“…veterans groups have been considerably rougher. The group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has begun advertising in Capitol Hill publications. The Veterans of Foreign Wars sent its lobbyists to demand action.
“He’s the odd man out,” Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets and an Iraq war veteran, said of McCain. “You have 55 co-sponsors on this bill, and he’s not one of them. He has to lead or follow.”

Last night’s debate will only magnify these trends. As long as Obama and Hillary try to out-Edwards each other on the campaign trail, McCain will look like the voice of reason and rationality.

If Hillary wouldn’t have sold out to the far left, she might be able to split the middle. She’s become as flaming a socialist/bordering Marxist as Obama. No diff.

Indy Conservative, you vote, or don’t vote. However, how can you not enjoy what’s goig on in the leftie field? You’re simply too depressed and you’re missing out on the Gladiator show of the century.

Also, Indy, Obama doesn’t have enough “dumb” voters for Nov. He has three constituencies: the far left, the young and dumb, and the very rich elite. The silent majority, the independents, and the sane middle will win this one. It might not be your conservative candidate (which doesn’t exist this year), but it won’t be Obama either.

“…Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is basing his bid for the White House on his credentials as a decorated veteran and leader on defense policy, has become the target of veterans groups pushing hard for more aid and relief for troops returning from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603349_pf.html

Damn; yah cudda fooled me…!

Just a guess here, but you “Anybody But McCain” faux-conservatives would have not voted for Ronald Reagan.

‘Cause he wasn’t a true conservative.

N. O’Brain on April 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM

I’m voting for McCain reluctantly, but if this an attempt to parallel Reagan & McCain it’s way off the mark.

Reagan had a history of understanding and opposing the liberal agenda. He dealt with and understood communism for years before he had a chance to do anything about it from the Oval Office. When he acted, those on the left considered his ideas dangerous. Over time, they had to come around and acknowledge the success of his long-term policies (wall fell, etc.)

McCain, by contrast, appears more interested in building bridges (gang of 14, amnesty, healthcare discussions with Hillary, global warming, etc.) with liberal Democrats than steadfastly opposing their agenda. All this despite the fact Reagan came into a liberal-dominated D.C. (followed Carter, had a Tip O’Neill congress) and McCain has a recent history of 8 years of a Republican administration, relatively recent Republican congressional majorities, etc.

He should be courting conservatives in this environment… if he’s a conservative himself.

I’ll vote for him. I don’t have to enjoy it.

apollyonbob on April 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM

He has liberal positions on all of these items. Don’t look at what he says- watch what he does. He does not recognize that terrorism is rooted in radical Islamic teachings and will be tolerant as the current president is. Unlike the current president, he will close Gitmo and ban “torture” aka waterboarding while treating terrorism as a legal matter ala Clinton.

His integrity comes into question where he was going to divorce himself from the GOP not once, but twice, and denies today he was ever going to leave the party.

On taxes, as I pointed out above, he is for the death tax and voted against the Bush tax cuts and opposes making them permanent.

I’m not sure what the conservative position on trade is these days now that China owns us 20 times over.

For gun control and climate change, take a look at the McCain-Lieberman bills.

As for McCain, the constant slanders against him on this site are pathetic. By comparison to the two clowns the Democrats have to offer–both of whom would be rubber-stamps for the most left-wing and idiotic Congress in modern history–McCain towers like a cross between Ronald Reagan and FDR. His best asset isn’t his ’silence’, but his natural sense of humor. If a genuine war hero with years of political experience can’t satisfy the wing-nuts here, then nobody can. I happen to totally disagree with his stance on immigration–but I can see now that he had to adopt it in order to get elected down the road. No candidate is ever gonna completely satisfy any voter, but I’m happy to put my trust in McCain. His veto is the only thing that stands between me and you and a 25% tax hike. And that will help the economy soooo much while we wait for a ‘genuine’ Conservative leader to be born.

Then maybe you ought to try doing it for the “sake of your country.”

Or am I mistaken in thinking that that should be the primary goal here?

He’s probably got a couple of social conservatives bona fides, but I could care less about those at this point.

Don’t get upset. How about the Hussein voters?

Happy now?

Indy Conservative on April 17, 2008 at 10:33 AM

How about the Reagan voters? How about the Lincoln voters? How about when Buckley said he’d rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phonebook than the faculty at Harvard?

Your sneering condescension of the electorate is pathetic.

Valiant on April 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I’ll take a shot.

1) War in Iraq
2) Two-tier tax system
3) Global War on Terror
4) Personal integrity and honesty (shouldn’t be a conservative position, but turns out to be)
4a) Has since promised to build “the damn wall” first. He may be left leaning, but he’s not a liar.
5) Global War on Terror
6) Lower taxes – making the Bush tax cuts permanent
7) Global War on Terror
8) Healthcare
9) Global War on Terror
10) Trade

Of course, my priorities in this election are pretty clear.

And for someone who mentioned it earlier, yes he’s for limiting our military’s interrogation techniques as those are already limited. And have been for awhile. He is NOT for limiting the CIA’s techniques, or for discussing the CIA’s techniques, as has been shown by his opposition to legislation that tried to tie the hands of CIA interrogators.

Name one conservative McCain position. I didn’t think so.

Valiant on April 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM

How about a few? McCain’s against gun control, he’s pro-life, against gay marriage, and against new taxes.

Sounds pretty conservative to me…

However, as both Democrats have run more and more to the populist Left, conservatives have started considering the effect on the judiciary and on the economy that either Democrat will have, especially if the Democrats hold Congress.

Are you reading, Michelle?

kongzilla on April 17, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Name one conservative McCain position. I didn’t think so.

As Rush says: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

So you have failed to make your case that he will prevent another attack.

You should have voted for Fred.

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Let’s just say I was suggesting Fred Thompson for POTUS long before anyone. A FredHead before there were FredHeads. But, obviously, it didn’t work out. And Fred has endorsed McCain.

Why can’t you?

Voters are idiots. There’s nothing wrong with telling the truth.

Indy Conservative on April 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Thanks for insulting me, and everyone else on this board. We didn’t vote for your candidate, so we’re “idiots”. The GOP doesn’t need people who think like you. Go join Alan Keyes and the Constitution Party.

Badger in KC on April 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Don’t get upset. How about the Hussein voters?

Happy now?

Are you saying it would take another terror attack before you would consider voting for McCain? I’d much rather vote for the candidate that would best prevent another one.

JetBoy on April 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM

This is classic fearmongering.

This same candidate wants to handcuff our military’s interrogation techniques, grant amnesty to anybody who’s here illegally, leave the borders wide open, and close Gitmo.

So you have failed to make your case that he will prevent another attack.

You should have voted for Fred.

Dole did get a few votes…it wasn’t a Clinton coronation back in ‘96.

Voters are idiots. There’s nothing wrong with telling the truth.

Indy Conservative on April 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Thanks for insulting me, and everyone else on this board. We didn’t vote for your candidate, so we’re “idiots”. The GOP doesn’t need people who think like you. Go join Alan Keyes and the Constitution Party.

You’re absolutely right about that. What you fail to realize is that principles are not. Reagan proved that politics and principles could mesh indellibly and for the benefit of the country. McCain… proves that Republican is the new Democrat.

Jockolantern on April 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM

So what, at this point, do you propose to do about it? Ronald Reagan is dead, and he ain’t coming back. Reagan, don’t forget, signed an amnesty deal. Reagan ran against an evangelical. Reagan wasn’t a lock-stock conservative.

McCain isn’t Reagan. No one is, no one will be. GET OVER IT. Right now, in 2008, if the GOP ran a hard-core conservative, we’d lose. That’s a fact, Jack. After 8 years of what the general public perceives as “conservatism” (even if we don’t), they’re not going to vote one in. Poll after poll shows that the people want “change” (however nebulous that is), and they’re not going to vote for a Bush clone. Or someone who could be easliy labeled as such. The Maverick cannot be called that, which is why he’s got the Dems terrified.

I understand the frustration of some that there isn’t a true conservative in this race, and I agree, but the political reality is the same. Not only that, what some may consider a “true conservative” isn’t necessarily what other GOPers would consider to be one. My dad thinks the Huckster is a “true conservative”, I think he’s an evangelical populist who would never represent me. But I’d still vote for him over the Messiah or Hillary. Not because I prefer party over country, but because he’d be the least objectionable candidate for me.

The fact is, the Maverick will represent our (conservatives) interests far, far better than either of the Democratic knuckleheads, and it’s foolish to complain about him being the nominee now. The people of the GOP has spoken. Mac’s the nominee. Now, let’s work to get him, and conservatives running for Congress, elected.

spmat on April 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Don’t feel badly. Being sane has some benefits too.