Quotes of the day

posted at 11:10 pm on April 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

“[W]e need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.”

*
“Now the question for conservatives is whether McCain fits the Reagan Axiom that someone you agree with on 80 percent of the issues is your friend, not your enemy.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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

He has to enthusiastically support McCain just like you or else he is McCain deranged.

That’s deranged.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM

No, that’s moderate. And that’s the only technique moderates ever use to get their way: carping.

On second thought, maybe that does constitute derangement under the current circumstances. We’re in a bizarre situation right now wherein – somehow – moderates are trying to “lead” one of the two American political parties.

And nothing good can possibly come from that.

logis on April 22, 2008 at 1:19 AM

Huh? Who else?

terryannonline on April 22, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Shhh… don’t get him started—he’s a Huckutopian.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:20 AM

Have you considered the likelihood that it is you who are McCain deranged? Sowell will likely vote for McCain even if he doesn’t like it but that isn’t good enough for you. He has to enthusiastically support McCain just like you or else he is McCain deranged.

That’s deranged.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.

The fates are indeed with you, Watson.

Holmes on April 22, 2008 at 1:21 AM

Reagan wasn’t perfect but then nobody is. The amnesty bill he signed was supposed to be for around 300,000 illegal aliens, and it was long before the security concerns brought about by 9/11. It turned out that there was around 10 times that many who actually applied. Now they say that there are supposed to be around 12 million and although it doesn’t seem feasible that there are 10 times that many today, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are two or three times that many.

Oh, granted—-but he still signed an amnesty bill. But then again, it has had positive consequences. Back in the 1980s, it didn’t matter if you were Hannibal the Cannibal, if you made it to Mexico, you were home free. All the Mexican police did back then was wear uniforms and shake down turista cars for money. Nowadays, Mexican law enforcement has been very good about finding and extraditing fugitives.

Regardless, the illegal aliens that Reagan amnestied didn’t have groups like LaRaza and didn’t watch Spanish language TV and listen to Spanish radio stations. They either kept to themselves or integrated into our society much better than those here today.

Nope, La Raza was founded in 1968, and having grown up in Texas, there were plenty of Spanish-language stations around. Univision started in 1986.

My understanding is that Reagan later regretted signing the amnesty bill.

Regretted it, maybe—but he did sign it.

I was too young at the time of the Lebanon withdrawal and haven’t read enough about it to have a strong opinion, but in hindsight it was a mistake, IMO. On the other hand Reagan had much bigger fish to fry at the time. Thanks to him we aren’t involved in a fight against Islamic terrorism in the midst of the Cold War.

I am in full agreement. However, it can be argued that the withdrawal from Lebanon prompted the Syrian takeover and emboldened the guys who would later become Al Qaeda.

None of Reagan’s faults overcome the fact that he obliterated the Soviet Union peacefully. He is unquestionable among the greatest American Presidents in American history for that alone, and that wasn’t the limit of his great vision.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:03 AM

I am in full agreement that Reagan was an absolutely excellent President, and worth emulating in many ways. And I am old enough to remember. What we should remember from Reagan are the things he did right, and he did so much right:

The power of positive conservatism

Believing in ones ideals, and going to bat for them

Believing in America as the shining beacon of freedom for all humankind

Making a Democrat-run Congress into your b*tch

Refusing to be trapped in a stalemate or a no-win situation. Putting the other guy on defense instead

Maybe the argument isn’t so much that Reagan is gone, but that the 1980s are over. It is ridiculous to project what decisions any political figure of the 1980s who has not survived to see 2008 would do in 2008.

Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:21 AM

The power of positive conservatism

Believing in ones ideals, and going to bat for them

Believing in America as the shining beacon of freedom for all humankind

Making a Democrat-run Congress into your b*tch

Refusing to be trapped in a stalemate or a no-win situation. Putting the other guy on defense instead

We’re doing all that, McCain is and has been a constant obstacle for us.

doubleplusundead on April 22, 2008 at 1:25 AM

It is ridiculous to project what decisions any political figure of the 1980s who has not survived to see 2008 would do in 2008.
Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:21 AM

Guiding principles don’t disappear in 20 years – or in 200 years.

McCain’s guiding principle is appeasement. You don’t need a crystal ball to figure out where that leads.

logis on April 22, 2008 at 1:30 AM

Leave it to Allah to give us something to help put blood on the floor just before bedtime.

Rove has got nothing on you AP. I thought the Fred!threads were classic but they are nothing compared to your McNo threads.

PokerAfterDark time. Have to keep my priorities straight.

Limerick on April 22, 2008 at 1:30 AM

Reagan picked fights he had a good shot of winning without screwing over a future Republican Congress. The Gang of 14 incident was not one the GOP was going to win without completely screwing themselves the next time they were the minority.

Which turned out to be 2006.

Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:34 AM

Who is the next Reagan? Bet not a one of you can name him or her either.

Very easy. Fred Thompson. We conservatives deserve every bit of Amsog (American socialism) we will be forced to swallow over the next four years for not nominating him. Every bit.

VolMagic on April 22, 2008 at 1:38 AM

Maybe the argument isn’t so much that Reagan is gone, but that the 1980s are over. It is ridiculous to project what decisions any political figure of the 1980s who has not survived to see 2008 would do in 2008.

Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:21 AM

The need for visionary conservative candidates is timeless. McCain is neither visionary nor conservative and he’s not Reagan-2008.

It isn’t, “time to let Ronald Reagan go”. There is no expiration date.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:39 AM

Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:34 AM

That would be true if the Congress appointed the judiciary. But no, they don’t

VolMagic on April 22, 2008 at 1:40 AM

Some may disagree on the Fred part, but in any case, I have to work in the morning. Happy Birthday to me and nighty-night.

Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:40 AM

Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:34 AM

Also, Reagan didn’t have much of a shot getting his Social Security reform passed, but he went for it anyways. (he failed, btw)

VolMagic on April 22, 2008 at 1:41 AM

I’m getting really sick of the whole Presidential process.

It always seems like we are forced to vote for the least damaging candidate as opposed to choosing from the best America has to offer. Why is that? Shouldn’t it be other way around? We should be choosing from the best of the best not the least of the worst.

The office of the Presidency is looked upon as a prize or something “earned” or “I’ve paid my dues so now it’s My Turn” or even worse, to obtain power.

It should be looked upon as a solemn duty to be fulfilled by a patriot who only has America’s interests at heart as opposed to spending tens of millions of dollars pandering to foolish and even dangerous people to obtain their votes.

It really is pathetic when you think about it.

Guardian on April 22, 2008 at 1:45 AM

The need for visionary conservative candidates is timeless. McCain is neither visionary nor conservative and he’s not Reagan-2008.

It isn’t, “time to let Ronald Reagan go”. There is no expiration date.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:39 AM

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

Holmes on April 22, 2008 at 1:45 AM

We should be choosing from the best of the best not the least of the worst.

Guardian on April 22, 2008 at 1:45 AM

After 9/11, in a world rife with nuclear proliferation and Islamic terrorism, now more than ever before.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:56 AM

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

Holmes on April 22, 2008 at 1:45 AM

Indubitably

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 2:22 AM

Thye thing that will win conservatives over:

Muslim Organizations Call On McCain To Drop ‘Islamic’ Terrorist Label

Connie on April 22, 2008 at 2:32 AM

The no “y”

Connie on April 22, 2008 at 2:32 AM

The measure of a person’s character, life and conduct reflects far less by their origins but rather matters greatly, and profoundly, in the manner of which a person lives, pursues their god-given passions and affects those nearest and far. The blessing of life is generously granted and it is a person’s free-will, love judgment, fortitude and veracity that forges a bond with god and sears that person’s soul into the hearts of their contemporaries. I have never been as sure of God’s hand, in this life, as I am by the steady and ever-present leadership and timeless strength of President Ronald Reagan’s contribution to these United States.

Let him go? Son, he has just begun.

Claypigeon on April 22, 2008 at 2:34 AM

The thing that will win conservatives over:

Connie on April 22, 2008 at 2:32 AM

Maybe some, but my question for McCain would be: are they still Islamic terrorists if they’re sneaking WMD’s across our border or, if they’re caught, are they criminals who should be imprisoned in the continental U.S. and provided the full protection of our law?

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 2:42 AM

80%?

60 tops. And that’s being generous.

someone on April 22, 2008 at 2:50 AM

If illegal immigration is not stopped, this country is going to be in a fight for survival.

Johan Klaus on April 22, 2008 at 3:07 AM

That statement sounds an awful lot like “progressive” speak;
“You people are living in the Mayberry, Leave it to Beaver, past! Your beliefs and philosophies are tired and old and no longer apply to the new global community! Get with the times and evolve!” same crap one would expect to hear in some sort of garbage sociology class in any given hall of accadamia.

Screw that. The principles and vision of Reagan are what made me a Republican and it’s my belief that this party was far better off when we followed that vision and stuck to those principles. They are what distinguished us from the Western European style socialism the Dems have been gravitating towards since FDR and should be embraced by this party now more than ever, especially in the current global environment, not discarded as somehow irrelevant or outmoded.

I still believe in Reagan because Reagan believed in US, which is far more than can be said of any of his immediate predecessors or any of his successors. The only fitting way to honor the vision of this great man is to continue to strive toward making his vision a reality and upholding the prinicples which he held so dear.

What the current crop of party elites should be asking themselves is: “What is it about us that makes so many members of this party pine for the days of Reagan?” but perhaps the realization that not a one of them measures up to the man and to a truth far too terrible for them to accept; that it is they who have failed us, not the other way around, would be a bit painful to swallow.

SuperCool on April 22, 2008 at 3:20 AM

We should be choosing from the best of the best not the least of the worst

Well said. Very well said. :)

LimeyGeek on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 AM

We should be choosing from the best of the best not the least of the worst

Well said. Very well said. :)

LimeyGeek on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 AM

Hear, Hear.

Claypigeon on April 22, 2008 at 3:55 AM

We should be choosing from the best of the best not the least of the worst

Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where’s the streetwise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn’t there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
- Bonnie Tyler

MB4 on April 22, 2008 at 4:01 AM

I’m getting really sick of the whole Presidential process.

It always seems like we are forced to vote for the least damaging candidate as opposed to choosing from the best America has to offer. Why is that? Shouldn’t it be other way around? We should be choosing from the best of the best not the least of the worst.

that’s why we need MORE PARTIES.

homesickamerican on April 22, 2008 at 4:12 AM

Thye thing that will win conservatives over:

Muslim Organizations Call On McCain To Drop ‘Islamic’ Terrorist Label

Connie on April 22, 2008 at 2:32 AM

what a bunch of completely clueless and offensive comments after that piece. i need to go spit now.

homesickamerican on April 22, 2008 at 4:15 AM

Where have all the flowers gone?

hillbillyjim on April 22, 2008 at 4:56 AM

MB-4

Line up some more quotes; I’m gonna do a start-up called quotes are us, and I’m for sure gonna sell the hell outta your quotability and your quotation quotient quite quietly.

Deal, or No Deal?

Jokingly yours,

hillbillyjim

hillbillyjim on April 22, 2008 at 6:18 AM

I had a dream last night, I’ll leave you with it today:

I dreamt that I was in a Spelling Bee competition for people over seventy and I couldn’t say or spell correctly the word “Massachusetts.”

But the strangest thing happened.

When I was on the stage, in front of the mic, I heard this loud voice saying in my ears:

“Indy, when I was in Vietnam, the Vietcong had us repeat the word “Massachusetts” 100 times in a minute and those who mispronounced it or failed to finish the 100 before the minute is over had their heads as target for Russian Roulette. All fifty of my fellow POWs were killed that day.”

I jumped off the bed and checked my head to see if I’m still alive. I was horrified. I don’t know if it was a dream or a nightmare but I sure know it was John McCain who was yelling in my ears.

Can anybody in the world say the word “Massachusetts” fast and correctly 100 times in one minute?

Can you even write it correctly from the first time?

So you’ll know, I had it copied and pasted here, after the 7th correction.

Indy Conservative on April 22, 2008 at 6:30 AM

Let’s see what he’ll say tomorrow.
Entelechy on April 21,2008 at 11:59PM.

Entelechy:10-4!

canopfor on April 22, 2008 at 6:50 AM

I heard Rush speaking of this earlier. But I wonder, of all those conservative pope/catholic bashers here, how many are supporting McCain?

Rick Santorum is welcome to his opinion, if McCain does win, it will be without my support.

Zorro on April 22, 2008 at 6:58 AM

And me(Updated)
MB4 on April 22,2008 at 12:15PM.

MB4:Looks like oneupped Indy Conservative in the being
dragged off to vote for McCain!

canopfor on April 22, 2008 at 6:58 AM

There might be a bunch of Republicans that don’t cast a vote at all, but think of all the Clinton followers that won’t vote at all if BO is on the ticket. I think the dems are in a far deeper hole that us for getting voters to the polls in November.

If, by some cosmic chance, Hillary pulls out the dem. nomination, the BO people will not leave their mud and straw houses for months.

I think we’ll still be OK. McCain was not my 1st or 2nd choise either but Hilllary and BO were definitely ‘last and second to last’.

JetBlast on April 22, 2008 at 7:22 AM

McCain is NOT going to sign any global warming crapola. . .

JetBoy on April 21, 2008 at 11:51 PM

He has already signed on to some kind of ‘carbon-trading’ scheme with Senator Lieberman.

Does Senator Inhofe have any clout with McCain? He has been heroic at waging a single-handed (in the US Senate) fight against the GW alarmists.

I would like to think that enough of the American public are skeptical of the anthropogenic global warming hysteria that if McCain stood up and denounced it, he’d get an enthusiastic reception—and a lot of votes. I could be wrong, but I don’t have the sense that large numbers of the public have bought into the myth, despite endless Time magazine covers.

In any event, I was impressed with Sen. McCain’s performance on George Stephanopolous’s show (sp?) Sunday. He didn’t mince any words on Obambi’s friendship with the terrorist Ayers.

And I think we conservatives have to get behind McCain—even send him money—for two reasons:

(a) The Long War trumps everything. McCain will defend America; the Democrats won’t.

(b) We have to stop the Marxists from taking over. Obambi and Missus Slick are Marxists. John S. McCain is not.

‘Nuff said.

MrLynn on April 22, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Reagan picked fights he had a good shot of winning without screwing over a future Republican Congress.
Sekhmet on April 22, 2008 at 1:34 AM

Ronald Reagan didn’t achieve greatness by being a mindless ideologue. He made a handful of concessions, but when he did so, it always helped advance the master plan.

George Bush made concessions frequently, and with no apparent long-term goals in mind. And John McCain is basically George Bush squared.

We keep hearing the McCaniacs try to re-define Ronald Reagan solely in terms of a few concessions he had to make. In the case of immigration for example, what is the ever-so-clever point there? Reagan did something a a quarter of a century ago that turned out worse than expected; ergo it’s OK that John McCain tried to do a whole lot MORE of that now.

What kind of reasoning is that? When you see a pothole that an otherwise outstanding builder left behind, what what do you do:

A) Try to FIX it? Or

B) Jump in and dig as deep and as fast as you possibly can, while you curse the name of the other guy for causing the problem in the first place? …Oh, and while you’re at it, also cuss out that guy’s friends for not grabbing a shovel and helping you?

I know that seems like a really tough choice for a lot of people but it doesn’t have to be. You just need to ask yourself one simple question: What would Reagan do if he were here now?

logis on April 22, 2008 at 8:14 AM

No problem with President Obama. Big problem with President McCain. With President McCain we will be forced to accept amnesty and will be told it was the best we could expect. Next we will tax the oil companies with some sort of cap and trade plan, again sorry conservatives, best we could do. Universal health care again, same story. But the straw that seals the deal is tax cuts. McCain will let the Bush tax cuts expire AND HE WON’T HAVE THE VOTES IN CONGRESS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

President Obama, a liberal president we can oppose.

President McCain, a Republican president passing ineffective liberal policy and Republicans get the blame.

Easy choice.

Angry Dumbo on April 22, 2008 at 8:19 AM

Ronald Reagan: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” (Joke testing microphone)

John McCain: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. . .” (to the tune of “Barbara Ann”).

I think that, given the chance, McCain could live up to the heritage and memory of Ronald Reagan, which (contrary to the Governor of Indiana) we should not forget. Is there any doubt that McCain agrees with this?

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”—Ronald Reagan

MrLynn on April 22, 2008 at 8:20 AM

How do you figure the 80%?

Suppose we lose in the effort to contain and weaken the terrorists and they bring the fight to our homes and work places. At that point do most of the other issues that do not attempt to keep the terrorists out of this country matter more than a hill of baby beans?

If you assign a serious chance that this event might happen then it may well be more important than other issues such as abortion or the economy. If we win against the terrorists and their attempts to create a worldwide caliphate we can recover from having our economy collapse. We can always worry about abortion later. If we lose against the terrorists do the other problems matter? We’ll have no economy to recover, for example.

{^_^}

herself on April 22, 2008 at 8:27 AM

We conservatives deserve every bit of Amsog (American socialism) we will be forced to swallow over the next four years for not nominating him. Every bit.

VolMagic on April 22, 2008 at 1:38 AM

Vol, I wouldn’t be too hard on us conservatives. Real conservatives make up a small voting block of the Republican Party. The majority are moderates. Replace “conservatives” with “Republicans” and I agree 100%.

orlandocajun on April 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM

And I think we conservatives have to get behind McCain—even send him money—for two reasons:

(a) The Long War trumps everything. McCain will defend America; the Democrats won’t.

(b) We have to stop the Marxists from taking over. Obambi and Missus Slick are Marxists. John S. McCain is not.

‘Nuff said.

MrLynn on April 22, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Agreed.

JetBoy on April 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Have you considered the likelihood that it is you who are McCain deranged? Sowell will likely vote for McCain even if he doesn’t like it but that isn’t good enough for you. He has to enthusiastically support McCain just like you or else he is McCain deranged.

That’s deranged.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM

heh…No, I am not McCain-deranged. And Yes…Sowell says now that he’ll probably vote McCain, but he’s written some pretty scathing pieces calling McCain a “liar”.

To borrow a line of thought from the Moron-in-Chief, if McCain cares so damn much about the fate of the nation, you’d think he’d make some concessions to conservatives. McCain is about one thing. McCain.

Funny how you assume I was in the not voting for McCain camp. I was actually in the yeah, I’ll probably cave and vote for the bastard camp about forty minutes ago. I’m back in when hell freezes over camp right now. See how that works?

doubleplusundead on April 22, 2008 at 1:01 AM

McCain cares bout one thing…America.

And no, I didn’t assume you weren’t voting for McCain…I was just making a point to others.

JetBoy on April 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM

The reason I’m NOT staying home on election day, isn’t because I don’t agree with him 20% of the time.

The reasone I’m NOT staying home is, I don’t agree with his opponents 100% of the time.

In fact, not only do I disagree with them, I believe they are dangerous…Dangerous on the Economic Issues…Dangerous on Foreign Policy Issues…And, Dangerous on National Security Issues.

So, at the end of the day, the 20% that I disagree with McCain doesn’t amount to a BB in a Barrel.

franksalterego on April 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Furthermore,

On the “Immigration” issue, that’s being overemphasized.

Does anyone, in their right mind, believe you’re gonna’ get a BETTER deal from the Liberal/Democrats?

Any way you look at it, THAT issue is a “push” and reduces the “20%” to 5%.

franksalterego on April 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM

No, I will never vote for McCain.

McCain swallowed Al Gore’s global warming hoax proving McCain is too stupid to think critically.

If elected (winning candidates generally don’t accept federal matching funds – so don’t soak your knickers just yet) McCain will be a poll driven President with an R after his name.

Vote for him, just don’t think too hard.

The war against Islamic jihad is going to be a long one. Time to give the Democrats a whack.

Angry Dumbo on April 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

President Obama, a liberal president we can oppose.

President McCain, a Republican president passing ineffective liberal policy and Republicans get the blame.

Easy choice.

Angry Dumbo on April 22, 2008 at 8:19 AM

Ding!

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2008 at 9:53 AM

I suppose so. The US faces basically 4 huge problems that must be addressed to protect the long term viability of the Republic.

1. A long war against Islamo-facism
2. Huge deficit/national debt/run-away-spending/explosion of “entitlements”
3. Massive migration of illegal aliens which exacerbates #2
4. Energy

I think McCain gets the general idea of the long war. He also basically gets the need to constrain spending. He misses the boat on illegals but seems to be saying the right things in terms of “getting the message.” I’ve not heard enough about his thoughts on energy.

moxie_neanderthal on April 22, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Time to give the Democrats a whack.
–Angry Dumbo on April 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Let’s look at the history of Democrats in war-time.

1862, Jefferson Davis(Democrat): 618,000 dead Americans.
1916, Woodrow Wilson(Democrat): 5,525,000 dead Americans and Allies, plus 4,121,000 missing.
1941, Franklin Roosevelt(Democrat): 14,000,000 dead Americans and Allies.
1952, Truman(Democrat): 48,000 dead Americans.
1961, Kennedy/Johnson(Democrats): 58,000 dead Americans.

I think, Democrats have had more than their fair share of “whacks”

franksalterego on April 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM

The reason I’m NOT staying home on election day, isn’t because I don’t agree with him 20% of the time.

The reasone I’m NOT staying home is, I don’t agree with his opponents 100% of the time.

In fact, not only do I disagree with them, I believe they are dangerous…Dangerous on the Economic Issues…Dangerous on Foreign Policy Issues…And, Dangerous on National Security Issues.

So, at the end of the day, the 20% that I disagree with McCain doesn’t amount to a BB in a Barrel.

franksalterego on April 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Very excellent point! Worth repeating.
I would like to say, to the conservatives who would rather stay home than vote for McCain, if the Dems win, I hope you enjoy them and their stay in the White House.

4shoes on April 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM

John McCain will not be the next President of the United States.

But neither will Clinton or Obama.

Watch. And. See.

Red Pill on April 21, 2008 at 11:21 PM

If you turn out to be right on that prediction Red Pill, I will consider you a prophet.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 11:35 PM

It sounds like an amazing prediction, but it’s not really. Seventy two year old males drop dead unexpectedly on a routine basis.

DFCtomm on April 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Ding!

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Thanks for the encouraging word. Time to resume lurking. : )

Angry Dumbo on April 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Is there any doubt that McCain agrees with this?
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”—Ronald Reagan

MrLynn on April 22, 2008 at 8:20 AM

I don’t think for a second that McCain believes that. If he did he wouldn’t have sold us out to the open-borders lobby. The statement above clearly suggests why it is that Reagan later regretted signing that amnesty bill, and it’s a lesson that McCain failed to learn or has chosen to overlook.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM

I would like to say, to the conservatives who would rather stay home than vote for McCain, if the Dems win, I hope you enjoy them and their stay in the White House.

4shoes on April 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Their point is that they certainly won’t enjoy it and neither will a lot of McCain supporters. This will lead to a unified Republican Party opposing and hopefully stopping a socialist Presidents agenda, whereas if McCain is the president he will work with the Democrats to pass their agenda, just like he always has, and receive the backing of enough Republicans that he will actually get it done.

The fear is that McCain will be far more effective than either of the Democrats at enacting the socialist’s legislation , and Republicans will get the blame and be damaged for years to come.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Seventy two year old males drop dead unexpectedly on a routine basis.

DFCtomm on April 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Even if that happened, chances of Huckabee being the one are…very low. But some of you can dream on.

Entelechy on April 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Even if that happened, chances of Huckabee being the one are…very low. But some of you can dream on.

Entelechy on April 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM

I commented on the prediction and not who would receive the nomination if it happened. I supported Duncan Hunter, but I’m guessing Romney might come out on top.

DFCtomm on April 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM

“[W]e need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.”

Quote from the campaign based on and constantly bringing up 1 speech given in 2002.

clghitis on April 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2