Did the “religious right’s” mistakes make McCain inevitable? Update: Tammy Bruce audio added
posted at 11:03 am on February 18, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
USA Today’s Daniel Gilgoff and Captain Ed both think so, and they posit the “Mormon issue” as an underlying driver. I think they’re both oversimplifying. The “Mormon issue” played a role, but I don’t think it was the most important role in why most evangelicals never really warmed to Mitt. I also think that they overstate the influence of evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson. Those leaders are influential, but not as influential as they or outsiders think they are.
I’ll use myself as an example of why. I’m an evangelical and I only came around to supporting Romney as the best alternative to McCain late in the game, after the Florida primary. The “Mormon issue” had nothing to do with it, though. The flipflop issue and the Fred issue had everything to do with it. For most other evangelicals, the Huckaboom also played a decisive role. Anyone who disagrees isn’t to be trusted as an analyst. I keed.
First, the flipflop issue. This was huge for me. As candidates for the presidency go, on paper Romney stood out for his broad experience with the Olympics, as a businessman and as a governor. He was easily the most qualified for the job. But the Mitt Romney of 1994 and 2002 didn’t sound much like the Mitt Romney of 2006-2007. Romney explained his changes of heart here and there, but they all added up to not knowing what he really believes. If he doesn’t know what he believes, how is a voter supposed to know what he believes? And if I can’t figure out what he really believes, I’ll have a hard time voting for him. I eventually came around to supporting Romney once I became convinced that Mitt 2.0 is where he’ll stay. Most evangelicals probably never got that far, though. They had Huckabee as a “Christian leader” in the race, and on social issues Huck was with them, so they went with him. They never heard about his record on immigration or his weaknesses on national security.
I’ll get to the Huckaboom in a minute, but before that happened there was the Fred factor. Fred’s emergence as a possibility in the race in early 2007 gave conservatives a place to put our hopes. Fred said and wrote all the right things. Fred took attention and time away from three things: The McCain collapse, Romney’s attempts to convince conservatives that he is one of us, and examination of Huckabee’s conservative bona fides. Those of us who didn’t yet trust Romney, didn’t want McCain, were worried about Giuliani and discounted Huckabee looked to Fred as the one real conservative in the race who could unite the conservative movement. But Fred fizzled. His campaign never really got off the ground. He ended up wasting time and sucking up space that Romney could have used to cast himself as Fred with a deeper resume.
Then came the Huckaboom. Evangelicals didn’t yet trust Romney, didn’t like Giuliani (who also ended up wasting the time of security conservatives), and didn’t want McCain, and along comes the witty Southern preacher/governor. Huckabee became the vessel for most evangelical enthusiasm just by being there. He didn’t have a record of flipflopping on core social issues. He didn’t have a record like Giuliani’s of opposing the GOP platform or of serial marriage. He didn’t have McCain’s record of maverick irascibility and calling social con leaders “agents of intolerance.” As long as Huckabee’s record didn’t get scrutinized too closely on national security, border security and economics, he was a viable candidate. The problem for Huck was that his appeal never broke out beyond the evangelicals and was never likely to.
By the time the Huckaboom was over, Fred was done and McCain was on the rise, having rebuilt and retooled after his campaign had fallen apart. McCain’s rise coincided with the time some conservatives started to take their third or fourth look at the alternatives and some began to settle on Romney as the Not McCain.
That was my trajectory. The “Mormon issue” played no role in my thinking at all. Dobson et al played no role for me. I’m sure all of that played a role in the thinking of some evangelicals, but it wasn’t as decisive as either Gilgoff or Capt Ed think. Fundamentally, all of the candidates have brought serious problems to the table. The “religious right” certainly isn’t to blame for that.
There is one thing left hanging that I think is worth noting, and that’s that McCain isn’t the worst candidate we could be stuck with at this point. He’s probably the third worst in terms of dividing the party against itself, but he’s not the worst. Giuliani and Huckabee both would have been worse, for reasons unique to them. Giuliani has just as much of a record of going against the party as McCain, plus he has immense personal baggage. Huckabee would have divided the social cons sharply against the economic cons and showed himself to be a lightweight on national security. So no matter how bad we think things are right now, I’m at least taking some solace in the fact that it could’ve been worse.
McCain still needs to fire Juan Hernandez, though.
Update: I’ll be on the Tammy Bruce Show this afternoon to talk about this post. It should be fun.
Update: Here’s the audio from my guest appearance on Tammy’s show today. Am I an “icon” now? I just might be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
Then he should stop calling himself a Conservative. He’s only doing it to pander.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM
It used to be that if you weren’t beholden to conservative principles that you couldn’t secure the GOP nomination. The McCain nomination proves that Republicans are now just as unprincipled as the Democrats. So what’s the real difference between the two parties now?
I sure can’t tell.
HebrewToYou on February 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Interesting thread - by the way.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I think this means you’re now officially an unofficial spokesman for evangelicals. :D
Hey, better you than Dobson (who’s fine when talking about family stuff, but beclowns himself almost every time he sticks his nose into politics) or Dick Land.
ReubenJCogburn on February 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Thought this was a good comment on Captain Ed’s post (from CJintex):
It’s left a fairly sour taste in Mormons’ mouths, also. I’m not going to dignify the accusations some of the worst of the ‘informational’ videos contain by repeating them. Suffice it to say they could be adapted for a hit children’s television show in Palestine without making too many changes. It’s beyond mere doctrinal objections. From my outsider’s perspective, it seems like there’s a real hatred for Mormons among Evangelicals, and it’s openly tolerated even if most don’t actively participate.
The next field of presidential nominees, which could emerge as soon as 4 years from now, is likely to feature Huckabee and Romney again. Unless Republicans are anxious to nominate Huckabee, they’re going to have to do some soul-searching on the role of anti-Mormonism in Romney’s defeat. With all due respect to the Evangelicals who, like Bryan, put doctrine aside to vote for Romney, your tolerance isn’t necessarily indicative of the tolerance of your peers. The issue of anti-Mormonism, and the extent it is tolerated and even encouraged in certain communities, deserves some attempt at quantification. If it really was a powerful enough influence to cost an acceptable candidate the Republican nomination, there is a deeper problem than just winning elections.
RightOFLeft on February 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM
“The Republicans are now Dimocrats and Dimocrats are now Socialists”. Read that the other day. Those words ring sooo true : (
kcd on February 18, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Good post. As one of the secularist Republicans it is troubling, for me, to think that a good portion of my party believes that the boogie-man lives in Utah. Pretty damn sad actually.
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I’m not sure what you think my point was. Are you saying that winning the wars overseas and having porous borders would be undifferentiable from the situation we’d be in if we lost the wars oversease and also had porous borders? That would be an absolutely stunning position.
Blacklake on February 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Sorry guys….but you are full of bologna imo.
Let me make it easy for you to understand…. If Mitt Romney had been an Evangelical instead of a Mormon, he would have the republican nomination wrapped up and you know damn well that it is true.
You all knew that Mitt was a conservative governor in the bluest state in the country….not a governor of a back woods hick state. So therefore, it is not surprising (to the thinking person) that Mitt did not wear his conservativism on his sleeve when he ran for the Senate in Massachussetts in 1994 or when he ran for governor later on.
You all know damn well, that Mitt never ever ever signed any pro-choice or pro-gay legislation….he fought off the marriage issue in true social conservative fashion. Meanwhile, Huckster and Maverick were acting like DEMOCRATS IN REPUBLICAN STATES!!
Thats the difference…Mitt was a conservative treading in liberal Massachussetts and Mav and Huck were liberals in conservative states.
You guys (Evangelicals) KNEW THIS but you were grasping for straws for somebody else to save you from having to vote for the most qualified candidate who happens to belong to a church that you dont want to include in your little pretend exclusive “Christian” world.
So, you grasped for an TV actor who was bored and boring from the first day…then you focused on a paid TV Evangelist who is the most dishonest in the entire lot (republican or democrat). Just dont vote for the Mormon….he makes us nervous…that church is GROWING and with a Mormon president, it will make it harder for us to convince ourselves that only WE are the only saved ones and only WE are the chosen Christians.
Sorry guys….but you blew it. Your insecurities and weak minds allowed our chance to have a very qualified and proven conservative secular leader as our president. Your insecurities and intolerances and bigotry got in the way….I am speaking to evangelicals collectively not individually.
Roger Waters on February 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Not at all Blacklake. I understand your position. It has a very valid basis. I’ve said all along that I will vote for McCain (although I will have to hold my nose). I guess I’m trying to say that the border war is just as important as the overseas conflict. To abandon the border, to simply fight overseas, is akin to an army leaving their flank unprotected. All the army’s efforts to win the battle won’t do a lick of good if that flank is exploited.
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 2:41 PM
May every book about the insane election of 2008 begin with these profound words.
Entelechy on February 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I agree. We may celebrate that we have defeated the terrorists in other contries, only to come home and be faced with them in our own backyard.
kcd on February 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Now that’s straight talk.
And I’ve posted before about the emails I got from members of my very own church…anti-mormom bigotry played a huge role in Mitt’s defeat. I was able to successfully persuade slightly more than half of those I talked to in under 60 seconds by simply making them think for themselves, with the perfectly reasonable argument: “I wouldn’t vote for Mitt for deacon or elder, but he’s not running for that, he’s running for President and he’s the best qualified” and then named 2 or 3 of his major successes. The other half of the time, however, the leaders of our churches are going to have to work on. The bigotry runs deep in some people.
JustTruth101 on February 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Heh. No thanks. That’s one unofficial title I don’t need.
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM
It’s a bit more than that. You need to go read Malkin’s lead story for today, then come back and tell us that behavior is simply not staying lock step with the party platform, and doesn’t go a bit further.
a capella on February 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Great article today by Freddy Beattle Barnes over at the Weekly Standard concerning the political reconcilliation in Iraq accomplished last week that no one wants to report. Mav had to drag Bush and the administration kicking and screaming to support the “surge”. Now, that it’s all going so well, Mav’s strength on foreign policy is being trumped by economic concerns. Every “true conservative” here, INCLUDING YOU BRYAN ought to get on your hands and knees and thank your higher power that Mav has the grapefruits to win the war. Every one of you ought to take his immmigration concerns with a grain of salt, and look at the big picture.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Romney has always been a conservative. He went to the center to get elected as governor of the most liberal state in America. But only in speeches and interviews. His policy never really changed from the right. The media peddled the flip-flop factor when there never was one. And the fools all fell for it. The media got what they wanted. Instant McCain nomination.
Griz on February 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Speaking of one of HA’s resident atheist crank commenters, I think the Mormon issue is the sole reason Mitt couldn’t garner substantial evangelical support. Many non-evangelical conservatives and talk radio warmed to Mitt leading up to Super Tuesday, if for no other reason than antipathy towards McCain. I’m sure those non-evangelical conservatives had qualms about Mitt’s flip-flopping, but wrote at off as the kind fo stuff politicians do during elections. However, evangelical voters weren’t in a position to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt, since they had already rejected him because of his religion.
If everything about Mitt were the same, but he was a Baptist instead of a Mormon, Huckabee would not have had his populist appeal. With the full backing of conservatives, Mitt would have been able to defeat McCain’s independent/centrist campaign.
In short, McCain owes his nomination to Mitt Romney’s religion.
Enrique on February 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Well, I admit, it’s not nearly as cool an unofficial title as something like “the Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah”.
ReubenJCogburn on February 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Anyone noticed that Huck is within 4 points of Mac in Wisconsin? Something funny in the water there. Expect Redpill to be getting excited.
Pax americana on February 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
…oh the pain!
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Well said along with a few others.
oldernslower on February 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
That’s a poll from the Outlier Express- ARG. Rasmussen (who’s been far from perfect) has it McCain 51%, Huckster 30%
Hollowpoint on February 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I’m a conservative and I didn’t want mccain in 2000 for the same reasons I don’t want hem today. He has always been a weasel. I didn’t settle on Romney, huckster and guiliani are liberals governed as liberals. Romney governed as a conservative.
It won’t happen, mccain is too arrogant. He’s got the nomination, he thinks it is an affirmation of his career.
peacenprosperity on February 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I wonder if John Kerry 2004 didn’t actually more of an impact on Mitt Romney than anything else.
It was easy to paint Mitt Romney as yet another North Eastern liberal from Massachusetts running for President. They were both tall, athletic, rich, eloquent, and both had changed their positions on some issues.
Those who didn’t particularly like Mitt used the same flip-flop meme that was successfully used against Kerry also against Mitt. Everything Mitt said or did was scrutinized to see if it could characterized as a flip-flop. And he didn’t always help himself with that with some of his gaffes. But mountains were made out of mole hills and most people didn’t bother to research what Mitt actually did or said if it didn’t fit nicely in a sound bite.
McCain and Huckabee have also changed their positions for political expediency, tacking right, and pandered all campaign. Yet they didn’t get the same flip-flop label.
Now the conservative base wants McCain to promise and do things that will make them believe he’s conservative again and they can believe them. Yet when Romney promised the same things he was a panderer. It’s hypocritical and foolish of those who would believe McCain can now somehow change his stripes with a few words to not have believed Romney earlier.
Sebastian on February 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
ICON. I’m in if we can’t get the Republican Party “right” back where it belongs. Crazy world we live in. I’m glad it’s not home!
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
O.K., if you say so. What should we do when Gitmo terrorists end up in our civilian courts or we have a major terrorist event because terrorists couldn’t be questioned with vigorous techniques to gain knowledge beforehand?
a capella on February 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
You used a very key word here - trajectory.
Very important.
A small initial change in trajectory can, and usually does, make a very big difference with voters over time.
It did with McCain, there is no reason to think that it wouldn’t have with Romney.
MB4 on February 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
What many people do not get about the “Mormon Issue” is that those stupid enough to consider one’s relgion as a “problem” are not going to investigate the man’s positions and TRUE record.
Like Ann Coulter said, if you examine his record there really are no flip flops in his past, just a change of heart on Abortion (he flipped but did not flop).
The “Mormon Issue” made it easier for people to believe the “problems” with Mitt without looking into the credibility of such claims.
We all know good and well if Mitt Romney did not go to the same church that Fred Thompson does not go to, Romney would be the nominee now.
EJDolbow on February 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM
a capella on February 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
What nerve. A guy who spent five years getting tortured is against torture. What a selfish a$$hole. Maybe if your son or daughter was being held, you wouldn’t feel such bravado.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
No, we don’t. There are quite a few of us who don’t care about his religion but still didn’t like him as a candidate- there were plenty of reasons aside from his Mormonism to be opposed to him getting the nomination.
Hollowpoint on February 18, 2008 at 4:08 PM
No way man!! its cause you are a bigot and hate Mormons!!…I kid..
EnochCain on February 18, 2008 at 4:13 PM
So,..what are we supposed to do when that terrorist event occurs? Clean up the dead and maimed, and feel good about ourselves because we did the honorable thing in allowing our innocents to be victims? Should we then start waterboarding?
You never answer my questions.
a capella on February 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM
DUDE! ABSOLUTELY WELL DONE!!!!
That is hands down the positively BEST analysis of this election I’ve read or heard from ANYONE!
I feel like I should pay you for this post. Well done! No demagoguing, no hyperbole, just straight ‘tell me what happened and why you think it happened’.
Absolutely FIRST CLASS! A-1 job. You deserve a raise for this one.
THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!
ThackerAgency on February 18, 2008 at 4:45 PM
1. Never
2. Going
3. To
4. Happen
- The Cat
P.S. Next time around we need someone who will let the bloggers run their campaign. If for nothing else as an experiment for a REAL grass roots movement. (we also need to push hard for run off elections so we’re not stuck with two choices or a split vote.
MirCat on February 18, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I think my problem with your reasoning is that McCain is so old, he’s unelectable. And then add that conservatives are totally reluctant to vote for him… it’s probably going to be Obama or Hillary. So, we should have gotten a more electable candidate. McCain will NOT win.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 4:58 PM
There are lots of front woods, as well - side woods, too, come to think of it. It’s called natural resources. Are you against woods? What have trees done to you?
What have you got against Arkansas, anyway? Why are the words hick, redneck, bigot, hillbilly, etc. only bandied about when referring to Huckabee (and in the past, Thomspon)? Who are the bigots here, really?
Lots of bitter anti-”evangelical” (what a stupid, word) sentiment around here. Pretty disappointing, for such an educated, intelligent bunch.
fourstringfuror on February 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I think YOU need to look at the big picture… you aren’t seeing the forest through the trees. We may be winning a battle “over there” but we’re losing - in a big way and on so many fronts - “here”. What good will it be to have calm in Iraq while our hospitals and schools are suffering and closing in our neighborhoods.?
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Mac was the most electable candidate. Problem is that the GOP has a monopoly of all the pessimists and defeatists. Watch the Dems - they do not lose without a fight.
Pax americana on February 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
1 I
2. think
3. you
4. are
5. right !
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I don’t agree. I think he’s the least electable of all the ones that ran (except maybe Ron Paul). He’s too old and conservatives are sick of getting punched in the face by him.
I think Romney would have played very well against Obama. And I also think the Dems knew that.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Well said, Bryan. I track with most of what you wrote. I was also a Fred guy.
I would just add that the anti-Huck movement which seemed to briefly unite the left and secular right soured me on McCain. Why? Because he’s the guy a lot of them were peddling as the alternative to too-religious Huckabee and too-religious Romney.
John on February 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Great post and interview, Bryan. Much better than the op-ed that sparked it.
baldilocks on February 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM
What a pathetic simplistic way of saying you were backing a loser, but it was someones else’s fault that he was a loser…it was the eviiiillll evangelist’s, evilll…
It was Mitt who said he was not a Reagan Republican, that he was not a conservative, when Ted nailed him in a debate. It was Mitt who gave favors to his campaign contributers when they botched the “Big Dig”. He is the one who had no “coattails”, if he was such a beloved leader in Mass, where are the other Republicans that rode on his “great” leadership. Gun Control (I hunted, I didn’t hunt), abortion, the list goes on. And the excuse is? He was running in a liberal state, he had to become a liberal, he had to hide being a conservative. Leaders don’t hide. Well he had a great camouflage, not even he knew what he was.
He needed to be seasoned, needed four years of being a “born again” conservative. He has to pay his conservative dues, not just shout it out.
He did not have a chance to win (he spent record amounts to receive average results).
Your insecurities about his religion, and his real values is what sunk him, and your weak mind cannot understand that he was a weak candidate, with a lot of money trying to buy an election.
I stated months ago (when he first entered) that you cannot buy an election…pretty faces, nece hair, and lots of money would have made Edwards the candidate, it doesn’t work that way…you need substance, and he was lacking this time around. Let’s see how he does next time, or hopefully, how he does as VP or in a cabinet post.
You and others can go blame the real culprit for his loss…Mitt Romney. (or are the true colors of Mormon’s hate for Christians coming to light?)
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I think I’ve heard that somewhere before. ;-)
shick on February 18, 2008 at 5:27 PM
No one believes him, and we’ve all got great reasons to think he’s lying.
This really isn’t fair. I haven’t even had a chance to vote in this election. My state doesn’t even count anymore. The best I can do is give McCain a better opponent and cross over to vote for a dem.
But if I had been given a chance, I would not have let Mormonism bother me. Mitt was one of my top picks. My other was Fred, but I’ve lost the chance to vote for either of them. After the fact everyone is now wishing Mitt could be our guy, but while he was still in the race, he didn’t have this kind of support.
That simply cannot be the sole responsibility of evangelicals.
That’s the case with most Americans. After all, if Americans were really paying attention, how in the world would a person like Obama have ever gotten a chance.
Exactly. Sometimes this party just isn’t worth it.
No, there is a difference between merely disagreeing and going the route McCain has, but if you don’t see that, then it’s likely I cannot show it to you.
No, Mitt Romney blew it, and so did Fred Thompson and everyone else who left early.
They are politicians. If they couldn’t convince conservatives to vote for them, then they weren’t going to be able to convince everyone else to vote for them either.
If you can ever get off of your high horse, you may see that.
Esthier on February 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
BRYAN PRESTON IS NOW HOLLYWOOD!
Now all we need is audio of AP >_>.
BKennedy on February 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM
LOL
Christian extremism, Extremist Christianism, fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Fundamental Christianism, Christianist, and now evangelicalism. Good stuff.
fourstringfuror on February 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
right2bright, chosen one, chakra hammer…
You got your unelectable candidate. Thank you and all the other wonderful moderates that screwed us in Iowa. Thank you Florida for the big screw too. Oh and let’s not forget New Hampshire. I’d also like to give a shout out for the drive-by media. The MVP, however, is Mike Huckabee. He is the Republican Obama: says nothing, can deliver nothing, but he makes everyone FEEL good. Mike, thank you for your hit job on Mitt. Thank you for your loyalty to John McCain. You are officially a soldier in the McCain implosion. Mike, in your oh-so special church-like way, you drove home the following: Mitt doesn’t believe in God; he supports gay marriage; he hates blue collar workers; he buys elections…. without you Mikey, the earth would have opened and swallowed us all. This election has truly brought out the best and the brightest. Long live mediocrity, cynicism, and self-inflicted gun-shot wounds. The only silver lining is that as the Republicans try to off themselves, the Democrats are headed for the superdelegate nuclear option.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Hey (Not So)Bright:
I dont post much, I mostly am just lurking, but I have been around long enough to know that you were one of these guys who was flooding this forum with anti-Mormon trash…as if this is supposed to be a religious discussion.
Based on your posting recorde, my guess is you would vote for Adolph Hitler before you would vote for a Mormon…. and would be more comfortable in the resulting culture.
But you are a mean-spirited bigot. And from what I can tell, like most bigots… not very bright. It comes from your insecurities.
You mean a guy could raise a family like that, and not cash in his wife for a trophy wife, and make half a billion bucks and be good looking and have tremendous success in life and actually believe in the Mormon doctrine? How could that be…. that doesnt fit my stereotype…it makes me uncomfortable.
And dont assume I am a Mormon… its not relevant as it never should be.
Roger Waters on February 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Let’s see… the Mccainiacs know what all Christian evangelicals believe, and insist on telling us what to do
Mccain’s problem with me as a “true conservative” is not only the fact he’s a liberal pretending to be a conservative, but that he and his supporters have contempt for anyone who won’t fall in line. Redefine conservative to fit your need. Gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that) was another word that was redefined. Good luck in November. Anyone willing to sell out the borders and put citizens and soldiers in harm’s way by refusing to use all means necessary to gain critical information from terrorists does not have my support. I’ll write in a candidate before I vote for a liberal republican.
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM
We had Ronald Reagan Democrats. Now we have Teddy Kennedy Republicans (Mccain).
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM
I watched “American President” today. When I thought of each of the current candidates in the White House, I almost got physically ill.
I supported Romney since day one despite his Mormonism. (I am a born-again Christian.) Now that he’s out of the race I have lost ALL my interest/excitement about the election. It’s too depressing so I don’t even think about it anymore…
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on February 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM
In McCain’s onset of senility, he got Teddy Kennedy confused with Teddy Roosevelt. I know I’m using the Age Card, but what else explains his positions? The Reagan Foot Soldier™ got his orders mixed up.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Where’s that accent from, Bryan? Slightly Southern it seems. You and Tammy were quite good (not surprising). I have been on the inside of liberalism much like Tammy, and I tell you it’s really, really scary.
SouthernGent on February 18, 2008 at 6:51 PM
but that he and his supporters have contempt for anyone who won’t fall in line.
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM
We have contempt for holier than thou “true conservatives” who cry and compain about being left in the cold after they have had control of the party since…forever.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM
The only people that I’ve heard crying and being hysterical are the Mccainiacs. I won’t vote for him. Period. I’ll write in a candidate. I don’t have to pick either of the “bad” choices. If Mccain has the majority, why does it matter what I do with my vote, and why do the Mccainiacs lash out at anyone that won’t vote for someone that is the Kennedy choice for Republican nominee?
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Earth to Bryan and anti-McCain posters here: John McCain is a conservative. He is pro-life; unlike Romney, McCain has never run as a pro-choice candidate ever in 26 years of running for public office. McCain is a fiscal conservative. Kevin Stach in last Thursday’s February 14th Wall Street Journal did an excellent analysis that showed Mccain’s record is one of a solid fiscal conservative. Also, Northwestern Law Professsors Calabresi and McGinnis showed in an analysis in the February 4th Wall Street Journal that McCain represents the best chance for continuing the nomination and appointment of conservative judges to teh federal bench; McCain pledged to the Federalist Society in January 2007 and since then consistently to nominate strict constructionist judges. But most importantly at this time in our nation’s history, McCain was the most qualified of the candidates to be Commander in Chief.
McCain comes from a family whose tradition is military service, and his calls for service are genuine. He is the son and grandson of U.S. Navy Admirals; he was a Navy combat pilot in the Vietnam War; and his two sons are now both following in that tradition. McCain, since entering Congress in 1982, has specialized in military matters and foreign affairs. He showed his expertise by being right about Iraq when it was not politically convenient to stand up with respect to the Iraq War, first in criticizing the prior light footprint strategy and then in vocally supporting the surge and General Petraeus when Democrats were declaring defeat and most Republicans were either looking for a way out (e.g., Senator Lugar) or looking at their feet. McCain was right; he visited the troops often; and he stood by them and their mission throughout.
John McCain’s knowledge and experience to be Commander in Chief is the reaosn why, before the recent spate of endorsements, John McCain was endorsed by, among others, former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig, former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball, General Norman Schwartzkof, former national security officials Bud MacFarlane, James Woolsey, Tom Kean, Tom Ridge and Robert Inman.
That McCain is conservative is reflected in other endorsements: former Cabinet Secretaries (outside State) James Schlesinger, Jack Kemp, Robert Mosbacher and Peter Peterson, Senators Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Tom Coburn, John Thune, John Warner, John Kyl, Pete Domenici, Trent Lott, Lindsey Graham, and Gordon Smith, former Senators Phil Gramm, Alphone D’Amato, Dan Coats, Warren Rudman, Mike DeWine, Peter Fitzgerald and Slade Gordon, Governors Charlie Crist, Mitch Daniels, John Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty and former Governors William Clements, Jim Martin, Buddy Roemer, William Milliken. That is a conservative group of people who have carried public responsibilities.
I sincerely suggest to you all that it is time now to put to the side the GOP primary race. Conservatives should be focusing instead on beating the Democrats, whose candidates may fairly be called anti-military socialists who will increase government spending and thus taxes, accept defeat in Iraq, pursue appeasement policies in foreign affairs, seek outright amnesty in immigration, promote pro-abortion policies and nominate left wing judges to the federal bench. And while Obama seems to be a well spoken candidate, in terms of substance, he is farther left than Hillary. So take heed of the most recent endorsements: former President Bush; to Mitt Romney’s credit, he stepped forward this week in endorsing John McCain; and in my eyes, the best endorsement of John McCain this last week was from Colonel Oliver North. Colonel North’s reasons resonated with me because my older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) who until last October served 15 months as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq earning a Bronze Star and an Army Commendation Medal for Valor for actions under fire.
Phil Byler on February 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
The idea that Romney was denied the election because of anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals is exactly what much of the media would like to believe. That alone is enough reason to be skeptical of the claim.
Romney was not a great candidate. He was not convincing as a conservative. He seemed to have discovered being conservative just in time for the Republican primary. He added to that impression when he had to back away from claims to be a life-long hunter and endorsed by the NRA. Saying he “saw” his father march with MLKjr when he could not possibly have seen it didn’t help. The claim that he meant that figuratively rather than literally only made him seem less honest.
Like Bryan here, I leaned somewhat toward Romney at first because he seemed the best of an unappealing bunch of candidates, but had trouble really committing to him. Then along came Fred, whose genuineness was not in question (except for a few individuals not to be named.) Once Fred was out, I would have settled for Romney, but that choice was taken away shortly afterward.
Bottom line IMO is that we had too many candidates and too many factions to come together on one decent candidate, so we get stuck with one indecent candidate. The “Huckaboom” happened just as we were trying to settle on a single candidate.
But I definitely reject the notion that the “evangelicals” were “hoist on their own petard,” because of bigotry against Mormons. Mormons have been governors (George Romney, Mitt Romney) and senators (Orrin Hatch), and one is the Senate Majority Leader as we speak. Obviously, there’s not much persecution of Mormons going on in this country.
You’d never know it, though, from the tone of some comments on Hot Air.com. I haven’t seen this many accusations of “bigotry” thrown around since … um … sitcoms in the 70’s trying to be “relevant.”
On the very day that Romney was making “the speech” about his religion, Richard Land, current head of the Southern Baptists, was interviewed by CNN on the topic, and seemed very sympathetic to Romney’s candidacy. (I remember, because there were a bunch of Ron Paul supporters in the background during the interview holding up signs. They never miss a camera!)
I won’t say that Mitt’s Mormonism wasn’t a factor for some people, but it has to be one of the most overblown issues of the whole political season.
tom on February 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Sorry Bryan, but I have to disagree. Of course the evangelicals are to blame; how could you think otherwise? It was clearly the evangelicals voting for Huckabee that split the vote and gave the nomination to McCain. I can’t see how Huckabee has any claim to conservative credentials and it is, indeed, hard not to dismiss him as a loony. Nonetheless, evangelicals flocked to him (certainly no one else would) and denied Romney the nomination. You may be right that it wasn’t anti-Mormonism or Gilgoff may be right that it was. Either way, we have the evangelicals to thank for the mess we’re in.
student on February 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM
I am another conservative evangelical from a state neighboring Mike Huckabee’s and from the same denomination as Mike Huckabee. I however, voted for Mitt Romney. I was not terribly enthused about it, but I believed him to be the most conservative of the three.
Evangelicals have long been considered the “red-headed step-children” (no offense), of the Republican party, so it doesn’t surprise me that we would be blamed for this year’s fiasco.
Renae on February 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Good stay home. You can tell your children one day that because he only met 9 of 10 requirements to be a “true conservative” that you took your ball, stayed home, and became a whiny quitter.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Where did I say I was going to stay home? Mccainiacs constructing their own versions of events again. I said I would not vote for Mccain. Mccain actually only meets about 2 of the 10 requirements for a “true conservative”, but then again, so does Lieberman.
For the record, I teach my children to stand on principle, not to cave to bully tactics. What’s the problem with you Mccainiacs any way? I thought you had this thing wrapped up?
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Ah. I see. You are going to join the likes of Coulter, Bruce, and Delay. I guess his strong stand on national defense, keeping the tax base low, fiscal restraint, and being pro life aren’t values you want your children to learn. Never cut off your nose to spite your face. P.S. When your kids grow up and ask you about the iraq war, please don’t lie to them. Tell them the truth: We never would have won it, unless Maverick had dragged the Bushies kicking and screaming to support the surge.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Pot, meet Kettle. How many times can you use the word bigot in a single thread? Keep it classy.
In Texas we haven’t even gotten to vote yet! One thing Bryan should have mentioned is that if the Republican party really wanted to nominate a conservative they’d stop hanging onto this dinosaur of a primary system and put some conservative states up there with Iowa and NH or goto a regional primary. This is a sham of a process and it’s biased in such a way that we’ll struggle to ever get a real Tancredo/Hunter-type conservative elected.
Well said.
pecan pie on February 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Agree with you jeffNWV. I was warming to possibly voting for McCain in the general eventhough I was one of the ones who said that I never would. And I still won’t in the primary, not that it matters anyway. But after all the party-hacks started blaming Christians/evangelicals (where’d that come from?), it’s really starting to push me back to my original committment to stay away from these imposters. I wouldn’t vote for Bush again because other than his Supreme court successes there are only a handful of other things I still back him on. He’s been a disgrace on the border and entitlements. McCain is just another Bush, or worse. I’m getting tired of these party nitwits telling me that I’m the bad guy for refusing to play this game anymore.
Can’t everyone see that McCain is already tearing the movement and party apart! Where do you think it’ll be in 4 more years?
pecan pie on February 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM
pecan pie on February 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM
The movement has been dying slowly. The election v. gore should have been a signal. Moderation is here to stay. No going back to the days of covered wagons and churned butter.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 8:57 PM
I see no covered wagons or churned butter. What has that got to do with anything?
fourstringfuror on February 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Our party used to be called the big tent party, because as long as most of our principles were respected we could stand a little variety. Hell, we embraced it. Now, if you don’t meet a checklist you are labeled as a liberal. “True Conservative” will never and I mean never have the White House again. They won’t be able to bring moderates into the fold, because of their past intollerances.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Were there people who voted against Romney because he was a Mormon? Sure. Did some people vote for Huckabee because they were duped in thinking because he was a preacher, he had the same outlook on life as them? Sure. Are these people the reason why Romney lost? They were certainly a factor, it would be dishonest to say otherwise. However, I don’t place the entire blame with them.
On the other side, is Romney at fault? He certainly made plenty of mistakes. But he ran a pretty solid campaign. He was gaining momentum, despite the fact that all the candidates and media were aiming their guns at him.
Everything can be tracked back to Florida. Romney had to at the last minute deal with McCain’s lies with regards to his position on Iraq. Romney had to deal with the Republican establishment endorsing McCain, because it was McCain’s time and because they didn’t like the idea of Romney upsetting the apple cart ( he being an outsider ). Those voters who listen to headlines saw their beloved governor endorse McCain, got the phone call from McCain’s staff who then proceeded with their lies about Romney, and the rest was history.
The problem is the process, not the candidate. The process which allows Democrats to cross over to vote, putting liberal blue states first, and lastly I put blame on those voters who failed in their duty to get themselves educated beyond endorsements.
Oh and to the McCainiacs, sorry do not call McCain a conservative. He may have some conservative left in him, but he is far from being a conservative. He has yet to earn my vote. Your best argument is the anti-democrat vote. Its sad, in November everyone was saying anyone but McCain or Huck, and now look at where we are. Its sad. But I will not swallow the McCain pill until he earns my vote and proves to us that he isn’t just counting on the anti-Obama vote. ( Hillary isn’t going to win ).
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Hah. At least we’ve got some fresh phrases. The backwoods, hicks and bigots (not to mention the ever-present Hitler comparison) montage from others on this thread was getting a little cumbersome.
I’m sure that’s right. Maybe I can pin McCains new nickname as “The Mortician”. It just seems fitting.
pecan pie on February 18, 2008 at 9:19 PM
It should be noted that Tammy is an out-of-the-closet, pro-choice homosexual.
Captain America on February 18, 2008 at 9:19 PM
The Chosen One
Republicans problem is not the conservatives, its the moderates. All you have to do is look at the last election when we lost Congress. Why is that? The Democrats ran as conservatives, and all they saw were Republicans trying to out Democrat the Democrats.
Reagan won hands down as a conservative. This notion that we can garner the moderate vote over the Nanny staters is silly…losing your soul for short gains is never a good idea.
The Chosen One’s math…lose 30% of the base, but Maverick in 10% of the moderates…and declare yourself the winner
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I just think its sad that so many conservatives got hoodwinked by the MSM. It was obvious all along that Romney was the candidate that they feared most and so many people never built up enough curiosity to do their own homework on the guy. Why did they fear him? Because they knew that he was an electable full-spectrum conservative!!! So they told you that he was a flip-flopper even though McCain and Huckabee have flipped on more issues more recently than Romney. They told you that his religion was a problem even if you didn’t think so personally. They told you that only McCain can beat the democrats and you believed it because you were too afraid to lose. We the voters F’ed up big time for bypassing a guy who had the total skill set to be a great president.
MITT 2012
Greenhorn on February 18, 2008 at 9:23 PM
On more blame, I blame people who voted for McCain because they were influenced by stupid polls showing he could beat Hillary. Yep, you are among the stupid voters who failed to do your homework and are too quick to sell your soul for a win.
Win people’s hearts and mind, not read the trade winds and predict on who will win.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 9:26 PM
When Mav wins conservatives will be content with getting sixty percent of what they want. If conservatives stay home or protest vote they get nothing. So, suck it up, leave the rattle and blanky at home and take one for the team.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 9:34 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Or we could concentrate on the House and Senate and pray for gridlock, because selling our soul means we will be falling in as a battered wife. Sure the bruises sting, but being alone is so much scarier…oh my! We won’t get a better husband until we are willing to throw out the worthless SOB. McCain still needs to earn my vote, not count on an anti-Obama vote.
How do you train a dog? You certainly don’t let the dog run to the left because the dog wants to…you shorten the leash, and reward the dog when he stays on your right. I’m tired of having to trip over the leash because to many people like the Chosen One who are more interested in being the Dog’s friend instead of the other way around.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Captain America on February 18, 2008 at 9:19 PM
We LIKE lesbians. Especially the hot ones. The other homosexuals are fine as long as they don’t demand ’special’ rights granted by government (such as marriage). Why is marriage a ’special right’ for gays? Because being gay is a lifestyle choice (there’s your ‘pro-choice’). If they grant gays marriage rights, they have to grant all other sexual deviant behavior government rights.
As for her pro-choice stance. . . I’ve already told her that she’s welcome to come to dinner with me and one of her hottest girlfriends so that I can kindly explain to her why she’s wrong to violate the rights of an unborn American.
ThackerAgency on February 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Senior Bush said criticism of Mav like your’s was starting to annoy him. Is he a liberal, too?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Our country has been built and has thrived on this thing called COMPROMISE. Have you ever done such a crazy thing in your life?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM
And? This is exactly the sort of stupid, beside the point attitude that has given us John McCain as our nominee.
student on February 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Thank you for contributing to the thread. You have made some of the more thought out analysis over the last few posts. Try not to get hung up on Chosen… he/she/it likes to bray on and on to drown any dissent. Like most thinking people, I refuse to embrace my co-dependency. Chosen One likes assault and battery, or as he/she/it likes to call it: taking one for the team. I agree that the moderates are the issue. If you have a core belief, any shade will detract or weaken that belief. Why should we accept something less? McCain is openly deceitful and vindictive. I’m all for burying the hatchet; I’m not for burying it my back. The door is open: McCain can reconcile, but it has to be on principle. Moderates and Independents can embrace him all they want. They can hijack the party, that’s their prerogative. The Republican Establishment will realize the fruits of what they planted. My guess is that it will be a steaming lump of moderately liberal mash. Good luck on getting that past the stargazing masses looking for their Obamessiah. Conservatism is a proven commodity. McCain and other moderates have co-opted it and watered it down.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Senior Bush is certainly not a conservative, nor do I vote because the Party establishment ordered it. I will not shut up out of loyalty to the party. McCain still needs to earn my vote, if that is annoying to you or to your imagination of how President Bush Senior would respond to my post, too bad.
I think you forget that they are suppose to work for us, not the other way around. If you lose your honor, you have nothing.
Again we are the battered wife ordered by the abusive husband to shut up. And the more you, or the Party Establishment try to force feed me McCain, the more likely I will kiss the party good bye.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Thank you for contributing to the thread. You have made some of the more thought out analysis over the last few posts. Try not to get hung up on Chosen… he/she/it likes to bray on and on to drown any dissent. Like most thinking people, I refuse to embrace my co-dependency. Chosen One likes assault and battery, or as he/she/it likes to call it: taking one for the team. I agree that the moderates are the issue. If you have a core belief, any shade will detract or weaken that belief. Why should we accept something less? McCain is openly deceitful and vindictive. I’m all for burying the hatchet; I’m not for burying it my back. The door is open: McCain can reconcile, but it has to be on principle. Moderates and Independents can embrace him all they want. They can hijack the party, that’s their prerogative. The Republican Establishment will realize the fruits of what they planted. My guess is that it will be a steaming lump of moderately liberal mash. Good luck on getting that past the stargazing masses looking for their Obamessiah. Conservatism is a proven commodity. McCain and other moderates have co-opted it and watered it down.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Senior Bush is certainly not a conservative,
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I bet you voted for him twice, if your old enough.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Keep the voices going. This trolling static from the party regulars borders on hysterics. Don’t worry about our votes, sycophants. If your BOY is the stud you hope he is, just kick back and watch it unfold. My guess is that you should be worried about all your American Idol, texter-nation friends who are drinking what Oprah-bama is selling. We’ll be doing our best to find principled candidates who support the principles we espouse, and then holding them accountable. I do realize co-dependency causes a low self-esteem. Please don’t project your candidate’s inadequacies on us.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Wrong, that is the gospel of Moderates, but its totally false. This country was built on Boldness. The Declaration of Independence was Bold. The Constitution was Bold. Did we compromise with Hitler in WW2? No we defeated him. You win the hearts and minds of the people, like Reagan…not stick your finger in the air and appease.
On things that don’t matter, sure compromise, but some things you better take a stand on, and I draw the line at the Constitution, but you would rather compromise it, because its all about winning, not how the game is played.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM
When I say compromise I’m most definately not referring to Hitler you moron. I’m referring to domestic squabbles, get your head out of the churned butter.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:09 PM
The GOP’s biggest problem is McAmnesty. The fool smears us conservatives, rubs our nose in that, tells us to heel like dogs, then the GOP establishment sides with the liberal. Blacks, gay groups, and NOW get treated better by the democrats. How is that for being relevant?
Remember when the republican POTUS candidates ran on positive platforms? Today the GOP is running on scare tactics. Sorry folks, but neither Hillary nor Obama scares me all that much. IMHO, the GOP had better get rid of Juan or be prepared to lose the White House as well as RINO’s in congress.
I’ve been looking for a decent, qualified third party candidate to vote for. In today’s political climate a conservative leaning third party could do quite well. If not, there is always Hillary.
DannoJyd on February 18, 2008 at 10:11 PM
You’ve already badmouthed Mav and Senior Bush. Here’s the true test of your true conservativeness. RONALD REAGAN signed a huge amnesty bill and appointed two moderates to the high court. Drumroll… Is RONALD REAGAN a conservative? I can’t wait to hear you wiggle out of this one. lol.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Nice…. get personal. Right out of the McCain playbook. Your BOY is the problem. There is no rationale for his latest efforts at appeasement with the Dems. You cannot sell it. That’s why you resort to vomiting out two sentence hits and name calling. Yeah, we get it, you’re a great typist. Dude, if the MSM cannot sell McCain to conservatives, where do you get off? Your efforts are weak and always off topic. Keep cheering the big bad bully…. just be careful he doesn’t sucker punch you as well.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
, there is always Hillary.
DannoJyd on February 18, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Wrong. She’s getting ready to go down too. Try again.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
We keep running into each other. Have you accepted the fact yet that THE MAV is your only hope of holding onto those “true conservative” values you hold so dear? I wish you wouldn’t keep torturing yourself with badmouthing a war hero who is going to beat Hussein Obama or Billary.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
It’s a sign of utter weakness not to stand on one’s own merits. The discussion is on McCain’s conservatism. He can’t argue his, so he throws Ron under the bus. Your argument might hold clout if all conservatives deify Reagan. Reagan was not infallible. That proof does not absolve McCain. BTW, McCain isn’t in the same hemisphere as Reagan politically. Try and sell that one troll.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I tend to agree, but the minority of those that have issues tends to skew the sample of those that are like Bryan. Case in point, I tried to have a easy going discussion with such a person, that I ended up abandoning it after no response to my salient posts, several warnings about his unhinged “you’re going to hell” conversion rants. My final post was fitting for the irony of the story linked therein. Even better yet, I come back after spending a fabulous week in the hospital with my ill Mom only to find a six post diatribe, which further sweetens the irony.
It’s quite evident that Captain speaks of that person…
SkinnerVic on February 18, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I sleep with the lights off in my house. I don’t wet myself, whomever is in office. If you vote scared, then just cop to it. I for one hope that people make a personal and conscious decision to vote according to their beliefs, that is absent any strong-armed, bullying tactics. McCain and his people need to flesh out their agenda, instead of eating their own. Rallying people around beating the dragon is an non-winning agenda.
Cold Steel on February 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
The Chosen One
So now I’m a Moron? You sure no how to win a vote for your maverick don’t ya.
Lets look at Reagan’s record shall we? We had the most liberal Congress to deal with. He signed the amnesty bill with the promise that the border would be secure…yep that’s what happens when conservatives compromise…they give and the liberals take. His Judges he appointed, he thought they were conservative, they failed him, and us. He certainly wasn’t looking for liberals to appoint…now who is the Moron?
Lets look at McCain shall we? He didn’t have to deal with a liberal congress, He was PART of the liberal congress, passing laws along side them…yep, a real winner.
Now lets go back to Hitler? Your premise was we need to compromise…I simply pointed out history that countered your argument that America was built on compromise. Try again.
You can go ahead and keep trying to hit me Mr abusive husband, but this battered wife is done, and until your guy starts making COMPROMISES with Conservatives, he will fail to earn my vote.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Where ya at dude? I guess you didn’t have the grapefruits to respond to facts. I’m glad you decided to bury your head instead of badmouthing Reagan. That was cowardly, but smart.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Now your making excuses for Reagan. Did he compromise or not genius?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Go re-read Cold Steel’s response to you concerning Reagan, he made a great point that you seemed to overlooked.
When you are done, then maybe you can stop trying to put the mav in the same league as Reagan. You seemed to be too quick on judging Reagan, and way too forgiving of McCain. Reagan made mistakes, Reagan also compromised on some things to get other things done. But overall Reagan was a Great President not because of his compromises, but despite them…he was a great President Because he was Bold, and that really bugs you doesn’t it?
The maverick needs to earn my vote, I will not be taken for granted. All the previous candidates were compromises I was willing to make ( Rudy, Fred, Romney, etc ), there comes a point in bargaining that you have to walk away from the deal. Otherwise plan on getting walked on every time. And until your Mav starts compromising with Conservatives he can count on me voting for someone else. I refuse to be the battered wife beaten into submission, by him, by President Bush, by you.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »