cadillac, cadillac cts, cadillac seville, cadillac forums, lincolns of distinction, forum, lincoln mark viii, Performance, parts, lincoln, mark viii, mark vii, lincoln ls, lincoln town car

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums


(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums




Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma



Back to the Archive Main Page


Pages: 1

GOP is Nailing its own Coffin

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: fossten

Sorry, this is a bit of a long article. But you guys who think you know all about Ron Paul haven't been reading enough about him, thus your arguments are flawed. So, here's some good information to start with. Take your time. Any fast response will demonstrate to me that you did not read it.

GOP is Nailing its Own Coffin
This is a revised version of my letter to my Ron Paul precinct. It is more Republican in focus, and points out why McCain will kill the Party. Only Ron Paul can save the GOP.

by Natalie Schultz
(Libertarian)

Dear fellow Republican,

As you are well aware, this coming November we will be facing the wrath of Hillary Clinton. A year ago it seemed that we were a united Party determined to defeat the Devil Herself. However, instead of gearing up to take on the Clinton Machine, it seems that the greatest accomplishment of this election year has been bringing to light the chaos within the GOP. The three camps of "conservatism" are fighting against each other in a head-to-head war of their own making. The seeds of destruction of the Republican Party were planted in the 1970’s by a very clever group of Democrats, avowed Trotskyites who were sickened by the anti-war Hippie movement of the 1960’s, who realized that re-working the Republican Party from within would be easier than trying to control their own comrades on the Left. In a brilliant play for power, they aligned themselves with the most unlikely bedfellows, the rapidly growing Christian Fundamentalist Evangelical movement. Manipulation, deceit and fraud were the common links between the leaders of this new Religious Right and the new "neoconservative" power brokers. Together they joined forces to help ring in a new era known as the "Reagan Coalition." Unfortunately for the NeoCON power brokers, they were not able to control Reagan and his central core of traditional Conservative Republicans, but they did increase their own ranks enough to make their desires known and wrinkle quite a few feathers.

By the end of the Reagan Administration, the split was becoming obvious. The original, traditional Conservatives were losing control of the Republican Party, and Big Government, pro-war NeoCONism was winning out. This split led to a North-South, Left-Right divide and ushered in Bill Clinton in 1992. The core tenets of Republicanism, small government, low taxes and low spending, a strong defensive military, and avoidance of international conflicts all but disappeared. Many Conservatives just gave up and followed their leader, Pat Buchanan, out of the Party. So, in 1994 Newt Gingrich took the helm and ushered in a new era of Republicanism that managed to curb the Socialist agenda of the Clintons. By the year 2000 the entire country was sick of Clinton’s antics, and the "moral majority" ushered in George W. Bush. Bush was elected on a traditional Conservative "No nation building" platform, but that did not last for long.

By the time Bush took the helm, the NeoCONs controlled the Republican Party via their media empire of FOX News and The Weekly Standard. Suddenly "Globalization" and "Israel First" became the mantra of the Republican Party, and Big Government joined forces with Big Business to undermine the will of the American People. All notions of true Conservatism were marginalized as "isolationist." But then the lies behind the War in Iraq were revealed, American jobs started disappearing, and a non-stop invasion across our southern border made the American People wake up.

Who is to blame? Yes, the Bush administration and its lackeys, but truthfully, the Democrats are just as complicit. And the American People know it. That is why this race is not so straightforward. Everyone knows that Hillary is not really anti-war, but then again neither is Obama. Contrary to popular belief, the Democrats are not a shoe-in for the Presidency. The problem is, ultimately, on the Republican side.

So the bloody war begins. The NeoCONs truly believed they had the election controlled, that Rudy would be King. And, just as a backup, Hillary wouldn’t be too bad either. But then two monkey wrenches were thrown into their ultimate plan: Barack Obama and Ron Paul. The "race-card" has essentially killed Obama for the presidency, but of course Bill, unable to control himself, deep-throated his mouth with his own foot, essentially tainting Hillary in the eyes of Democrats, thereby forcing her hand in choosing her running mate. But on the Republican side there is total chaos. Rudy totally floundered, Fred Thompson was a dud, and now the remaining four candidates have the Party fighting amongst themselves. Huckabee was a ruse introduced by the NeoCONs to siphon off the Religious Right vote. Knowing he would never get the nomination simply because he could never win a general election, the plan was to eat away at Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. McCain was so detested by the entire Republican Party that he would never even chart in the polls, right? Well surprise, surprise!

So now the NeoCONs have flocked around McCain, since he is just as much a war-monger as Rudy. The problem is that the GOP pundits HATE him, and Huckabee too. That’s right, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, those "confused conservatives" who profited so much from the NeoCON revolution, are absolutely furious! They may be pro-war, but they just cannot stand the idea of John McCain, Mr. Big Government "I love Mexico" ever becoming president. Rush even went so far as to say "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch." So the war begins! Now the Religious Right is furious that he is attacking the "Christian" candidate, the NeoCONs are furious that he is attacking McCain, and the rest of us are all just sitting back and laughing "I told you so!"

Finally, the "confused conservatives" have come to their senses. They know two things: 1) There is no way a Dominionist Baptist Minister who wants to change the Constitution will ever be elected. 2) There is no way that the Republicans will ever forgive McCain for all of his betrayals; even if it is a race against Hillary, because Hillary has always been the enemy, but McCain is an outright traitor. As Rush said "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life." He speaks for many disgruntled Republicans.

Now, I am not one of these talk radio aficionados, but I do know that Rush is speaking the truth. The fact is we will be facing the wrath of Hillary in November, and the only way to defeat her is for the entire Republican Party to unite. The problem with Romney is that no one trusts him. We will need more than just Republicans voting against Hillary, we will need Independents and Democrats as well, and Mitt Romney does not have that attraction at all.

Face facts: Over 60% of the country wants to end the war in Iraq. There is no way a pro-war candidate will win, especially not "More War McCain." The problem for Hillary is that there are enough disgruntled Democrats who know she is full of crap, essentially the flip-flopper of the Left, so if there is a true anti-war candidate they will cross the Party line. Plus, there are enough Independents and Democrats who realize that her "economic plan" of spending $120 BILLION immediately (it keeps increasing every day) is absolutely not feasible. Yes, they may want healthcare reform, but her plan brings back the nightmare of "Hillary Care." Remember, Gingrich may have gotten the credit for the 1994 Republican Revolution, but it never would have succeeded without all the votes from Democrats and Independents who were scared beyond belief by Hillary’s attempt to bankrupt and destroy the nation.

There is only one candidate who has an absolutely impeccable Conservative small-government, pro-Constitution record. No GOP pundit has ever argued that his economic policy is flawed, in fact financial and monetary analysts admit that he is the ONLY candidate who actually understands monetary policy and why our economy is an absolute disaster. He is the only candidate with a realistic economic plan that will truly fix our economy for the long-term. Plus, he is the only candidate who has consistently fought against every Constitutional violation our post-9/11 government has enacted against us. Not even Hillary or Obama can say that without lying. Therefore, he is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton in November because no Republican can argue with his Conservative record, and no honest Independent or Democrat can argue with his strict adherence to the Constitution and the fact that he never, ever voted to invade Iraq in the first place.

Ron Paul has created a true Revolution in the Republican Party. In fact, Ron Paul is the only hope the Republican Party has to remain intact. Ron Paul has managed to re-unite all the factions of the Republican Party who had walked away over the last thirty years. Every single Third Party that was born out of Republican disgust has rallied around Ron Paul. They re-joined the Republican Party in a last ditch effort to save our country from devastation. Because of this the powers-that-be in both the Republican and Democrat Parties have joined forces with the media to black-out his message. This in turn has caused many Conservative Republicans who have never had the guts to leave the Party to finally say "That’s it, I’m leaving!" Unless the Republicans wake up to reality there is going to be a mass-exodus of infinite proportions.

Ron Paul should also not be overlooked for the simple fact that he is the only Republican who has managed to attract a new demographic to the Grand "Old" Party – the youth vote. Ron Paul’s campaign has the same vigor of grassroots support among the 18-45 voting block as Barack Obama. He has attracted many young people who never cared about politics before; ignoring Ron Paul jeopardizes the future of the Republican Party. Now that Obama has been handed the "Kennedy Torch" it is very likely that he will be Hillary’s running mate. The GOP absolutely needs the young, excited grassroots support of Ron Paul in order to take on Clinton – Obama. McCain has less than 5% support among 18-29 year olds and less than 10% of those ages 30-44. Alienating young Republicans will be the kiss of death for the GOP. It can safely be said that 100% of young Ron Paul supporters absolutely hate McCain; 80-90% hate Obama and Hillary, but 10-20% actually crossed over from the Obama and Kucinich camps. That 20% will absolutely kill us in November if they decide to vote for Obama, and a good 75% is already planning a new Revolution via a 3rd Party anti-establishment coup if the GOP does not see the light.

Is Ron Paul truly a force to be reckoned with? You bet. The Democrats and other Left-Wing elements are so afraid of him that they launched a smear campaign against him that tried to make him out to be a racist. Although this has been completely de-bunked, it seems to have worked. The media has completely blacked him out, there is a petition to have Tucker Carlson fired for endorsing him, Pat Buchanan, Jack Cafferty, Jim Cramer and John Stossel have been forced into silence on their own shows. The only place where liberal / NeoCON censorship has not held sway is on The McLaughlin Group, the ultimate bastion of traditional Conservatism. How ironic that Ron Paul’s Constitutional message can only be heard on the newest medium of the Web and on one of the oldest mediums of Sunday morning network TV. But, why are the Democrats so afraid? Because they know that their base is anti-war and by running against Ron Paul they automatically lose. The media has been pushing both John McCain and Barack Obama as the ultimate front-runners in this race, to the detriment of all the other candidates. The media is by far a pro-war propaganda machine, even if the liberal media elites attempt to appear anti-war. The truth is that most corporate media organizations profit from war and its industrial consequences. As we all know, the media is anti-Republican at all costs and will hide all truth from the public in order to elect a supposedly anti-war Democratic candidate. Most voters do not bother to examine candidates’ records on their own, so they are easy targets for the media’s manipulation and lies. The media is well aware that Ron Paul is the only honest candidate on either side, but they will do anything to hide the truth and push the absolutely unelectable John McCain into the driver’s seat of the Republican Party.

Ron Paul also has the only weapon that all the other candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, lack: He is a staunch defender of our National Sovereignty. There is absolutely no difference between McCain, Clinton or Obama on the Illegal Immigration debate. They all voted for Amnesty. We all know that the majority of the country was steadfast in their determination to crush the McCain – Kennedy "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act." This one issue alone can turn the November election in the Republican’s favor if Ron Paul is the nominee. McCain wrote that evil bill, so even though he is flip-flopping now, no one believes him. Hillary has flip-flopped as well, first approving Spitzer’s driver’s licenses for Illegals bill, then opposing it. Obama, on the other hand, has not wavered in his approval of both Amnesty as well as giving driver’s licenses to Illegals. We know that the majority of Americans disagree with all three of these candidates on this issue. As a doctor in Texas, Ron Paul saw illegal immigrants deliberately cross the border just to have a baby, and then he saw them immediately receive welfare and Medicaid coverage. He has personally seen many hospitals close due to bankruptcy, thereby negatively affecting the lives of American citizens. This is why Dr. Ron Paul has written legislation to end "Anchor Babies" by changing the law to specifically state that only the children of LEGAL immigrants will be guaranteed American citizenship.

Ron Paul will outlaw all incentives for illegal immigration, such as welfare and Medicaid; they will then go back to their countries on their own. By eliminating the incentives and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, the problem will solve itself. In addition, all criminal aliens will immediately be deported. Ron Paul, as a practicing medical doctor for over 30 years, both in private practice as well as a surgeon in the United States Air Force, is the only candidate who is qualified to truly fix our broken healthcare system. He understands that government bureaucracy, in the guise of "Universal Healthcare" is the absolute worst thing, both for the physical and mental health of Americans, as well as for the health of our economy and individual Rights of Freedom and Liberty. He understands that as long as we do not secure our borders that we will never solve our healthcare crisis, our fiscal crisis or our national security crisis.

There is only one Presidential Candidate who stands up for the Rights of every single American Citizen. Only one candidate whose congressional voting record proves that he has NEVER voted against the Constitution of the United States of America. Only one Presidential candidate who can fix our healthcare system because he has spent over 30 years as a practicing Medical Doctor, both in private practice as well as a surgeon in the United States Air Force. There is only one Presidential candidate who has consistently called for responsible monetary and fiscal policy and predicted our impending economic collapse, not because he has a crystal ball, but because he is the only candidate who has actually studied Economic Theory.

Unless the Republican Party wakes up to reality we are doomed. The economy is collapsing and most Americans know it. George W. Bush can laugh all he wants and put band-aids on the problem by sending everyone a $600 check and have Bernanke cut interest rates yet again, but that will not work and most people know it. The fact is we are in debt, in debt to our enemies no less. We spend billions of dollars fighting an unconstitutional war in Iraq, which has led to even more Al-Qaida problems in the Middle East. We never finished the job in Afghanistan and now we keep borrowing trillions of dollars from foreigners to continue a war with troops we do not even have. The American Dollar is worthless and inflation is rampant; the cost of oil has risen from $27 a barrel at the start of the war in Iraq to nearly $100 today. This must stop! Hillary’s economic plan is apparently inspired by Mary Poppins’ bottomless purse. Do you really want to risk a bureaucratic nightmare of "mandatory" Universal Healthcare in which the entire country will be standing in line to see doctors they do not know while Hillary is singing "A Spoonful of Sugar Will Make the Medicine Go Down?" Wake up!

Dr. Ron Paul is the only Presidential Candidate who has a real plan to bring our country back on course. He believes in a strong National Defense, but opposes any offensive wars of aggression. He has consistently opposed the abolition of the Gold Standard that has led to our current crisis of massive inflation and the devaluation of the American Dollar. He understands that the only way to protect our country from attack and the loss of our sovereignty is to strengthen our borders. He is a vocal advocate of upholding our Rights to free speech and expression and the right of individual citizens to bare arms.

Ron Paul will immediately cut taxes across the board. This will allow Americans to keep their hard-earned money in their own pockets and spend it how they want. He will end all government subsidies to Big Businesses that close up shop here and move oversees. He will end subsidies to oil companies because that is impeding our ability to become energy independent. By not subsidizing Big Oil and Big Industries such as Halliburton, smaller, energy efficient alternative small businesses will be able to compete on the Free Market, thereby making us energy independent and creating new jobs that will help us diminish Global Warming at the same time. Ron Paul will immediately end the monopoly of the Federal Reserve that has allowed unscrupulous individuals, politicians, and corporations to manipulate the value of the Dollar. Ron Paul will allow Hard Currency, Gold and Silver, to compete as a legitimate form of currency against paper "Fiat" money that is currently worthless. This will enable the American economy to get back on its feet without devolving into chaos.

National Defense: Ron Paul has consistently voted for a domestic anti-missile defense shield. This will protect Americans, here on our own soil, from missile attacks. Ronald Reagan’s "Star Wars" are no longer a dream, as modern technology has finally caught up and right now a mere $40 million is going towards real national defense: at JFK International Airport a Laser Missile Defense Protective Shield, "Skyguard," that can detect and shoot down short and long-range and supersonic missiles is being installed. We probably spend that amount of money in one week just feeding all of the troops we have around the world. Our Federal Government has one primary responsibility: to defend the United States from attack. If it only costs $40 million dollars and no loss of American lives to secure JFK, then there is no excuse for any politician to tell us that we must be anywhere else in the world. Best of all, this defense system is built by Northrop Grumman, so local jobs are created at the same time.

Bring our Troops home: Our troops are being used as cannon-fodder in an attempt to force other countries to "democratize" via the barrel of a gun. That does not now, nor ever has worked. The United States is not an Imperial Empire, we are a Republic, and it is high time our government starts representing the citizens of the United States of America, and stops interfering in the sovereignty of foreign nations. By bringing most, if not all, of our troops home, foreigners will not look upon us with disdain for invading and controlling their countries. This will also save us TRILLIONS of dollars a year, money that we never had in the first place, but borrowed from other nations, such as China, who are far from our allies. Instead of bolstering up foreign economies our troops will be stationed at bases here, on American soil where they will be spending their money in local American economies, thereby bolstering consumer spending.

The other candidates claim that Ron Paul’s anti-Iraq War stance will leave us vulnerable to attack; they are dead wrong. The truth is Ron Paul actually has the strongest record on National Defense. A Ron Paul Presidency would be very much like Ronald Reagan’s presidency. They both advocate a strong domestic military force: Peace through Strength. That means not attacking our enemies when we are not attacked, but ensuring that we are strong and able to defend ourselves here at home. Today we are weaker than we ever have been in our history. We already owe Trillions of dollars for the War in Iraq; we are sending wounded, yes wounded, troops back over to fight in Iraq because this war has become so unpopular over here that we cannot recruit enough new soldiers. All the other candidates, on both sides, are threatening war with Iran. Do you want your children to be drafted in order to continue all of these wars? Is that what a Free country should do?

I urge you, my fellow Republicans, to join with all true Conservatives to take back our Party from the usurpers! Unite to defend our nation from the ultimate destruction that shall befall our nation under the wrathful hand of Hillary!

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who can unite Republicans and Independents; all the other Republicans are divisive NeoCON war-mongers who will split the Party and usher in defeat. If you do not think that is enough to keep many Republicans at home on Election Day in November, well, don’t be surprised when the 2008 Presidential Election goes the way of the local and state elections of 2006 and 2007.

Hillary vs. Rudy McRomnebee: The GOP gets dealt its final blow.
Hillary vs. Ron Paul: The Clinton Machine goes down in flames!

Tuesday, February 5th is Primary Day in New York. I encourage every single New Yorker to go out and cast your vote for Ron Paul. The 2008 election is the most important election in the history of our nation. It is up to all of us, as American Citizens to make sure that our voices are heard. To make sure that our Republic does not continue to deteriorate.

As Benjamin Franklin said "A Republic, if you can keep it."
"Democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health." - Dr. Richard Beeman, Vice Chairman of The National Constitution Center’s Distinguished Scholars Advisory Panel.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

The McCain Divide?
The GOP vs. Conservatives

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, February 1, 2008; Page A21

If John McCain secures the Republican presidential nomination, his victory would signal a revolution in American politics -- a divorce, after a 28-year marriage, between the Republican and conservative establishments.

McCain would be the first Republican nominee since Gerald Ford in 1976 to win despite opposition from organized conservatism, and also the first whose base in Republican primaries rested on the party's center and its dwindling left. McCain is winning despite conservatives, not because of them.

Those who built the American right, from Barry Goldwater in 1964 through the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions, are intensely aware of the dangers a McCain victory portends. Some on the right feel it would be less damaging to their cause to lose the 2008 election with the Republican-conservative alliance intact than to win with John McCain.

For those outside the conservative movement, such anxiety seems strange. McCain's voting record in the House and Senate has typically won high ratings from conservative groups. His positions on key issues (support for the Iraq war, opposition to abortion, his long-standing criticism of government spending) are those of an orthodox, conservative loyalist.

If McCain is the nominee, Democrats will have plenty of ammunition to convince middle-of-the-road voters that he is not a moderate. In Wednesday's debate in California, McCain repeated his oft-declared claim that he was a "foot soldier" in Ronald Reagan's army.

But staunch conservatives see things differently. They know that in primary after primary, McCain's base has been formed by moderates, liberals, independents, supporters of abortion rights and critics of President Bush. Conservatives -- who mistrust McCain because of his history on taxes, immigration, global warming and campaign finance reform -- were not his coalition's driving force. And Republicans who describe themselves as "very conservative" have consistently rejected McCain. In this week's Florida primary, such voters chose Mitt Romney over McCain by more than 2 to 1.

Vin Weber, a former member of Congress who backed McCain in 2000 but supports Romney this year, said the confusion outside Republican ranks is not surprising. "People usually think that the conservative leadership and the Republican leadership are one and the same, but they're not," Weber said.

McCain has gotten where he is because conservatives failed to agree on a single standard-bearer. Mike Huckabee has consistently peeled off religious conservatives. Fred Thompson further splintered the conservative vote, particularly in South Carolina. Both foiled Romney's hope of becoming the early alternative to McCain. Moreover, because Romney changed his stand on a number of issues important to the Republican right, many in the rank and file never fully trusted him.

Rudy Giuliani's decision to make his stand in Florida left moderate votes to McCain in the earlier primaries. This allowed McCain to consolidate his position.

Significantly, many of the leading Republicans championing McCain have never been heroes to the right. Giuliani, a social moderate, quickly endorsed McCain after dropping out on Wednesday. Gov. Charlie Crist, who helped McCain in Florida, earned his popularity as a moderate and appeals to independents and even Democrats. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who backed McCain yesterday, has veered far from conservatism and now works closely with Democrats in the California Legislature.

All this explains the ferocity of the continued resistance to McCain among conservative leaders. Rush Limbaugh has served as a spokesman for their cause. On his radio show Wednesday, Limbaugh excoriated those who "pretend that Senator McCain is the choice of conservatives when exit poll data from every primary state show just the opposite."

"He is not the choice of conservatives, as opposed to the choice of the Republican establishment -- and that distinction is key," Limbaugh declared. "The Republican establishment, which has long sought to rid the party of conservative influence since Reagan, is feeling a victory today as well as our friends in the media."

McCain, of course, has yet to secure the nomination, and his performance in Wednesday's debate was less than inspiring. His straight talk took a crooked path when he repeatedly refused to say whether he would now vote for his own immigration bill. McCain's self-satisfied smile as Romney tried to defend himself against his opponent's essentially false characterization of the former Massachusetts governor's position on the Iraq war was hardly the visage of a gracious winner.

But as one prominent conservative noted Wednesday night, Republican elected officials are starting to fall into line behind McCain, despite their reservations, simply because they think he will win. Their capitulation signals the end of the Reagan-Bush era and the beginning of something quite different.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

As McCain wins, critics on right look again
Conservative leaders reconsider as options may be McCain or a Democrat

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22943524/

By David D. Kirkpatrick

updated 4:10 a.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 1, 2008
WASHINGTON - Senator John McCain has long aroused almost unanimous opposition from the leaders of the right. Accusing him of crimes against conservative orthodoxy like voting against a big tax cut and opposing a federal ban on same-sex marriage, conservative activists have agitated for months to thwart his Republican presidential primary campaign.

That, however, was before he emerged this week as the party’s front-runner.

Since his victory in the Florida primary, the growing possibility that Mr. McCain may carry the Republican banner in November is causing anguish to the right. Some, including James C. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh, say it is far too late for forgiveness.

But others, faced with the prospect of either a Democrat sitting in the White House or a Republican elected without them, are beginning to look at Mr. McCain’s record in a new light.

“He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes,” said Grover Norquist, an antitax organizer who had been the informal leader of conservatives against a McCain nomination, adding that he had been talking to Mr. McCain’s “tax guys” for more than a year.

Tony Perkins, a prominent Christian conservative who has often denounced Mr. McCain, is warming up to him, too.

“I have no residual issue with John McCain,” Mr. Perkins said, adding that the senator needed “to better communicate” his convictions on social issues.

Richard Land, an official of the Southern Baptist Convention and a longtime critic of Mr. McCain, agreed, saying, “He is strongly pro-life.”

“When I hear Rush Limbaugh say that a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican Party,” Dr. Land added, “what I want to say to Rush is, ‘You need to get out of the studio more and talk to real people.’ ”

How firmly conservatives reject or embrace Mr. McCain may be a pivotal variable, both in the homestretch of the Republican primary campaign, when Mitt Romney is hoping to rally conservatives to his side, and in the general election, when too much grumbling from the right in a close race could cost Mr. McCain the White House.

The McCain campaign, for its part, is doing remedial work on the right. On the day after the Florida primary, it announced that Mr. McCain would speak next week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a major gathering held each year in Washington.

Last year, he drew barbs from the conservative news media for skipping the event while his Republican rivals all attended. His advisers now consider that a big mistake.

“We recognize that conservatives will be instrumental to our victory in November and we are reaching out and taking their advice,” said Jill Hazelbaker, a McCain spokeswoman.

Many on the right, though, say Mr. McCain has a lot of explaining to do. Not only did he vote against President Bush’s tax cuts and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Mr. McCain has also supported embryonic stem cell research and stricter environmental regulation. He fought for looser immigration rules. He championed campaign finance rules that many on the right consider a violation of free speech. And he made a deal with Democrats to break a deadlock on judicial nominations that many on the right considered near treasonous.

Anger over that deal flared up again this week when a Wall Street Journal columnist, John Fund, reported that Mr. McCain had privately criticized Mr. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.”

The McCain campaign quickly denied that he held such a view, noting that the senator voted for Mr. Alito’s confirmation and routinely praises his selection on the stump. But conservative activists say the charges nonetheless reminded them of their doubts.

“Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late!” Mark R. Levin, a movement veteran and talk-radio host, wrote on the Web site of National Review, urging a “rally for Romney.” The publication was host to an online debate on Wednesday on the question “A Republican future with McCain?”

A spokesman for Dr. Dobson, the influential evangelical Christian founder of Focus on the Family, said Wednesday that he stood by the position he staked out more than a year ago that as a matter of conscience he could never vote for Mr. McCain.

Nor has the small-government wing of the movement swung to Mr. McCain’s side. “I have yet to see McCain make any attempts to reach out to free market conservatives,” said Pat Toomey, president of the antitax group Club for Growth, warning that “if you have a big problem with a big part of your base, you really should be mending fences.”

And in his broadcast on Thursday, Mr. Limbaugh escalated his attacks on Mr. McCain as an imposter in the party.

“McCain is in a lot of these places not actually the Republican candidate,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “He is the candidate of enough Republicans, but independents and moderates and probably even some liberals.”

Mr. Limbaugh contended that such voters were deciding Republican primaries because other candidates had divided the conservative vote.


Still, even Mr. McCain’s most determined antagonists say the animosity among conservative leaders does not necessarily extend deep into the rank and file, where not many remember the details of Mr. McCain’s views on campaign finance or judicial nomination procedures. “It is kind of inside baseball,” as Mr. Perkins put it.

Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Toomey and others are working hard to rally conservatives around Mr. Romney, who has campaigned as a by-the-book conservative despite a record of more liberal stances he took in campaigns for senator and governor in Massachusetts.

In contrast to Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney has convinced conservative leaders that he is on their side through assiduous, face-to-face courtship, but he has struggled to have the same success at the grass roots.

Mr. Romney also faces the problem of Mike Huckabee’s continuing campaign. A Southern Baptist pastor before he became governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee has struck a chord with Christian conservatives, preventing Mr. Romney from bringing together economic and social conservatives opposed to Mr. McCain.

“Romney and Huckabee divided the Bush vote,” Mr. Norquist, the tax opponent, said. “Bush was Romney and Huckabee in one body.”

Meanwhile, conservatives are growing increasingly “resigned” to the idea of a McCain nomination, said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, adding that among Washington activists, many of whom, like him, double as lobbyists, self-interest may also be a factor.

“There are people who don’t like the idea of a being off a campaign or being on the bad list if the guy gets into the White House,” Mr. Keene said. “This is a town in which 90 percent of the people balance their access and income on the one hand versus their principles on the other.



Posted by: fossten

It's nothing but panic. The thought of a Hillary presidency strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives, so they'll sell their collective souls to avoid it. Better the devil you know...

Not me. At the end of the day, I refuse to obey. I will not kowtow to another RINO. I am free to choose not to support the Republican nominee if he is not going to lead the country in the right direction. This is my liberty. My conscience is clear.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Just the fact that self appointed right wing mouthpieces like Rush and Coulter hate McCain will be enough to help him get the moderate vote.
Who better than a real war hero closet Democrat in Republican clothing to swipe the election from the spineless Democrats.
McCain's refusal to toady to the idealogues shows his strength of character
and makes him more genuine and appealing than flip flop blow dry Romney.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows and the pure wool conservatives can just pout and sit this one out.



Posted by: Calabrio

Everyone fails to note just how much damage a Democrat President with a Democrat congress can do inside just two or four years.

You can look back at '93 and say things worked out fine.
That's not even entirely true, but more importantly, the world was a very different place. Clinton took office just after the economy had recovered. And we were in a very unique lull in history, the quiet before the storm. That's not the case now.

The first thing is to NOT let McCain walk away with the nomination on Tuesday.
And if that fails, the recognition that the country has strayed left, and it will take persuasion, incrementalism and time to win it back. It takes decades to repair the damage to the courts and institutions after Democrat control.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Ah the good old days of overated Reagan and underated Clinton...
What Democratic "damages" that will take 30 years to undo are you talking about.

What about undoing all the damages that Bush/Cheney have committed?

I Remind Me of Reagan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, February 1, 2008; 12:00 AM

In the past few weeks, the Democratic Party has suddenly turned on Bill Clinton with the ferocity of 16 years of pent-up resentments. He will not be cut any more slack, and neither will his wife. Meanwhile, the Republican primaries have turned into a Ronald Reagan Adoration Contest. Neither ex-president deserves what he is getting. Clinton is a victim of long memories, Reagan is a beneficiary of short ones.

In the Republican debate at the Reagan Library on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain repeated his story about how he and other prisoners of war used to discuss this exciting new governor of California using tap codes through the walls of a North Vietnamese prison. Like many of the great man's own treasured anecdotes, it might be true. Unlike Reagan, McCain is a genuine war hero, so if he has overpolished this story a bit (it comes out almost word-for-word each time), he is honoring the great man by imitation if nothing else. In the debate, McCain repeatedly called himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." He declared that Republicans have "betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending."

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, kept repeating, inanely, "We're in the house that Reagan built." Reagan "would say lower taxes" and "Reagan would say lower spending." Reagan "would say no way" to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Reagan would never "walk out of Iraq." And, by the way, McCain's accusation that Romney harbors a secret timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is "the kind of dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found to be reprehensible."

A problem: Reagan actually signed the law that authorized the last amnesty, back in 1986. Romney deals with this small difficulty by declaring: "Reagan saw it. It didn't work." He offers no evidence that Reagan had a change of heart about amnesty, and learning from experience was not something Reagan was known for. The proper cliché is McCain's: "Ronald Reagan came with an unshakeable set of principles." And -- pointedly -- "Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is."

All of this is what Democrats these days refer to as "a fairy tale."

There is no evidence that Reagan was bothered by the rough and tumble of political campaigns. Mischaracterization of an opponent didn't even qualify as a "dirty trick" to Reagan, due to his fantastic ability to believe anything helpful. Compare Romney's whining about how McCain didn't give him enough time to respond to the Iraq timetable accusation with Reagan's masterful "There you go again" against Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Would Reagan "walk out of" Iraq? Far from clear. He scurried out of Lebanon fast enough after things got hot there in 1984. During the Reagan years the United States was actually pro-Iraq in its war against Iran, although we also sold weapons to Iran in order to raise money for a terrorist war we were secretly financing in Nicaragua, while denouncing terrorism. It's hard to find any "unshakeable set of principles" in this mess.

McCain declared in Wednesday's debate that he would appoint Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- that is, reliable conservatives. Romney characteristically upped the ante: "I would apppove ... justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas."

Roberts and Alito were appointed by George W. Bush and Clarence Thomas was appointed by his father. Reagan did appoint Antonin Scalia, but he also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, an unbending pragmatist who postponed the conservative revolution in constitutional law for a generation.

But the biggest fairy tale about Reagan is the most central one: about taxes and spending. It is one thing to sit in a North Vietnamese prison in the early 1970s, dreaming of a California governor who one day will balance the federal budget. It is another to imagine that it actually happened. When Reagan took office in 1981, federal receipts (taxes) were $517 billion and outlays (spending) were $591 billion for a deficit of $73 billion. When he left office in 1989, taxes were $999 billion and spending was $1.14 trillion, for a deficit of $153 billion. As a share of the economy (the fairest measure), Reagan did cut taxes, from 19.6 percent to 18.4 percent, and he cut spending from 22.2 to 21.2 percent, increasing the deficit from 2.6 percent to 2.8 percent. The deficit went as high as an incredible five percent of GDP during Reagan's term. As a result, the national debt soared by almost two thirds.

You can fiddle with these numbers -- assuming that it takes another year or two for a president's policies to take effect, or taking defense costs out of your calculation, and the basic result is the same or worse. Whatever, these numbers hardly constitute a "revolution."

John McCain's stagy self-flagellation, on behalf of all Republicans, for betraying the Reagan Revolution when they controlled Congress and the White House at the beginning of this decade, is entirely misplaced. In fact, President Bush and the Republican Congress did precisely what Reagan did: they cut taxes, mainly on the well-to-do, but they barely touched spending.

If the Republicans are looking around for an icon to worship, they might consider Bill Clinton. He cut spending from 21.4 percent of GDP to 18.5 percent. That's three times as much as Reagan. True, he raised taxes from 17.6 percent to 19.8 percent, but that's still a smaller chunk than the government was claiming when Reagan left office. And, of course, he left us with an annual surplus that threatened to eliminate the national debt.

What's more, I think he's available.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

More reasons why Ron Paul will not win

The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul
What's wrong with libertarianism?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011101859.html

By Michael Kinsley
Saturday, January 12, 2008; 12:00 AM

Libertarians get patronized a lot. Chipmunky and earnest, always pursuing logical consistency down wacky paths, they pose no real threat to the established order. But the modest success of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in the presidential campaign entitles them to some answers to the questions they raise. They say: People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If you agree, how do you justify (let's pick just two): 1) laws that forbid private behavior, such as recreational drugs; 2) government programs that redistribute one person's money to someone else?

The libertarian perspective is useful, and undervalued. Why does the government pay farmers not to grow food? Why are medications for fatal diseases sometimes held off the market in case they aren't safe? (Compared to death?) Legislators and regulators should ask themselves far more often than they do whether some government activity or other expands freedom or contracts it.

Furthermore, democracy and majority rule are no answers. Tyranny of the majority is a constant danger. How would you like a law requiring that people with odd Social Security numbers have to give $1,000 to people with even Social Security numbers? To libertarians, much of what the government does is essentially like that.

So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are "externalities," which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want.

There are "market-oriented" solutions to this problem, but there is a difference --often forgotten, especially by Republicans -- between using market forces and leaving something to the market. The point of principle is whether the government should intervene at all. How it chooses to intervene is purely pragmatic.

Libertarians have a fondness for complex arrangements to make markets work in situations where the textbooks say they can't. Hey, let's issue stamps, y'see, and use the revenues to form a corporation that sells stock to buy military equipment, then the government leases the equipment and the stockholders vote on whether to user it -- and so on. The point becomes proving a point, not economic or government efficiency.

Libertarians also have a tendency to see too many issues in terms of property rights (just as liberals, they would counter, tend to see everything in terms of discrimination and equal protection). Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air. Settle it in court. This is a really terrible idea: inexpert judges, lawyers and juries using the most elaborate and expensive decision-making process known to humankind -- litigation -- to make inconsistent decisions in different cases. And usually there is no one "right" answer: There is a spectrum of acceptable answers, involving tradeoffs (dirty air versus fewer jobs, etc.) that ought to be made democratically -- that is, through government.

Sometimes libertarians end up reinventing the wheel. My favorite example is an article I read years ago advocating privatization of highways. This is a classic libertarian fantasy: government auctions off the land, private enterprise pays for construction and maintenance, tolls cover the cost, competition with other routes keeps it all efficient. And what about, um, intersections? Well, markets would recognize that it is more efficient for one company to own both roads at major intersections, and when that happened the company would have an incentive to strike the right balance between customers on each highway. And stoplights? Ultimately, the author had worked his way up to a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them. None dare call it government.

Something similar goes on when the government forbids or requires people to do something for their own good. Why shouldn't people, at least adult people, have the right to decide for themselves? Libertarian thinking has been useful, for example, in making it easier to get prescription drugs through the maze at the FDA. The Terry Shiavo case of 2005 was libertarianism's greatest moment so far, as the entire nation rose up in defense of her right to die.

The trouble here is that libertarians tend to analogize everything to a right to die. If you have the right to end your own life, you must have the right to do anything else you wish, short of that. If you're allowed to shoot yourself through the head, why aren't you allowed to drive without a seat belt?

The answer is that it's a bad analogy. When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death -- especially your death in a car crash -- does impose externalities on others. I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right like the right to die may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not.

Llibertarians are quick to see hidden costs of ignoring libertarian principles and slow to see such costs in adhering to them. For example, Tucker Carlson reports in the Dec. 31 New Republic that Ron Paul wants to end the federal ban on unpasteurized milk. No one should want to drink unpasteurized milk, and almost no one does. Paul himself doesn't. But it bothers him that the government tells people they cannot do something they shouldn't do.Libertarians would say that if most people want pasteurized milk, the market will supply it. Firms will emerge to certify that milk has been pasteurized. These firms will compete, keeping them honest.

So yes, a Rube Goldberg contraption of capitalism could replace a straightforward government regulation. But what if you aren't interested in turning your grocery shopping into an ideological adventure? All that is lost by letting the government take care of it is the right of a few idiots to be idiots. That right deserves respect. But not much.

A similar flaw affects libertarian thinking about government-mandated redistribution. Extreme libertarians believe this is immoral or even unconstitutional, and even more moderate libertarians disapprove of government social welfare programs as an infringement on the freedom of taxpayers. But freedom is only one of the two core values our nation was built on. The other is equality. Defining equality, libertarians tend to take a narrow view, believing that it means only political equality with no financial aspects. Defining freedom, by contrast, they take a broad view, and see a violation in every nickel a citizen must spend.

Libertarians ask: By what justification does the government concern itself with inequality -- financial or otherwise -- in the first place? They are nearly alone in asking this question. Even conservatives claim a great concern for equality of opportunity, while opposing opportunity of result. And the reasons seem obvious: some degree of material equality as a necessary basis for political equality; the huge role of luck in getting each of us to our relative stations in life; etc.

But nothing like this is obvious to libertarians. They force us to think it all through from scratch. Good for them.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Wow! The battle of the cut and paste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Ah the good old days of overated Reagan and underated Clinton...
Clinton was a joke in every aspect.

The ONLY thing he had going for him was the advent of the INTERNET. Without it, he was a total failure in every respect.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

The voters re elected Clinton to a second term so they obviously had a smarter higher opinion of him than you.
And he didn't have to steal an election or start a phony war to get re elected.Clinton's big embarassment was the trivial Lewinsky scandal but Bush has been an embarassment for his whole term. The late governor of Texas Ann Richardson was fond of saying Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth and it's been evident almost everytime he's opened his mouth in public.

McCain will win the nomination and it delights me how you pure conservatives feel like sucking on eggs over this.
As a real war hero and former POW he will keep this country safe and strong while bringing the more moderate voters into the fold and offer a kinder gentler social policy.
This time the joke's on you.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
As a real war hero and former POW he will keep this country safe and strong while bringing the more moderate voters into the fold and offer a kinder gentler social policy.
You know what happens when you get old, you get weak.

I remember not too many years back walking into a house with 6 guys between the ages of 75 and 90. They were bawling like babies.

They had been together deer hunting for 50 years as a group. Suddenly they felt bad about killing all those bambies.

My bud and I walked out in disgust. In the morning every guy came up to us and apologized. It was the saddest thing I had ever seen in my life.

The next saddest thing I have seen in my life was the Bill Klinton presidency.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
offer a kinder gentler social policy.
Oh, you must mean a quicker redistribution of wealth. Real nice. Go get a job and quit leeching off of everyone else.



Posted by: shagdrum

[quote=04SCTLS;350590]
Quote:
The voters re elected Clinton to a second term so they obviously had a smarter higher opinion of him than you.
Higher opinion, yes. Smarter? nope.

It should be pointed out, Clinton never got a majority of the vote in either election. Perot gave him both elections.




Quote:
And he didn't have to steal an election or start a phony war to get re elected.
That is nothing but lies and distortion



Quote:
As a real war hero and former POW he will keep this country safe and strong
Being a war hero and/or a former POW doesn't qualify you to be able to be the commander in chief of the military, or the head of american foeign policy.



Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
The voters re elected Clinton to a second term so they obviously had a smarter higher opinion of him than you.
As stated, he never won an election with more than 50% of the vote.

But despite that, Clinton was very lucky. He had a media that was very supportive, and he happened to come to power at a funny moment in our history. Responsible leaders had won the cold war, they had instituted the tax cuts that enabled the economic investments of the 80s that lead to the tech boom of the 90s.

Clinton gets credit for ONE thing, and frankly I think it might have been completely by accident. Because of his fund raising he was tied in with the investors at Goldman Sachs. Those guys provided the Clinton administration ALOT of money, in return they had ALOT of influence and were appointed to many high level positions.

It was because of those money men the Asia Economic Crisis didn't come crashing back on us, or trigger a worldwide depression.

Other than that, Clinton either screwed it, screwed it up, took credit for something the Republican congress did, or ignored it.


Quote:
And he didn't have to steal an election or start a phony war to get re elected.
Actually, when do you think the term "Wag the Dog" become part of the culture?

Quote:
McCain will win the nomination and it delights me how you pure conservatives feel like sucking on eggs over this.
And why is that? And what is a "pure conservative" anyway? Someone who supports strong borders, low taxes, capitalism, and free speech? Someone who supports strict constitutionalist judges like Sam Alito? Which part of that do you have contempt for?

Quote:
As a real war hero and former POW he will keep this country safe and strong while bringing the more moderate voters into the fold and offer a kinder gentler social policy.

This time the joke's on you.
Actually, it'll be on you. I don't agree that he's no different from Hillary. I think that is a ridiculous statement to make, regardless who's making it.

But I always find it interesting that the ideal candidate for a liberal is a socialist in a uniform, they seem to think that provides them the cover needed to push legislation on the public that would be rejected if presented by a San Fransico hippy. "Let's find a military guy who hates the military and hates free markets!!"

Fortunately, you're not going to get that with McCain.
Unfortunately that another reason why I think he's a bad nominee. Liberals who like him, don't like him enough to vote for him over an Obama. And conservatives who don't like him, won't vote for him either.

And if you alienate the base, that means you have no campaign presence. You have no grass roots energy. You can't raise money. You can't get enough phone callers, sign waivers, door to door campaigners, or buzz....

If McCain keeps winning on Tuesday, he better make some MAJOR gestures to the base of the party. He should get Duncan Hunter to run as his VP, or some true-conservative statesman. He needs to do some TOUGH interviews with guys like Rush, Beck, or Hannity, NOT Jay Leno.

I haven't given up hope on the party, or McCain quite yet. I personal like the man. But the love affair in the press will end once he's the real candidate. And those liberals who love him now will not support him in the general.

If Obama wins, and McCain wins, we're in big trouble.

I do think McCain might be able to beat Hillary though.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMark View Post
Oh, you must mean a quicker redistribution of wealth. Real nice. Go get a job and quit leeching off of everyone else.
You are easily provoked, and always seem to jump to your shrill emotional conclusions.
Nothing you say seems to be elegant or thoughtful or well reasoned.
Your anecdotes about old people are just cliches that don't prove anything about McCain.
Ronald Reagan was the oldest man elected president and you guys loved him.
To you all liberals are on the dole and ask for handouts.
I'm a business owner and in the top 2% of income earners
and tax payers. I have "conserved" a lot of that for my own use.
My tax bill for 2007 will probably be close to 1 million dollars
most of which has already be prepaid.
I don't leach anything of anybody unless you consider helping to comply with ADA a redistribution of wealth.
That policy was brought in by Bush Senior.
I help the physically disadvantaged and I help myself while I'm at it.
I think McCain will be good for the country and already the conservatives are starting to line up behind him.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
My tax bill for 2007 will probably be close to 1 million dollars most of which has already be prepaid.
Wonderful, so you're one of the few 'Rich' liberals that don't mind giving half your money away to the federal government so they can redistribute it. You must be taking after Bill Clinton.

Got a question for you.
Do you pay only what the government tells you to pay or do you voluntarily pay more (to ease your conscience) and help out the less fortunate liberals at the bottom of the ant hill?

Sounds to me like all the rich liberals feel they don't pay enough in taxes. You guys could solve the deficit simply by giving the government ALL your money. Think how good you would feel!



Posted by: fossten

I still don't get this 'war hero' crap. Exactly what did John McCain do to qualify as a war hero besides getting shot down multiple times and being captured? Someone please enlighten me.

POW does not equal war hero.

Audie Murphy was a war hero. Chesty Puller was a war hero. MacArthur and Patton were war heroes. McCain? Not so much.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
You are easily provoked, and always seem to jump to your shrill emotional conclusions.
Nothing you say seems to be elegant or thoughtful or well reasoned.
I love to jump on liberals. You are afflicted with a disease and I'm the doctor. Just trying to treat you quickly so you get well.

You must have had tears in your eyes from being so happy when you saw all those wonderful hollywood liberals sitting in the seats close to the stage at the last Dem debate, watching the 'Dream Team' bloviate. I know I got the warm fuzzies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Your anecdotes about old people are just cliches that don't prove anything about McCain..
I was making fun because according to the liberals, we need a young guy like Osama who doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground to lead us to the promised land. Oh, and to bring us together. I love it when liberals talk about how George Bush was divisive. You ain't seen nothing yet when one of the 'Dream Team' gets into office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Ronald Reagan was the oldest man elected president and you guys loved him..
Ronald Reagan was the greatest President ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
To you all liberals are on the dole and ask for handouts.
I'm a business owner and in the top 2% of income earners
and tax payers. I have "conserved" a lot of that for my own use..
All you need is a bicycle, a one bedroom apartment, and one child. Everything else you should give to the government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
I think McCain will be good for the country and already the conservatives are starting to line up behind him.
McCain is a liberal. That is why the media loves him. Trust me. The Conservatives are not lining up behind McCain. That is what the media wants you to believe. True conservatives will be willing to sit this one out.

I would rather have Hillary take the throne and take my chances in 4 years.

Wait for some more attacks on U.S. soil.
What for the tax bills to hit middle America.
Wait for us to get tied up in 3 more civil wars.
Wait for global warming legislation to choke off business.
Wait for the Supreme Court to swing left again, making up the rules as they go along.
Wait for Emminent Domain to come and take your house.
Wait for the nanny state and a camera on every corner.
Wait for national I.D. card so I can be tracked everywhere I go.
Wait for mandate after mandate after mandate.

I waiting for the next civil war here in the U.S. I'll be patient.



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMark View Post
McCain is a liberal. That is why the media loves him. Trust me. The Conservatives are not lining up behind McCain. That is what the media wants you to believe. True conservatives will be willing to sit this one out.

I would rather have Hillary take the throne and take my chances in 4 years.
You sound like me all of a sudden.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Actually Monstermark my tax rate is 35% and I'm happy to keep the other 65%.
I don't give any extra money to the government to ease my conscience.

McCain is the closest we have to a war hero as a candidate.
He didn't duck the service like Bush and Cheney did.
At least he personallly knows what it means to be under fire.
As a POW McCain, the son of a prominant general was offered better accomodations if he denounced the american war effort but refused and was tortured.
He won't be swiftboated like Kerry was because people just won't believe that conservative smear.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Maybe you should join the service Monstermark.
For all your waiting and patience life will pass you by before
all the calamities you allude to will allegedly happen.



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
He didn't duck the service like Bush and Cheney did.
This is debatable, but...

You didn't mention the FACT that Clinton fled the country to avoid the draft. Bush did actually serve in the national guard. And his father was a jet pilot.

You're showing your true colors by only citing facts that you approve of. This is known as intellectual dishonesty.



Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten View Post
I still don't get this 'war hero' crap. Exactly what did John McCain do to qualify as a war hero besides getting shot down multiple times and being captured? Someone please enlighten me.

POW does not equal war hero.

Audie Murphy was a war hero. Chesty Puller was a war hero. MacArthur and Patton were war heroes. McCain? Not so much.
First of all, he wasn't "shot down multiple times." He was shot down flying missions over Vietnam. It was the 23rd mission. And it followed an event on an aircraft carrier where his jet was hit by a rocket from another plane. McCain was hurt, hit with shrapnel and burnt, and many people on the carrier deck died.

It's one thing to disagree with some of his policy decisions, it's another to make such distasteful attacks on the guy like challenging his military status.

He's also been awarded a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals. Let's not go down the path of arguing "well, did anyone actually SEE him earn those awards... Where were the two witnesses in the torture chamber with him to report it??"

Any POW, those guys who spent years being tortured in solitary confinement for years, are heroes, McCain in particular. He showed valor, sacrifice, and love of country. Did he lead a charge up a hill and capture a city? Of course not. But to diminish the service of McCain is to diminish the service of every guy who served nobly over there.

Our society does over use the term hero, often to the point that it loses meaning. I don't take offense when it's applied to a man who sacrificed so much in the service of the Air Force.



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
McCain is the closest we have to a war hero as a candidate.
Again, irrelevant for presidency



Quote:
He didn't duck the service like Bush and Cheney did.
More lies...


Quote:
He won't be swiftboated like Kerry was because people just won't believe that conservative smear.

So, you won't believe the swiftboat thing (which was backed up), but you buy all the "Bush lied", "dodged service" and "stole the election" stuff even though none of that has any credible evidence (if any at all) to back it up? Can you say blatant double standard?



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
He didn't duck the service like Bush and Cheney did.
Let's see...
Bush served but that wasn't good enough for you.
Cheney got deferred.

Bill Clinton didn't serve. He was too busy studying up on socialism and communism. Bill Clinton used his political connections and made commitments and promises he failed to keep, all in an effort to avoid the draft. Clinton later claimed "it was a fluke" that he wasn't drafted. He resorted to deception and manipulation where needed to avoid the draft.

Hillary Clinton. Virtually every secret service agent and state patrol agent that has ever served under her holds nothing but disdain for her.

John Kerry, don't even get me started. Asked for 4 deferments before 'volunteering' when he found out his 5th was going to be denied. Falsified his records and wounded himself to get out early. Went on to become one of the greatest treasonists in the history of our Country.

Barack Obama...he was too busy smoking pot, snorting coke and selling drugs to be of any use to anyone so he decided to become a 'liberal legislator' when he 'grew up'.

I love liberals. They always deflect and accuse others of what they know deep inside they themselves are guilty of. Sad.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Maybe you should join the service Monstermark.
I would love to. One of the great regrets in my life. Too old now.

I best serve my country now by smacking down liberalism whenever I get the chance.

I'm pretty sure one of my boys will serve. I already bought him his 1st semi-automatic at the tender age of 6. No plastic toys for this guy. Been grooming him to kill islamo-fascists. I waterboard him every couple of months just to get him toughened up.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Since the Bush sentence on america is almost up we can forget about his DUI and self confessed alchoholic admission of drinking too much to the point of needing religion to quit at 40. During a secretly taped conversation he pretty well owned up to his own drug use while explaining why he would not comment about this when questioned by reporters during the election.
Bush only served in the National Guard knowing he was safe from real combat. Of course as president he sent the Guard to Iraq away from their stated purpose of protecting us here if we are attacked on american soil.
And Cheney had 2 DUI's in his past but he's out of office within a year also.
The typical person busted for DUI has probably driven drunk a thousand times before getting arrested.
I never said I didn't believe some of the swift boat claims just that this approach does not apply to McCain.
McCain being a war hero may be irrelevant to shagdrum but it does carry a lot of weight with plenty of voters.
Having experienced warfare first hand and decorated by the military he will be more thoughtful and caring about sending our troops into harms way.



Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
The typical person busted for DUI has probably driven drunk a thousand times before getting arrested.
Looking in the mirror again.

Oh I get it, you've never had a drink in your life. Either that or you would never, ever, get into a car and turn the key if a drop of alcohol had crossed your lips.

Must be nice to live a perfect life.

We better hurry up and install those breathalyzes in every car, along with a chip to keep the car from going over the posted speed limit and the gps to let your boss know every-time you decide to stop at the local food store to pick something up for your wife if it happens to be during work hours.

I do understand the nanny-state is your idea of the perfect utopia.



Posted by: ford nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMark View Post
I'm pretty sure one of my boys will serve. I already bought him his 1st semi-automatic at the tender age of 6. No plastic toys for this guy. Been grooming him to kill islamo-fascists. I waterboard him every couple of months just to get him toughened up.
OMG now thats funny



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMark View Post
.

Barack Obama...he was too busy smoking pot, snorting coke and selling drugs to be of any use to anyone so he decided to become a 'liberal legislator' when he 'grew up'.
You brought this up and even embellished it accusing Obama of selling drugs, but excuse Bush with a well no one's perfect apology even though he was 30 when arrested(hardly a youthful indescretion)

Drunk driving(defined as being over .08 now, .10 when Bush and Cheney were arrested)is a serious social problem but you somehow extrapolate a few facts into a non sequeter accusing me of
favoring a nanny state utopia because it fits your silly stereotype and makes you somehow feel better.
Your responses strike me as bombastic, hot headed and
self discrediting.
At least fossten, shagrum and calabrio are calm and tempered in their retorts when skewering me.



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Drunk driving(defined as being over .08 now, .10 when Bush and Cheney were arrested)

Now Cheney was arrested too? I hadn't heard that.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Here you go

http://www.opednews.com/hamiltonAlex_100304_DUIDWI.htm



Posted by: 04SCTLS

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Interesting, hadn't heard that.

Gotta admit I am still a little skeptical, as the cite referenced doesn't seem like the most objective site in the world, and if you look hard enough I am sure you could find a Richard Cheney with a DUI record, or just forge the record (as in the case of the CBS/Dan Rather/ Bush national guard story). As is stands, I can't disprove it, but I also can't confirm it on another source. I only spent about 5 minutes looking, though. Started at Wikipedia.

*edit* Confirmed:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004...earlylife.html
Dissatisfied with the work, he reportedly began drinking more, leading to two DUI arrests within a year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071202102.html
After recounting Cheney's bucolic Nebraska boyhood, Hayes touches all the bases, ably relating his multiple failures as a scholarship student at Yale and the drinking (two DUI arrests) and dead-end jobs that subsequently filled his time back in Wyoming.




Posted by: fossten

Ah, it was 1963 when Cheney was cited for drunk driving. 45 years ago. He was 22. Okay, I'll give you that one, he exercised poor judgment. See, I'm being intellectually honest.

Since you've failed to acknowledge my point about Clinton's draft dodging (not intellectually honest), let me make another one that you simply must address.

Clinton had numerous affairs, which are expository on his character. They also demonstrate bad judgment. He also lied about it to the American people, and unlike the "Bush lied" debunked baloney, this was documented and provable. He lost his law license because he lied to a federal judge about it.

The difference is, Cheney's DUI was when he was 22, thirty-seven years before he served as VP. Clinton's foibles happened all throughout his political career, including during two terms as President. How can you so blithely bash Cheney for his long-past bad judgment and give Clinton a pass on his continual bad judgment? That is known as intellectual dishonesty and cuts deeply into your credibility as an open-minded, critical thinker.



Posted by: shagdrum

When Zod is president, all this will be irrelevant as everyone, including the terrorists, and the son of Jor-el will kneel...BEFORE ZOD!!!


LOL



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Ok fossten,
I'll admit Clinton did everything he could to avoid the draft.He got a deferrment when he went to college. Dick Cheney got four deferrments. It is one way people got out of going to Vietnam.
I would argue that Cheney actively pursued every type of deferrment to avoid going but Clinton definitely got his "get out of going to Vietnam free" card through his family connections and studying in England.
The French spent 10 years in Vietnam and got out.
The US went in based on the phoney Gulf of Tomken incident.
I'd say Cheney, Clinton, Bush and many others showed good judgement avoiding serving in a pointless unwinnable war that divided the country, cost billions and 58,000 american casualties. After the US
left Vietnam the world order didn't change much which showed the reasons for going in were not worth the effort.
Though a good policy wonk Bill loved being a womanizer
modeling himself after John F Kennedy but having much poorer trailer park taste with maybe a few exceptions.
Ultimately this came back to bite him with the Lewinsky
scandal although lying about an affair with a woman not his wife hardly qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor.
The graphic tawdriness of the allegations embarassed the country, appalled parents because they couldn't hide this from the kids and Bill's contention that oral sex was not sex because it's not mentioned in the bible(kind of an odd omission) was laughable and disengenuine at best.
Clinton did show bad judgement in how he handled the whole thing and part of the reason he's so active in Hillary's campaign is that he really has no legacy other than being a good manager for his watch and want's to be remembered for more than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky" although that will never be forgotten.
Much of the country now is tired of Bush and the whole Iraq misadventure from Mission Accomplished on.
The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is of that there is no draft. The troops are volunteers and the mercinaries are paid for plus the casualties are much lower.
McCain is not campaigning on ending the war anytime soon but even anti war people find his personality appealing which carries more weight than weather he follows pure conservative values.
He doesn't need the whole conservative base to win, just a part of it and Huckabee is becoming a spoiler like Perot or Nader, splitting the evangelicals keeping Romney from winning. I find this circumstance most delicious in that the base is offing itself.
Romney's personality comes off pretty flat in comparison to McCain and this will probably turn the nomination in his favor.
Super Tuesday may well wrap it up for McCain so the anticipation is great.
Quite a turn of events with McCain coming back from the dead where he was 6 months ago.



Posted by: Calabrio

Another important distinction-

Cheney got deferments, BECAUSE HE HAD A FAMILY. He was married with children, and then attending college.

Additionally, he didn't dodge the draft only to go overseas and protest the war- as Clinton did.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm



Posted by: MonsterMark

Thank you 04SCTLS for being intellectually honest

It has been a breath of fresh air from the Left. It may also explain why so few people from the Left survive their first week on this site.

I, myself, appreciate the banter you have provided. Thanks.



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Ultimately this came back to bite him with the Lewinsky
scandal although lying about an affair with a woman not his wife hardly qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor.
I appreciate your words, and I only have one correction to make concerning the above quoted statement.

Clinton did not just lie about having sex. He suborned perjury and attempted to use his Presidential authority to obstruct justice in a civil legal trial (the Paula Jones lawsuit) where he tried to get Monica to lie. He also lied to a federal court and was cited for contempt of court by a federal judge. He lied on camera while pointing his finger in the faces of the American people.

I get tired of hearing "Clinton was impeached for a bj" when it was far more serious than that.



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten View Post
I appreciate your words, and I only have one correction to make concerning the above quoted statement.

Clinton did not just lie about having sex. He suborned perjury and attempted to use his Presidential authority to obstruct justice in a civil legal trial (the Paula Jones lawsuit) where he tried to get Monica to lie. He also lied to a federal court and was cited for contempt of court by a federal judge. He lied on camera while pointing his finger in the faces of the American people.

I get tired of hearing "Clinton was impeached for a bj" when it was far more serious than that.
It should also be pointed out that Clinton did far more then Nixon ever did. Nixon lied to the American people, that's it. He never did anything that was even close to breaking the law. Clinton lied to the American people and commited purjury and obstruction of justice, as well as a few other things. Both Bill and Hillary are on record during Watergate as saying that Nixon should step down or be removed from office (Hillary was even involved in the legal research Congress had done on impeachment during Watergate). If you think it was right for Nixon to step down, and that if he hadn't, he should have been removed from office, then you must say the same about Clinton, or show a blatant double standard. the Clintons had an obvious double standard.



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Much of the country now is tired of Bush and the whole Iraq misadventure from Mission Accomplished on.
Not so sure I would call Iraq a "misadventure", but generally, yes this is the perception. Dick Morris says that the country is itching for a Democrat president, and McCain is the only GOP canidate who has a chance at beating the Hillary.




Quote:
He [McCain] doesn't need the whole conservative base to win, just a part of it and Huckabee is becoming a spoiler like Perot or Nader, splitting the evangelicals keeping Romney from winning.
In this instance, yeah McCain doesn't neccessarily need the conservative base to win the nomination because of Huckabee, in large part.

Quote:
I find this circumstance most delicious in that the base is offing itself.
Don't forget that there is a civil war goin on in the democrat party between the Hillary supporters and the big "O" supporters. When it comes to issues, there isn't much difference between the two (unlike Romney and McCain), it's just a power struggle.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yes Bill really f***d up and dug himself into a huge hole.

But it really can't be compared with Watergate.
The paranoia in the Nixon white house about the war protesters and the Democratic party was completely unjustified since he won a second term in a landslide.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

Watergate is a general term for a series of political scandals during the presidency of Richard Nixon, that began with five men being arrested after breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972. The scandal reached to the top levels of American government, and the attempted cover-up of the break-in would ultimately lead to Nixon's dramatic resignation on August 9, 1974.
Investigations conducted by the FBI, Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee and the press revealed that this burglary was just one of many illegal activities authorized and carried out by Nixon's staff and those loyal to him. They also revealed the immense scope of crimes and abuses, which included campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations.[1] This secret fund was also used as hush money to buy silence of the seven men who were indicted for the June 17 break-in.[2][3] President Nixon and his staff conspired to cover up the break-in as early as six days after it occurred. [4] After enduring two years of mounting evidence against the President and his staff, which included former staff members testifying against them in a Senate investigation, it was revealed that Nixon had a tape recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.[5][6] Undeniable evidence, spoken by Nixon and recorded on tape, revealed that he had obstructed justice and attempted to cover up the break-in.[4][7] This recorded conversation later became known as the Smoking Gun. After a series of court battles, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the President must hand over the tapes; he ultimately complied. With certainty of an impeachment in the House of Representatives and of a conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned ten days later, becoming the only U.S. President to have resigned from office.

Shagdrum I don't know how you can dismiss this as nothing.



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by 04SCTLS View Post
Yes Bill really f***d up and dug himself into a huge hole.

But it really can't be compared with Watergate.
The paranoia in the Nixon white house about the war protesters and the Democratic party was completely unjustified since he won a second term in a landslide.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

Watergate is a general term for a series of political scandals during the presidency of Richard Nixon, that began with five men being arrested after breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972. The scandal reached to the top levels of American government, and the attempted cover-up of the break-in would ultimately lead to Nixon's dramatic resignation on August 9, 1974.
Investigations conducted by the FBI, Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee and the press revealed that this burglary was just one of many illegal activities authorized and carried out by Nixon's staff and those loyal to him. They also revealed the immense scope of crimes and abuses, which included campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations.[1] This secret fund was also used as hush money to buy silence of the seven men who were indicted for the June 17 break-in.[2][3] President Nixon and his staff conspired to cover up the break-in as early as six days after it occurred. [4] After enduring two years of mounting evidence against the President and his staff, which included former staff members testifying against them in a Senate investigation, it was revealed that Nixon had a tape recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.[5][6] Undeniable evidence, spoken by Nixon and recorded on tape, revealed that he had obstructed justice and attempted to cover up the break-in.[4][7] This recorded conversation later became known as the Smoking Gun. After a series of court battles, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the President must hand over the tapes; he ultimately complied. With certainty of an impeachment in the House of Representatives and of a conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned ten days later, becoming the only U.S. President to have resigned from office.

Shagdrum I don't know how you can dismiss this as nothing.
I didn't think I dismissed the Nixon thing, merly compared it to the Clinton impeachment. That is a very accurate comparison, because articles of impeachment were drawn up in both cases, in fact, a lot of our legal knowledge was collected in the buildup to the Nixon impeachment by Representative Peter Rodino’s House Judiciary Committee which issued a report called “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment”. This report, dubbed the Rodino Report was the work of many lawyers, including Bernard Nussbaum (Clinton’s first White House counsel) and a young lawyer by the name of Hillary Rodham. This report spells out what was intended by the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as well a expanding on what constitutes an impeachable offense.


There was a lot of hyperbole and distortion surrounding the Nixon case as well as the Clinton case. There were claims that Nixon was "shredding the constitution" which were gross exagerations of the constitutional question surrounding the case. To be clear and accurate; impeachment proceedings against Nixon were set in motion not by the underlying crime committed by persons known to the president but by Nixon's resistance to the investigation.



Yes, Nixon's paranoia led to the impeachment proceedings and his resignation, just like Clintons infidelities led to his impeachment. Both dug their own holes. However, the media was actively working against Nixon during Watergate (they had a grudge against him going back to Alger Hiss), while the media was actively defending and spinning for Clinton.

In order to say that the Nixon issue was bigger then the Clinton issue, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are looking at the issues surrounding the Nixon case (not directly tied to Nixon), while looking only at the charges against Clinton ( and not all of them, at that).



To be clear, Clinton knowingly did the following; committed a criminal felony in two areas; First he lied under oath, perjuring himself, and second, he suborned perjury from Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. While breaking the law is obviously an impeachable offense, Clinton went further. By lying to the American public, he betrayed the public trust. By using lawyers paid for by the government to suborn perjury and solicit a job as payoff, Clinton abused the powers and influence of his office, as well as opening himself up to accusations of corruption.

Nixon knowingly did the following; lied to the American people; betraying the public trust. He also invoked executive privillage in a constitutionally questionable manner. It was constitutionally questionable at the time, not unconstitutional, as the media spun it by saying Nixon was "shredding the constitution". The Supreme Court later ruled on the issue and it them became unconstitutional, but that is hardly impeachable, as at the time of it being issued the constitutionality wasn't clear.

Basically, Nixon lied to the American people (for self-serving reasons), betraying their trust, which is clearly impeachable and warrants removal from office. Clinton did this, but went further, abusing his powers, purjuring himself and suborning purjury from others. If any one of these issues is bigger and more serious (at the presidential/impeachment level), it is Clinton.



Posted by: Jayce 1971

Here's a current link of some impeachment votes going on across the country right now.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/resolutions-list
OMG I just noticed that there really is a town called "Jericho". At least it's not in Kansas!



Posted by: Calabrio

Another interesting bit of trivia-

Hillary was actively involved in the effort to have Nixon impeached in 1974. She was a worked on the impeachment inquiry staff that worked to find historical precident to impeach Nixon.



Posted by: 04SCTLS

I think Nixon's crimes were of a much more serious nature.
Clinton lied about personal affairs he had with women
and abused his power subborning perjury etc etc, but Nixon was subverting the political process and trying to sabotage his opponents.
One was merely a personal crime and the other was a crime against the state.



Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayce 1971