What James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and the WPF Are M

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I really can't believe I'm reading this!

You do realize that your NO VOTE is a vote for the demoncrats!

I'm not a very political person, but even I understand this!

that is true renda and i also agree with you on condaleeza rice, she is awesome, i wish she would be on the ticket, lol dt

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

McCain has a 24 year Senate career. He came to Washington during the Reagan years and describes himself as a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution". He has voted thousands upon thousands of times over the years. His voting record is strongly conservative. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is an 82.3. Over 80% of McCain's Senate votes are rated as conservative. The votes he is being made famous for by his detractors are the ones on tax cuts, illegal immigration, and campaign finance reform.

Let's examine these votes. McCain voted against the tax cuts in the early Bush years not because he is opposed to tax cuts. He has voted overwhelmingly in favor of tax cuts in his carrer. His record bears this out. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not, unlike the Reagan tax cuts of his early Senate career, inclusive of cuts in spending. McCain foresaw the error of cutting taxes but not controlling spending and chose a principled stand, even against his own party. Had they listened to him, the Congress might still be in GOP hands. But in 2006 the American voters had had enough of the spend-happy Republicans and voted them out of office. Bush never vetoed one piece of legislation during the GOP-controlled Congress years. He should have listened to McCain.

The illegal immigration stand McCain took was a lesson learned, so he says. He says he learned through his plummeting popularity in the polls after the debacle that Americans want a secure border first before anything else is done. Whether he means that or not is a matter of judgment. Can you trust this man to say what means and mean what he says? More on this later.

The campaign finance reform legislation, "McCain-Feingold" as it is called, is seen by many as an affront to free-speech rights. I agree it is a poor piece of legislation. I don't defend McCain on this one per se. However, I will say this about McCain and his track record: the man consistently has opposed the corruption that pervades Washington, neither having received one dime of lobbyist money nor ever once earmarking a piece of legislation for pork barrel projects in his state. He has always been vocal against the corrupt practices in and around Washington and I believe this was part of his motivation for the ineffective legislation. He was trying to clean up the electoral process and remove the influence of special interests. Had the GOP heeded his warnings about corruption the Abramoff lobbyist scandal would not have happened and another reason for the anti-GOP sentiment that led to the 2006 electoral defeats could have been avoided.

Let's consider the alternatives. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Hillary is the Democratic opponent and conservatives stay home or vote third-party or do, as Ann Coulter has said, "vote for Hillary before I would vote for McCain", then rather than getting a President with an 82.3 score from the ACU, we will get one with a rating of 9. That's a voting record in six years as a Senator of 9% of the time agreeing with conservative values. Would you rather have a President who agrees with you 82% of the time or 9% of the time? That's what you and me and Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh and all of us who may decide to stay home as a matter of principle will get. The result if Obama is nominated by the Democrats is much the same.

Originally Posted by deacon blues

A Democrat? Do you not comprehend 82.3% conservative voting record? How does that make one a Democrat? Do you not understand the gist of the post? It is not about electing a Republican. Its about preventing one of two very, very, very liberal Democrats that will wholesale turn our way of life on its head versus a man who a MAJORITY of the time votes conservatively but has voted in a MINORITY of the times liberal.

Its like saying that FDR is no different than Josef Stalin. Thay may agree on a couple of points but there is a VAST difference. The Democrat in disguise characterization is little on the dramatic side. No its not. Its really, really dramatic---a lot dramatic.

Good posts. The facts in your first quote are verifiable.

[rgcraig]

Just blows my mind that some would rather not vote and allow someone 100% demoncrat in the office than to vote for someone that only voted 17% democratic.

[Pressing-On]

"In any case, conservatives need not worry that the fact that they must choose between Romney and McCain demonstrates (as some hopeful liberals have begun arguing) that the GOP is in some way loosening its ties to the conservative movement. The strenuous efforts of both men to win the approval of that movement tells us all we need to know about its strength in the Republican party. If either of them shows the slightest tendency to backslide, he will suffer immediate vengeance at the polls." - William Rusher

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Just blows my mind that some would rather not vote and allow someone 100% demoncrat in the office than to vote for someone that only voted 17% democratic.

i agree, for the good of the country i believe it is my responsibility to at least vote, and express my opinion, hey i live in a lib state, in the only part that is mostly republican, our votes on state matters hardly count, but we keep voting, lol, dt

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Still a compromise....it's sad how politics is played out and it's no wonder so many are feeling disenfranchised with the whole thing and don't vote...Vote for McCain...not because it is the best candidate but because there are others far worse and he has the only chance of defeating them.

Such is life. In 1976 Gerald Ford was a weak candidate against Jimmy Carter. Too bad they didn't nominate Ronald Reagan then, the four years that followed were a debacle and weakened our standing at home and abroad. Four years of Ford would've been a far cry better than the Carter years. I am telling you, if you don't get this simple fact that although having to "settle" for McCain the alternative will be a fate nearly worse than death.

Sometimes you have to be as Coonskinner says a "pragmatist" when it comes to politics. And that's coming from an ultra-con from Kansas! Hear ye the Word of the Cooskinner!!!!

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Just blows my mind that some would rather not vote and allow someone 100% demoncrat in the office than to vote for someone that only voted 17% democratic.

It's incredible.

To say that you are not going to vote because you can't depend on McCain to appoint constructionist judges to the court because it is known that some politicians break promises is assinine. They do not seem to realize that there is no doubt what kind of justices that the Demons will appoint.

Further, there is no doubt that the deomons will give up the war on Terrorism in an effort to appease our enemies.

I am totally shocked and dismayed at the attitude of some because their man will not get the nomination.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Yes, we get the "percentages".

It's not very apparent.

We're not stupid. Do you get the idea of a "protest vote" against a party? Or the idea of just "staying home", since a non-vote for the Republicans is almost like a vote for the other guys?

The idea of a protest vote can be effective, because the idea is to send a message to the party you're protesting against, letting them know you are unhappy with the direction they're taking. Obviously there is a possible short term loss, but theres also a possible greater gain in the the long run.

I'm assuming you mean that after four to eight years of President Barak or Hillary, we could get Reagan reincarnated? Its a risky gamble for a very small chance of getting the candidate of your dreams.

Four years of Carter produced one very tragic reality. Fundamentalist Islamic Iran. Under the tepid Carter the Ayatollah Khomeni rose to power and sowed the seeds of the reality of today. Until then terrorism was basically limited to ineffective groups like the PLO. After Iran fell into the hands of the radicals, terrorism began to increase and continued to gain in momentum until it came into full fruition on 9/11/01.

One can argue that Reagan would have been president eventually one day in spite of Carter. We can't say for sure that Carter was the price that had to be paid to gain Reagan. We can say for sure that under Carter's dismal four-year presidency the price we are paying today was not worth his tenure in the Oval Office.

Four to eight years Obama or Hillary will be a disaster for our country. I am not advocating republican kool aid. I am advocating what is best for America with the choices we are given. Its not ideal, but tell me when was the last Reaganesque presidential candidate since Reagan? Bush 1? Dole? GW? The federal government is larger than ever with the Dept of Homeland Security. A new expensive entitlement came into existence for seniors in the prescription drug benefit. Spending under Bush 2 is out of control. The deficit is larger than ever. The GOP was corrupt to the core during the Abramoff scandal. We are in a recession. W said he was a conservative. He has been a moderate conservative at best.

If you supported W you should be able to handle Mac. The alternative for some fantasy "greater gain" maybe, hopefully, keep your fingers crossed is really short sighted. The future is now.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You don't get it.

We are at war. THAT is the issue here. Four to eight years of Obama/Hillary defunding the military, defunding the intelligence community, of pulling out of the Middle East, of abdicating our sovereignty to the UN. We can't afford to "sit it out" because our guy isn't a party line guy. That is stupid. You go ahead and wait four to eight years of the Dems running the show and tell me you were glad they were in the White House and not McCain. I'll bet lots of money you will admit you were wrong.

Sometimes it takes a child abduction to get Amber's Law? Ask Amber's parents.

Really flawed logic. Really, really flawed.

Just as McCain will not in real life govern as a conservative, neither Hillary nor Obama in real life are going to reverse the war on terror. No matter WHAT they say to get elected by foaming-at-the-mouth MoveOn.org types.

Have you even listened to Rush make his case about HOW McCain will irrepairably damage the Republican party?

The suicide voters are sincere and have history on their side, regarding a conservative groundswell following a particularly unpleasant Democrat term.

i agree wholeheartedly (that's not copyrighted, is it?) with the person who said:

It's a tough call.

[TRFrance]

Well, what is clear to me is that some of you people put too much faith in politicians, and Republicans in particular.

If you feel that we should support a Republican because "at least they're not as bad as the democrats", then that underscores just why many disgusted voters will just be sitting this one out.

The idea is that the party should provide you a good candidate, not some one who's just "not as bad as the other guy". But that's what the Republican's have done. They give us a "moderate"/liberal Republican who's not even conservative, and some of you sheeple want to bash conservatives who refuse to support a liberal Republican.

He was not conservative on tax cuts, nor on free speech (remember the McCain-Feingold bill?), nor when he bashed the Christian right (remember his "agents of intolerance" comment, which he later refused to retract?), he opposed a federal gay-marriage ban, and is more liberal on immigration/amnesty than a lot of Democrats.

It's interesting that you people aren't even claiming he's a good candidate. All you're saying is he's not as bad as Hillary/Obama. Conservatives deserve a good conservative candidate, and with McCain, we don't have that.

And you people dare to insult conservatives who refuse to support him? Whatever.
Go vote for him if you want, but stop trashing and insulting the conservatives who refuse to vote for him.