Choices Update: A video reminder of the choice
posted at 9:05 am on May 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
John Hawkins has delivered a reaction to John McCain’s apparent backtracking on border security yesterday that will undoubtedly reverberate around the blogosphere this weekend. Hawkins called McCain a “liar” and says that he will not vote for McCain in the fall. Both seem like overreactions to me, and John ignores some unpleasant reality.
First, I don’t read this statement as a huge surprise:
“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
McCain never pledged to give up comprehensive immigration reform. He pledged to secure the borders first, but even in the extensive quotes that John has in his post, he never promised to stop seeking a comprehensive solution for illegal immigration afterwards. Even in this sequence, he talks about border security first. I don’t see this as “breaking his security pledge”, as John puts it.
John and I have debated this before, and I know him to be an honest, impassioned, and effective advocate of strict enforcement policies, and opposed to any kind of normalization. If he chooses not to vote for McCain, he will make that choice with integrity and commitment. But not voting is a choice with consequences in a two-party system, and those consequences will impact a lot more than border security.
After November 5th, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be President. We can be politically correct and claim that Bob Barr or Ralph Nader could somehow overcome the combined weight of the Republican and Democratic parties, but realistically they can at best act as spoilers. Uncast potential votes for either candidate makes it more likely their opponent will win; conservatives who sit on their hands make it more likely that Obama will win the White House.
Does anyone believe that Barack Obama would be more committed to border security than John McCain? Not if they’ve paid attention. Obama is at best the same as McCain on immigration, and more likely to acquiesce to Democrats like Dick Durbin on another full-blown amnesty. Even if we consider that a wash, where else does Obama look better than McCain to conservatives?
- Spending? No. Obama wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and increase federal spending by another $280 billion a year, with an eye towards nationalizing health care.
- The war on terror and national security? Please! Obama wants to dismantle our nuclear deterrent, end work on missile defense, and do a full-scale retreat from Iraq just as the country has begun standing on its own for security.
- Foreign policy? Only if conservatives have suddenly discovered a desire for direct meetings with sponsors of international terrorism like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Castro brothers, Bashar Assad, and Hugo Chavez. Even Obama’s own allies think this a bad idea.
- Abortion? Obama voted to support partial-birth abortion.
- Judges? Obama voted against the confirmation of John Roberts, putting him in the minority of Democrats.
The consequences of an Obama presidency go far beyond immigration. That is what voters need to keep in mind, especially given the likely Democratic victory in both chambers of Congress this fall. Immigration and border security are important issues, but they’re not the only ones, and stark differences exist between Barack Obama and John McCain. That’s what our vote should consider — all of the consequences of the election.
Jazz Shaw has more thoughts at TMV.
Update: A reminder of what an Obama presidency would bring, from Macranger and Rick Moran:
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 »
Why is it that conservatives here are so short sighted about an Obama presidency? Don’t you see an almost guaranteed return of both houses under his watch thus rendering his reign impotent? McCain will surely achieve the opposite effect and, as evidenced by the Left’s dominance on the hill, isn’t this the kind of power conservatives should seek? Your death-grip for the pole position has led you to bed down with a scumbag like McCain. If that is your idea of a winning strategy, I’d like to play poker with you folks.
DanKenton on May 23, 2008 at 10:41 AM
beautiful, like a work of art
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Heh. No, not yet, but I will.
I honestly don’t see a good answer. The best I think conservatives can do right now is to try to get McCain to do what he said he would - reach out to them. If they consolidate behind him without an outreach of some nature, he has no reason to listen to anything they say in the future. So I think being non-committal right now is probaby the best course - but it’s no long-term solution.
Spirit of 1776 on May 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Interesting historical fact…
The last time we had a balanced budget, was right after there was a threat of an actual Third Party emerging.
Perot was labled as a whacko, but he forced both parties towards the center, and even though he took conservative votes from the Presidential election, both parties suddenly were fairly fiscaly conservative.
The two parties will only respond to a valid outside threat to their Two party system (where they just hand power back and forth…).
Vote for real change…. don’t vote Rep or Dem.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM
We in uniform thank you mightily.
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM
MMMMMMM I feel a Nader situation coming on.
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Yeah, I know. And there’s been some damage and it’s not all in my mind. Dick Cheney was a plus, though.
BigD on May 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I don’t understand this approach. You can pat yourself on the back I guess for managing a variety of invective, but does that convince anyone - if so they are weak to be bullied, and I don’t see any rational argument in it otherwise - ‘Hey you’re not important, so do what I say!’ Whatever.
Spirit of 1776 on May 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Amnesty.
Welfare, healthcare, education for 20 million new people. Are you kidding me?
Shall we put a price tag on THAT little venture??
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Abortion -
Why not? The government is in our shorts in everything else, what’s wrong with defending the defenseless, those who have no choice?
abcurtis on May 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Regarding the potential nominees predicted handling of the WOT, I have a feeling that Iraq will be shoved off the front page by November, and domestic issues also.
Consider the Israel/Syria talks - why is Syria now interested in talking to Israel - having lost Lebanon to Hezbolla? Do they know that war is coming to Iran, and do not want to be drawn into it?
If so, this would allow a McCain presidency to do whatever it wanted on the domestic front, and ignore the Social Cons in the process - as he is now doing.
OldEnglish on May 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM
.
Short answer - no. Carter did not bring about the dems losing congress, despite being a disaster. Clinton losing congress for the dems was a historical aberration, do not depend on it.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I think what McCain is doing is great. People who care about Hagee or Parsley, or ones so obsessed with illegal immigration like this John Hawkins guy are a tiny minority greatly disliked by the rest of the country. I’m with John all the way
Baphomet on May 23, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Seeing as we are already paying for them, might as well start getting their taxes too, no?
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Exactly…
I would argue that illegal immigration is the biggest issue facing the middle class today. It is even bigger than the war. What good is fighting a war on the other side of the globe when millions penetrate your borders unopposed?
Illegal immigration has devastated the middle class and McCain advocates for illegal immigration.
voiceofreason on May 23, 2008 at 10:52 AM
.
By all means, if you can’t vote for McCain, vote for Nader.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Exactly, and to further state this point. If Reagan won on the glory of conservative principles rather than his optimism and personality, wouldnt he have been accompanied by a landslide victory in both houses in 80,82,84,86?
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I believe your argument is based on the quirk of having two election cycles in a row that were split 50-50(basically). This election isn’t going to happen that way. One side, or the other, is going to the WH and the Hill with a mandate. Who wins that mandate? RINO(according to some), or Socialist Dreamer(pretty much our universal opinion)?
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Pretty damning critique. But you’re talking to some conservative voters, not the pols who deceived them. Also, if (and it’s a huge if), it weren’t for WAR, you probably wouldn’t be making this comment with McCain in mind. All in all though, the sting from that tongue lashing was felt.
JiangxiDad on May 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM
An inspiring video for all the McCain-hating Obama (by default) supporters here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ky8Hvq-F0U
RBMN on May 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Paying close attention this election cycle has rewarded me with a stalemate. I won’t cancel out an R vote by voting D. A third ticket doesn’t look promising, so it looks like I will be neither helping nor hindering.
captivated_dem on May 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM
.
Or, even more accurately, the dems can win the WH and the Hill, and the reps can win the WH and minimize the losses on the Hill……
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Agreed. We can’t take the Hill but giving over to a super majority is nuts.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Ed, I hope you’re being paid a lot to support John McCain like that, and carry his water. I’m not surprised. You’ve always been a McCainiac. However, how much do you charge to sell your soul to the McCain?
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM
for those of you who are sick of the status quo but will hold your nose for maverick,..
Maverick won’t care if you hold your nose and vote or inhale deeply and vote.. but you are the sucker for voting for him..
only way the GOP will take notice of the true base (not religious right.. or the agnostic conservative) the entire base, is at the ballot box… a landside loss will help them perk up and take notice..
vote them all out..
Eff Reagun’s 11th commandment..
DaveC on May 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Thanks for being one of the first McCain supporters on this forum to explain why you are voting FOR the man instead of listing all the reasons why he is the lesser evil.
That being said, I notice that you leave most of the hot-button social issues out of your discussion. This is why I don’t trust McCain anymore than Obama.
The marriage amendment is a non-issue (as it should be) because it would never be ratified. The problem is that it is perfectly possible to do all the legal stuff necessary for a civil union now. The intent is to force recognition of homosexual marriage by all governments. My faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin against God. I’ll be damned if I support a candidate who goes on Ellen DeGeneres show and tries to find some common ground with the crowd who wants to force society into accepting same-sex relationships as a legitimate lifestyle choice.
John McCain wants no-questions-asked amnesty for illegals. There is no real intent to enforce the “path to citizenship” wickets and countless loopholes that will allow virtually every illegal to stay without background checks, penalty, or incovenience. This is wrong to the millions who are seeking legal status. It also allows all the Mexican drug cartels to get bona fide Americans into their distribution networks. I’m all for a guest worker program but that only comes after securing the border and without reward to those who are illegally here. John McCain wants to grant amnesty first, is insincere in his desire to secure the border, and is perfectly willing to reward illegal behavior.
John McCain’s position on selecting judges is wrong (as is yours). The problem isn’t with vocally conservative jurists- the problem is the fact that the Senate process is so divisive nominees cannnot express their real opinions. I predict McCain would seek to find the nominees acceptable to Democrats far more than finding constructionists. I disagreed with GWB when he nominated Harriet Meirs because she wasn’t qualified. I equally disagree that the path to a sound Judiciary flows through selecting nominees whose qualifications are so muddled that partisans cannot launch an attack. Like him or hate him, Scalia is a brilliant Justice and his opinions are well-reasoned dispassionate renderings of the law. John McCain would never nominate Scalia for office and that is troubling to me.
I don’t agree that having a conversation about the environment includes embracing the Kyoto Protocol which is really nothing more than a wealth distribution scheme supported by junk science. Kyoto would kill the American economy. It is perfectly possible to discuss being good environmental stewards without resorting to all the pandering that McCain has been doing. It is perfectly possible to drill in ANWAR without envronmental harm.
Finally, I am suspect about who he will put in the State and Defense Departments. Likely to be a Colin Powell instead of a Condeleeza Rice. A William Cohen instead of a hawkish proponent of the military. Colin Powell was an awful SECSTATE and he betrayed the administration by knowingly letting the Plame accusations escalate out of control.
highhopes on May 23, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Yeah, the same way I’d walk a batter to load the bases in order to pitch to David Ortiz because he’s gone 0 for 4 in the preceding at bats. History does not always repeat itself.
a capella on May 23, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I understand perfectly the complaints about McCain; heck, I share many of them. What I would like to hear are solutions, not complaints. I think everyone here understands that Obama or McCain will be president. The primaries are effectively over. Those who don’t intend to vote for McCain need to come up with some answers - and don’t give us the ju-jitsu that electing (by default) Obama and a lefty super-majority will magically push the country to the right. That is not a predictable outcome, and the pain involved could be immense. I have kids to think about…..
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Comments like this are really part of the problem. How is it that voicing any opposition to John McCain automatically results in being called an Obama supporter or having MDS? When in America did we have to support political candidates without question?
The problem here friend (McCainspeak for commrade) isn’t with the voters it is with the candidates. You want
votersparty faithful who feel betrayed to be less critical and more supportive then you need to start with a more inclusive candidate than John McCain. It is hardly wrong to voice opposition and I am sick and tired of being told to shut up by you people.highhopes on May 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Ed voted for Romney in the Primaries and was a vocal supporter on CQ.
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 11:11 AM
We are on opposite sides of the voting booth but I completely agree with you on shut-up track. Without paying close attention to what the No-Macs are saying the party has no chance of regaining it’s feet. Shoving them out the door just guarantees a 3rd or 4th party will dilute the vote and keep the libs in power….for a long long time.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Hmmm… sparked a thought… one of the problems I’m having is that the two entrenched parties believe they are ENTITLED to our votes. They no longer have to earn them.
No where in the Constitution, or in Law, does it say we have to only have two major parties. Although reps and dems have held power for generations, and want us to BELIEVE that they are entitiled, it is not so.
And I will say again, I believe if a third party started to emerge, then BOTH parties would suddenly get a whole lot more reasonable.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I am glad I could help, I think you may have misunderstood my point a bit but I can not just on it in detail because we are getting off work early today so I am outta here!
Have a good weekend
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 11:14 AM
jump not Just
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Yup, just like shoving the bull mooses out the door in 1912 gave us 20 years of kooky dems and inept republicans.
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Kudos to you for this post!
You ask for answers, and that is legitimate. But what if we don’t have answers? Those who don’t want McCain (and certainly don’t want B. Hussein) don’t really have any real avenues affordable to us. At least not any realistic ones.
There are no tennable solutions. We can vote against, and speed us more quickly toward disaster. Not vote either way (my current…current choice), but that doesn’t accomplish much. We can vote for him, and give him permission to screw this country over.
We can vote third party and that is an option, but it is truly a throwaway vote unless and until there is enough support for a viable third party. I’d love to see a true conservative party spring up.
I too have children and that is why I’m so concerned as well. And fearful.
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM
If you vote, it’s a binary choice. If you don’t vote, you give support to whichever candidate has the most momentum on election day. And if you don’t vote, there’s no reason for any candidate to listen to you next time. You’ve proven that you’re not a factor. You’re just part of the scenery.
RBMN on May 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM
.
It’s too late for that, the nominee is already chosen. I agree about the ’shut up’ part, though.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Remember what happened the last time we allowed our government, pressed by feckless Democrats, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. More than a million people who had trusted us with their lives and freedoms died. Our allies ceased to trust us. Our adversaries ceased to respect us. We are still recovering from the travesty that was Vietnam.
And now, for the sake of partisan domestic politics, some purity trolls here, willing to embrace the absolute worst for the sake of perfection, are willing to do walk that path again. They remind me of Palestinians who do not achieve their own nation because they will settle for no less than the impossible goal of all of Israel. But it is much worse than that.
Bush Sr., at the end of Gulf War I, ignobly forsook all the Iraqis who, answering his call, rebelled against Saddam in 14 of 18 Iraqi provinces, and instead, he released the bottled up Republican Guard tank divisions, which then returned to Iraq and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly unarmed freedom-desiring Iraqi civilian citizens whose only mistake was to trust the US with their lives, families, freedoms and futures. That fatal turning away remains one of the darkest stains on our national honor this century, and most certainly the darkest since we sold the Vietnamese down the river and into rickety South China Sea boats. The UN-mandated no-fly zones enforced by the US and UK were for the purpose of preventing Iraq’s bombers and helicopter gunships from aiding the tanks in that horrific Saddamic massacre. No wonder the Iraqis were exceedingly slow to trust us again.
But now they have. The Anbar Awakening and the Sons of Iraq fight and bleed and kill and die beside us against Baathist remnants, Iranian-backed Mahdist death squads, and Al Qaedan foreign jihadi infiltrators. And we are undeniably winning. In Anbar. In Basra. In Baghdad. And soon, in Mosul as well.
If, just because you have some sort of punish-your-own-country absolutist domestic policy hissy fit and allow Barak Obama to become our Commander-in-Chief, he WILL immediately begin pulling us out of Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground there, and catastrophic disaster will ensue. As a result, we may NEVER, this time, regain the trust of our allies or the respect of our adversaries. But our problems will go much deeper than this. I foresee a subsequent brutal and massive bloodletting to come. I foresee Iran gaining de facto control over Shia southern Iraq, Turkey moving in on the Kurds, and an Al Qaeda resurgence in Anbar, where they will train jihadis to commit further 9-11 terror flyer atrocities within our shores - or worse. And they will find ready recruits from among the Iraqis themselves, who will, in bitterness from being abandoned and betrayed by us twice in two generations, sign up so they can exact what they will consider to be justifiable retribution and revenge.
And, as much as I don’t want to see it happen, I really can’t say that I will be able to blame them.
This is why the GWOT generally, and finishing the job in Iraq specifically, is my SOLE issue this election, the ONE issue that eclipses ALL OTHERS. And on that one issue, there is neither contest nor even comparison. We dare not stoop to the level of the Democrats and grant partisan political considerations precedence over the safety and security of our nation.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM
As for 3rd and 4th parties…..madness. Look at any British style parliament on the planet. That style of government insures the one thing conservatives here scream the loudest about, compromise. Coalition this, coalition that. Instead of majority rules it is minority rules. As soon as a minority walks out of a deal the government collapses. Screw that.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I think that is the only reason one can vote FOR McShamnesty. If you only care about the one thing he has sense on, it’s easy to rationalize.
The rest of your post is simply, “shut up and get in line”, version 45,367…
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM
If the donks have the presidency and a supermajority in Congress, Soros money will ensure a long, long wander in the wilderness for conservatives. I doubt the damage could be repaired. This election isn’t about getting everything you want, it is about preventing some of what you don’t want.
a capella on May 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM
.
Excellent post. That, plus the dim hope that Johnny will stick to his guns on reducing taxation and spending, are the slim reeds that keep me in his camp for now. I’m not trading a surrender in Iraq for a chance at party redemption down the road, which is like telling Monty Hall I’ll pick what’s behind door number three….
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:24 AM
which, ladies and gentlemen, brings us right back to pragmatism vs principle.
I’ll say this, this YesMac/NoMac thread is a better debate thread then many of the previous ones. Keeps everyone on their toes.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Hmmm… and just how did the Republican party come to exist in the first place?
We don’t have a two party system NOW! There are LOTS of other parties out there. Its just the Reps and Dems have hold the power…
Problem is, and there is just no getting around this stat, that 1/3 of the electorate is now self identified as independent! Thats 1/3 of the people who are NOT represented by the two parties, who hold all the power.
Its a recipie for disaster, that the powers that be don’t want to recognize exists.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Gotta go……lawyer time, and I hate my lawyer.
SECOND LOOK AT LAWYER JOKES!
Later.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM
.
I agree. For an excellent primer on why the two party system is so powerful, I recommend “A Conflict Of Visions” by Thomas Sowell.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Two problems with the idea of “Let them screw up for four years and the voters will be at our doorstep begging us to make things right again”:
1.) Once Congress and the president do some major bureaucratic program, it’s virtually impossible to get it completely undone. Carter and the Democrats split off the Department of Education from HEW; Reagan promised to eliminate the DOE if elected and merge it back into HEW. How’d that work out? Now take DOE and replace it with “National Health Care” and you can see what the problem in 2013 and beyond might be.
2.) As conservatives wait for their knight in shining armor to ride in and restore the movement too its glory days under Reagan, the question is, who is that person? The reason why McCain got the nomination in the first place is because conservatives couldn’t decide on a single candidate — you had your Romney faction, your Thompson faction, your Tancredo faction, along with a few others for Duncan Hunter and even those who backed Giuliani because of his success at restoring sanity in New York and his WOT support or those on the evangelical right who were Mike Huckabee supporters. Reagan stepped onto the national stage first as a candidate in 1968, and by ‘76 against Ford, he was the consensus choice of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
I wish those who say they’re not voting for McCain this year would name exactly who they think out of that group or elsewhere (Jindal? Cornyn? Coburn?) is going to have both the ideological strength and the charisma Reagan had to unite Republicans around them in the next four years, so that if Obama does win in the fall, there’s already a designated candidate-in-waiting for conservatives to put up as their preferred GOP challenger in 2012.
jon1979 on May 23, 2008 at 11:34 AM
There was no viable SECOND party when the republicans came into being.
Squid Shark on May 23, 2008 at 11:34 AM
As soon as McCain is POTUS he will begin his Shamnesty rhetoric and he will NOT do ANYTHING for border security. End of discussion. Any of the McCain shills that want to make a bet on this, bring it on. You guys will of course pretend to be “shocked” sometime in 2009 and be whining or making excuses for this loser on this very comment board.
Yep, keep talking about how great McCain will be on taxes/spending. Makes all of your arguments soooo credible.
nottakingsides on May 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Rhetoric and campaign promises aside, do you really believe the Dems will pull us out of Iraq?
They’ve had two years where they could have done it easily, by just not funding the Iraq war. If they really wanted us out, we’d already be out.
If Obama is elected, with Maliki making progress, he will draw down some troops, but keep enough there to support the 500K Iraqi troops that are now trained up. He will then take credit for “winning the war” through a change of tactics.
The Dem Congress go elected on “pulling us out” and have done nothing… why do you think Obama will be any different?
The two greatest betrayals of foreign policy ever, Gulf War 1, and not supporting Viet Nam, were both done by REPUBLICAN Presidents.
Pulling out of Lebanon in 83? Republican…
Not supporting Israel last year? Republican…
Not getting Osama? Republican…
I do not like Obama, or trust him, but you have to admit the Republican track record is not very good either.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:37 AM
spirit,
“I don’t understand this approach.”
I am not trying to convince anyone. I’m simply making a stand. I have listened to where you and others stand. You know where I’m at now. What I won’t put up with is the weak logic that a vote for McCain is simply a vote against Obama or staying home is a viable solution. I think I made myself very clear on that point.
For the record McCain wasn’t even on my long list of candidates.
Jiang,
“But you’re talking to some conservative voters, not the pols who deceived them. Also, if (and it’s a huge if), it weren’t for WAR, you probably wouldn’t be making this comment with McCain in mind”
True enough. But I meant every word of critique as addressed to my fellow conservatives. We imagine that we are more than we are. Demands and more demands instead of the ONE demand that created and unites all conservatives, fiscal restraint/small government bias. We have as a group blown one of the greatest historic opportunities in modern America these last 8-10 years. We did it by having so many demands that diluted the one that counted–fiscal restraint. Where were the passionate screams for that over the ten years as we witnessed on immigration. Where? We don’t even know our roots.
And now at this most critical hour we want to throw the WAR to the roadside with our phony placards listing our previous demands. It is a twisted partisan who does not see the difference between McCain and Obama, in fact all the candidates short of Rudy, on the WAR.
I want nothing to do with people like that and the mental midgetry that goes with them.
Squid,
thanks….
patrick neid on May 23, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Hmmm… if I remember my history correctly… the Republican party came into being when the Whigs lost a lot of their base, because they lost touch with the electorate.
Kind of like…. now?
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM
.
So, you are voting for Obama then?
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM
If someone is going to screw it up. Does it really matter if it’s John McCain the Maverick or Obama the Democrat. It does. If it’s John McCain, we’ll spend years trying to rebuild the Conservative Movement after he destroys it.
Nixon hurt the party for years. Reagan was considered to be above that, barely. Yet he couldn’t manage to get party control of Congress. People still worried about another Nixon in the Republican Party.
So when McCain enacts all these horrible socialist ideals instead of Obama, what’s the difference? We’ll still have massive taxation for Junk Global Warming Science. The difference is that Republicans will be blamed for it by Joe Citizen because McCain the Republican pushed it through congress, and signed it into law. When we have Amnesty for tens of millions of identity stealing illegals, who will get the blame? McCain, the Republican. When he is convinced to surrender in Iraq with Wide Bi-Partisan Support, who will get the blame? Not the Democrats.
Saigon fell under Jerry Ford, and that’s who History which ignores his please to the Democrat Congress to help the Viet-Namese, blames for the fall. Ford and Nixon, the Republicans.
Yeah, this plan of We have to look at who will be better in the long run, your only honest answer is to let the Democrats be Democrats. Don’t elect a Republican to do their work for them. Especially don’t trust John McCain. He’s already demonstrated he’s unable to handle the power that he has as a Senator. He’s just dangerous now, in January, he may be unstoppable.
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I appreciate your limiting yourself to a small amount of insult (hissy fit) and writing a persuasive post.
I have no use for torrents of insults such as on the first page of comments. People who post crap like that are like people who beat the sheepdog while the flock is devoured by wolves.
RushBaby on May 23, 2008 at 11:43 AM
.
The Whigs dissappeared first (1850ish), then the Republicans became #2 party (1860), so the analogy has yet to run its course.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I may do the next best thing. Write in Mickey Mouse. I may write in none of the above. I won’t be voting for McCain. Under any circumstances.
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:46 AM
John McCain. Wrong for Conservatives. Wrong for Republicans. Wrong for America.
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 11:47 AM
.
It’s your choice. When you are looking for gasoline at $10 a gallon (on the even-numbered days you are allowed to purchase it ala Carter), and trying to schedule a doctor visit 18 months out under the socialized medicine plan, I will try not to say ‘I told you so’, because I respect your right to vote for whomever you wish.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I fear Obama keeping his word on this issue much more than I fear McCain not keeping his word. I do not think that Obama could resist or deny a Democratic Congress that would demand its trophy pound of flesh from its Democratic President, nor do I think that he’d want to.
McCain has made it amply and abundantly clear that he intends to finish the job in Iraq. He even put his own political career on the line to push the Surge when even many in the Republican party were against it. He says he’s against earmarks, and he has never employed them. He endured years of additional confinement and torture in Vietnam rather than leave his fellow troops behind. This is a man who does what he says.
He is also a man who listens, and alters his positions accordingly. When the base rose up against Shamnesty, he pledged to build the Fence before all else on the issue, and that is a pledge I expect him to keep, since I have never known him NOT to do all within his power to keep a promise made (whether we liked that promise or not). Do you think that President Obama and his Democratic Congress will listem to anyone besides MoveOn, HuffPo and the Daily Kos? And what do THEY want?
Far too much is at stake in Iraq and the GWOT for us to cut our country down out of petty political domestic policy spite. Especially when we would get far worse on that front, too.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM
We won’t get that with McCain????
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM
.
Its a binary choice - McCain or Obama WILL win the election, and votes for other candidates are merely backdoor votes for these two - not that I like any of the choices.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM
At least they listen to their constituency…
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I’ll get the same thing under Bi-Partisan McCain. His Carbon cap and trade will lead to high gas. His willingness to negotiate anything may well give us socialized Medicine. So what’s the difference? He lied about his McAmnesty, so what’s to say he isn’t going to do whatever he wants in the White House?
If he signed a legal contract swearing to do things or resign the Presidency then I might support him. He won’t do that. He’ll say anything to get elected, and then do as he damn well pleases, which means he’s going to do whatever the Democrats want anyway.
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 11:51 AM
You’ll probably end up with your health care from the federal government, lose the Bush tax cuts, and have Hillary on the Supreme Court.
dedalus on May 23, 2008 at 11:51 AM
from :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_Republican_Party
Republican party existed while the Whigs were in there final stages of falling apart, but they did both exist at the same time… which was my point.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:51 AM
McCain will stay in Iraq (unless congress de-funds the war), so the Persian Gulf will not be closed, therefore no on the gasoline question. McCain is not supporting socialized medicine, so no on that as well.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Plus, Jindal or whoever else as president would be stonewalled by a donk dominated Congress, unless they have some mighty long coat tails. A lot depends on how Jindal does in LA. You don’t turn a huge battleship around on a dime, and the U.S government is less nimble and more venal than a ship. This thing is a result of disasterous GOP leadership
and we’re destined for a Dem dominated congress for several years. The best we can hope for in the interim is a form of counterbalance, not a saviour.
a capella on May 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Uh, you do realize that hes called it the “g#$ dam fence”?
And that he just stated that “comprehensive reform” will be a big push in 2009 if he’s elected???
And that the fence will NOT be built yet???
Sorry, but on this issue, I can’t place any trust in his rhetoric.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM
.
Let’s compromise, and say that the republicans need to lose about 40% of their current support over the next few years, before a new party becomes viable.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Prices are going up right now, before McShamnesty stays in Iraq. Besides, if we ‘pull out’, those in the Persian Gulf will not close their doors to us.
McShamesty is not supporting socialized medicine…right now. I don’t think anyone can say he won’t try to ‘reach across the aisle’ and enact it. Besides, with 20 million new people to take care of, he will rationalize that we need it.
Sorry, you didn’t convince me.
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM
a vote for Maverick whether you hold your nose or not, is still a vote for maverick..
by not voting for maverick, puts the hurt on the GOP where it counts most, the ballot box..
that is the game plan..
is it dirty? most likely kicking a guy in the pills, yes.. but am I willing to do it? yes..
DaveC on May 23, 2008 at 11:59 AM
The Republican Party is doing everything they can to make that a reality. They’re calling us Racists for not embracing Amnesty. They’re redefining Conservative to mean bigger government and more intrusion. They’re embracing junk Global Warming Science. They’re giving terrorists civil rights.
So I should stay loyal to a party which has left me why?
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Ed, I can understand your wanting to defend this RINO. A bad REPUBLICAN is better than no REPUBLICAN. Ed, this is like saying a BAD LAW is better than NO LAW. Neither is TRUE. I would much rather vote for the DEVIL I know, that being B. HUSSEIN or AUNTIE HILL. 75% to 80% of the people want the BORDERS SEALED, and want it done FIRST. Not in conjunction with, not while working on, not while WRITING immigration reforms… They want the BORDERS SEALED FIRST. I can take a DEMOCRAT POTUS not listening to me… BUT BY DAMN, I won’t tolerate it from someone who calls himself a REPUBLICAN!!! I will not waste my vote on some write in, or token vote for a BARR, or NADER. This is how we get OUR party back!!!
pueblo1032 on May 23, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I know what he called it; I also know that at the moment he called it that he was also saying he would build it - because the people wanted him to. He also said that he would build it before he did anything else on the issue.
Now, what’s Obama’s position on that again? What’s the democratic Party position? That dripping sound you hear is the droplets hitting the ground as they salivate after all those Democratic votes they see themselves gaining.
But if we fail in Iraq, which Bin Laden himself has called the central front in his war against us, all that will be much less significant than what will happen to this country and its place in the world for decades to come.
For McCain, failure in Iraq is utterly unacceptable; for Obama, it’s current holy gospel scripture truth and future set-in-concrete policy.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Um, you don’t think that the Republican party is in trouble?
In my state, Colorado, there are more people registered as independents than there are registered as Republican.
Repubs lost control of both houses of Congress, and may very well loose so badly next election that the opposition will be able to override a veto at will.
And yet, the Republicans, while finaly admitting there may be a problem, go ahead and vote FOR a bloated Farm bill (and overide a veto) AND a Pork infested War spending bill…
They are Toast, because they are clueless.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 12:01 PM
.
Once Iran controls southern Iraq, and dominates Kuwait and Saudi, the straits of Hormuz will be blocked. This is the operating principal of Iran. Even if Iran cannot do all of this, one of the guiding principles of AQ is the overthrow of the Saudi royal family, which would amount to the same thing. Once our troops are pulled out of the area, one of the two options is likely to happen.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Would a President McGovern in 1972 guaranteed a President Reagan in 1976? It’s impossible to even look at the past and say that, since one of the things that got Reagan over the top in 1980 was the momentum he had built up from his failed challenge to Ford in ‘76. Remember, Cater was still considered to be a moderate in the Democratic Party in 1980, well to the right of McGovern or his ‘80 primary challenger Teddy Kennedy. As far left as George was in 1972, anyone in the GOP would have looked conservative in ‘76, and we could have just as easily ended up with eight years of a President Howard Baker, by which time Reagan would have been too old in the public’s eyes at that time (73 in 1984) to seek the job.
McCain wasn’t even in my Top 3 of choices for this years nomination of the candidates running, and at age 71, I think he’s pretty much a WYSIWYG as far as who he’s going to be if he gets into office. But there are things like the war, pork barrel spending and abortion where his positions mesh with the conservative wing of the party.
He may still say or do something over the next five months that makes me throw my hands up and walk away in disgust. But five months out from the election, I think it’s silly for conservatives to say they’re walking away from the table until 2012, especially given what may come out of Obama and the Democrats between the August election and the November vote.
jon1979 on May 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM
.
Yes, I do think they are in power. Doesn’t mean that I will willingly submit to socialists.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Typing too fast
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM
“We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
McCain, this week, on comprehensive immigration reform, ie, amnesty.
Sorry, but he’s being a politician…
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Your scenario is possible.
To which I have two responses:
1. I am not convinced B. Hussein will actually pull out. Once he gets in there and truly knows the reality of the situation, I think there’s a good chance he will alter his currently stated actions. I believe that much more than I believe McShamesty will secure the borders first.
2. Maybe if the gulf is shut off to us, we will finally have the intestinal fortitude to actually go for our own oil. We don’t need them.
Darksean on May 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM
So, even if you are right about McCain not building the Fence before passing Shamnesty, which I doubt, as it’s hard to point to another promise made that the man has not kept, your choices are 1) to have Shamnesty yet persevere in Iraq and the GWOT or 2) to have an even worse Shamnesty and capitulate in Iraq and the GWOT - and you’re choosing option #2?!?
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 12:10 PM
And yet, McCain FAILS to do the ONE thing which will take power out of the hands of those in the region… allow us to drill in America.
The only reason the middle east has power is oil. Take that away, and their economys crumble. Without the high prices of oil they would not have the capital for foreign adventures.
And why is the oil not coming out of ANWAR RIGHT NOW? Because John McCain cast a deciding vote, AGAINST drilling in Anwar a few years ago.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 12:11 PM
He’s not against drilling offshore. Just in Alaska.
RBMN on May 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Do you REALLY think that if a Democratic majority in both houses in Congress passes a bill mandating that the US withdraw as quickly as possible from Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground, that a Democratic President, who campaigned primarily on precisely that position on the issue, would then VETO it?
Boy do I have a bridge to sell you…
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM
.
1. I don’t think Obama has a clue about the ramifications, and I don’t want to trust that he will figure it out.
2. Domestically we currently produce 40% of what we use. Assuming we produce from ANWR, both coasts, offshore Florida, North Dakota - plus import from Mexico and Canada, we still only meet 80-something percent of our needs.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:14 PM
.
I forgot option three, which is where Iran, who now control southern Iraq after Barry surrenders, overpower Kuwait, and declare war on Saudi Arabia - of course, this option still effectively closes the straits.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM
As for the Repub party being in trouble-nothing it won’t weather. Unless someone resurrects the Whigs, there’s no where else to go unless the Libertarians start making more sense.
As for McCain-John Gibson on his radio show has been making sense when he highlights the positives of John McCain-Gibson’s gets a regular Greek chorus of McCain complainers, and has his list ready.
Though not totally convinced, I can vote for McCain. He does shine in comparison to any Democrat. Let the bitter man win.
Doug on May 23, 2008 at 12:20 PM
You’re leaving out oil sands, and oil shale, which at about $75 a barrel becomes economicly feasible.
And I’d be quite willing to pay the price of $75 a barrel to become energy independent.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 12:20 PM
There they would just be taking a page out of Iraq’s playbook…with the benefit of the nukes that Iraq didn’t have, so they’d be able to threaten a catastrophic retaliation on whoever tried to reverse their move with a credibility that Saddam lacked.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Uh, having spent Desert Storm sitting on a Destroyer in the Straights of Hormuz… withing spitting distance of the Silkwork sites there… if Iran wanted to shut down the straights they could do it at any time.
Problem is that CHINA, India, and Europe would get involved, as that where the majority of that oil goes.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM
.
That is the future, but it will take reversing Billy Clinton’s taking US sands and shale out of contention by declaring a huge chunk of the Rockies a national monument, as well as fighting the greens to expand the tar sands extraction in Canada. I agree that in the future, when we finally reach desperation, we will likely force the issue, in fact, most of us in the industry are planning for just that scenario. The current scenario is that the Islamists plan to emasculate the west by cutting off ME oil, and the Westerners plan to use the shales and tar sands, and pay much more for not only gas, but also Air Force jet fuel to prevent the castration.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM
.
You’re forgetting the leadership of Chairman Obama, who would pull our forces out, which is the presupposition of the entire argument.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Obama lacks the spine to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, and once they had them riding in the tips of their new Shahab-4 missiles, either China, India and Europe would accept whatever they could get from Iran, or there would be nuclear war.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »