corruption and his wife’s corruption destroying the public trust at the expense of the most vulnerable people on earth that remains McCain’s bane. He and his wife never were prosecuted though federal investigations proved their guilt. McCain sold himself and his wife to the powers that be in order to survive without prosecution, all guilt swept under the rug. They are thieving criminals, and thieving not as private citizens, but as professional stewards of public trust, money, and medical supplies to destroy lives and cause victims the worst physical and financial ruin, pain and suffering. Amnesty for McCain the POW stops as he is no longer a POW returned home. McCain as a senator becoming a president has proved his affinity for crime and ability to evade prosecution and deny American justice, granting amnesty where none is deserved and none is called for except to create a larger population of submissive participants in crime. Having returned to the USA following Nixon’s “honorable” withdrawal from Viet Nam, ex-POW McCain has since broken sworn alliegance to all but himself and his thieving second wife. Surely, Nixon was no crook as McCain is.

Here’s what I don’t get: McCain takes great pride in being the “Great Compromiser.” This gives him full latitude to change his position, once elected, on any of these promises, stands or commitments. Why would ANYONE vote for him based on ANY position, knowing he’s already said he’s willing to CHANGE that position if he deems necessary???

ncpatriot on February 4, 2008 at 7:42 AM

This was essentially what Bill Clinton did (govern as a populist) and he still remains, any rational Republican should be willing to admit (perhaps begrudgingly), one of the more popular presidents of the last few decades.

You’re dealing with the party base vs. mainstream (and by that I mean independent or moderate) voters. The party base (be they D or R) only wants someone who’ll tow the party line. Moderate voters want someone who it appears will be willing to change their position from the party line if it’s necessary.

McCain is the best candidate on either side to heal the red-blue chasm that has fractured this nation since the Clinton years.
Pax americana on February 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM

There is no red-blue chasm, there is a substantive distinction in world views. One side, apparently yours, believes in big government, isolationism, and ignorance. The other side believes in the Constitution, democracy and personal responsibility, with all the messy hard work and complex thought that goes along with it. The reason we’re in this mess is because we Conservatives have been working hard taking care of ourselves and our families and have let the libs educate our neighbor’s children and take over the media, maintaining an ignorant public. We have failed to put out our case for democracy and convince the voting public that it is worth the effort and thought.

Liberalism is easy, that is what makes it popular.

The reality is that once you do the math, having a flat economic board from the equator to the pole does much more good than harm. Because then, economically, a plant moving from the US to Mexico is no different than a plant moving from New York to Arkansas. It still remains in the overall economy.

Not to mention that if you add the economies of Canada, the US, and Mexico together you have the worlds largest oil producer.

crosspatch on February 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM

And like my forefathers before me sir, I say “OVER MY DEAD BODY“.

The difference between those who would sell this nation for economic gain and those like myself is that I am willing to die for the soverignity of the United States of America. Are you willing to die for money?

Amkun, I agree on your point, but “another”? Whom might you be speaking of?

Jaibones on February 3, 2008 at 10:57 PM

Bush should’ve fought for social security again or tax reform/breaks, whatever, but he fought for an issue he knew he couldn’t win. And then I suppose he blew the rest of it on amnesty.

It’s funny, I read that Vanity Fair story just yesterday – came across it as a link at Wiki. This was the paragraph which stood out for me as it speaks to his temperament, and gives insight into his relationship with Weaver, who we are told acted as his ambassador to the Democratic Party:

Moments later, McCain remounts the stage for the program’s final segment, and he bores into Weaver, standing quietly in the wings, with a cold look that seems to mingle irritation at Weaver’s whispered advice with regret that he took it, and demands, almost hisses, “Did I fix it? Did I fix it?”

Mitt’s going to California with an aching in his heart.

Further insight into the mystery that is AllahPundit — he’s older than I thought, or retro in his musical tastes. But which?

Amkun, I agree on your point, but “another”? Whom might you be speaking of?

I don’t want another president who wastes all his political capital on gay marriage.

Not to mention that if you add the economies of Canada, the US, and Mexico together you have the worlds largest oil producer. – crosspatch on February 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM

As long as you are in on the fix and have a stake in the prize, it’s all good.

McCain is a die hard liberaltarian on a search and destroy mission to kill American sovereignty and usher in the North American Union. Orwell told me so.

Sounds like the same argument the founders of our constitution faced. The states thought the forming of an American Union would reduce the powers of each state.

They wanted each state to be its own country. They wanted New York to have to keep track of how much stuff they imported from New Jersey or Connecticut.

The reality is that once you do the math, having a flat economic board from the equator to the pole does much more good than harm. Because then, economically, a plant moving from the US to Mexico is no different than a plant moving from New York to Arkansas. It still remains in the overall economy.

Not to mention that if you add the economies of Canada, the US, and Mexico together you have the worlds largest oil producer.

Pax americana on February 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Have another drink, Paxi. I suggest you book a stateroom close to the lifeboat station but not too far from the bar. This arrangement will enable you to grab another drink, plop in a chunk of ice (there will be a lot of it on deck after the collision) and then make a mad dash for one of the boats. With luck, you may get a spot next to Molly Brown.

They only get rich selling the idea not living it. – Bradky on February 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Hence my initial post, directed at none other than Allah himself. The pampered, perfumed princes and princesses to whom you refer (nice alliteration, by the way) are responsible for steering no one’s ship but their own – as are all of us.

Moreover, not everyone has the mettle to meddle in the malarial political swamp – if you doubt that, just ask Fred Dalton Thompson, whose poll numbers went down faster than Larry Craig in a Minnesota men’s room.

Nor do I begrudge the conservative doyens and doyennes of television, radio and the blogosphere their share of hard-earned loot. Suckers like you and me – who listen to Rush and waste precious living hours engaged in pointless political persiflage here at Hot Air and elsewhere – make their success possible.

And what do they care if you vent your scorn? As Salvador Dali once remarked, “Success is receiving checks.”

There is no issue here: McCain has a very clear and virtually unblemished record of supporting pro-life initiatives and heterosexual marriage. His stance has always been federalist, like Fred Thompson, supporting gay marriage ban in Arizona state when the bill came round.

Compare this with Mitt Con-mey, who has flip-flopped on both abortion and gay ‘rights’ and you begin to realise the shameless hypocrisy of the anti-McCain demagogues. I have nothing but contempt for Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and other charlatans who put their egos before the good of the GOP. The voters will not be fooled.

McCain is the best candidate on either side to heal the red-blue chasm that has fractured this nation since the Clinton years. Independents are well aware of this, which is why the McCain haters are increasingly an irrelevance: stay at home if you will; there are enough independents to cancel out all your non-votes. And if you do betray the party by voting for the extreme liberals, do us a favor and keep your shameless demagoguery to yourself.