Wednesday, January 23, 2008
|
|
Conservative Voters Revolt Against Leaders?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:12 AM
|
What does Fred Thompson's early exit have to say about the power and influence of the conservative "chattering classes" who encouraged him to run for president -- and the others who used their powerful megaphones to prop him up?
... And how about the fact that John McCain and Mike Huckabee -- both scorned by powerful conservative insiders -- are still standing? What does that say about the state of things?
The teaser for David Brooks' recent column may answer the question: "A funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders" ...
|
|
Thanks for saying that I was on to something, but you did miss the point a bit, so let me help you.
If McCain is our only choice, then I say, dont vote for Hillary, dont vote for Obama and by all means dont NOT vote.
Our Republican leaders will NOT understand that the actions listed above are a cry out for conservative values. Instead they will take it, like they took the election of 2006, as a need for the Republican party to lean more to the left, in essence becoming more liberal.
I see this in my own state when my formerly Republican Governor, Tim Pawlenty, has formed an alliance with the liberal Governor of Arizona in making a commerican promoting Global Warming, but that is another issue for another post.
We need to use the vote given to us by the bodies of dead Americans to send a clear message to Republican leaders, and the only way to do that is to hand write in the ballot RONALD REAGAN.
Anything else will be misundestood, a no vote, a vote for Hillary, or a vote for a third party, the leaders will NOT GET IT, unless we all write in RONALD REAGAN.
Even then, odds are the leadership will still screw it up. |
|
been posted on HER site since 7pm yesterday.
Why is there ALWAYS a delay on TH.
SOMEBODY GET WITH IT!!
the big mick |
|
I believe what Malkin says about HuckYOU being a "Border Cross Dresser" because she quoted Jimmy Carter with an R's OWN WORDS! You HUCKYOU's CAN'T COVER THAT UP!, Whatever your hidden agenda is! HuckYOU called ME a "nativist" and politically I will NEVER NEVER NEVER forgive that!!! That told me EVERYTHING I needed to know about his PRINCIPLES on Immigration. And that is the 2nd! most VITAL survival issue for our Republic, and his thinking is WRONG!!!
The BEST you can say about his record on Taxes and Governing is that it is MIXED, and I don't give a DAMN if the best you can say is that it is "no worse" than MaCAniac who I REJECT or MITT who I haven't decided on yet. He needs to be BETTER and he is NOT. He is weak on the MOST vital issue, his criticism of the War. He is DEAD WRONG on the Gov Role in Education which suggests he is wrong on the 4th most vital issue the size and role of the FED Gov. He IS, based on THAT, Socialism LITE!!!! JUST like Mitt is wrong on the Detroit BAIL out. BETTER I said!!
I DON'T like his waffling on homosex and the supreme court.
And the LAST time I voted for a so called "Evangelical" I got the WORST President of the 20th Century!!
HuckYOU's problem isn't other Lies about him--it's his OWN WORDS.
When he stands up, apologizes in sackcloth and ashes for the "nativist" crack, swears on the Bible he WILL deport every last illegal alien in this country WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CHRISTIAN! THEN he might get my vote. Until then...HuckYOU.
the big mick |
|
Well couple of things are clear to me
1. The guy commiequeer in Chief John "War Crimes" Kerry wanted for VP is UNACCEPTABLE to a genuine conservative. Wrong on Immigration, MacFeinianism,ANWR, Gang14, Chitlin Dinners with Waterbording dessert, early criticism of the war,
tax cuts etc. Best you guys can hit Mitt with is "he's no better cause he flip flopped".
And Mitt does have the Detroit Bail Out to his discredit. Still, no Anwr on Mitt, no gang of 14, no opposition to W's tax cuts I know of, no MacFeinianism. He wasn't picked for Kerry's VP.
NOTE to MaCaniacs: Arguing The MacChurian Candidate is beloved by moderates simply reinforces how commiequeer lite he is and reminds me how much he is NOT like me and I DON'T want him. A poor strategy.
2. While I have yet to decide if I Trust Flippin Mitty the Mormon enough to vote for him.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE MACCHURIAN CANDIDATE!
He fails the big mick pledge posted freguently elsewhere on TH
If ChessyMac is the nominee I WILL vote for Hillybama. My logic on this has been posted elsewhere on TH. Simply put, since Mac ain't THAT much better on 3 out of 5 vital issues, Hilly's Socialism Straight buys me more than the CINOs Socialism Lite.
the big mick |
|
With a good share of Thompson and Hunter voters going to the Huckabee camp, he can easily beat or tie McCain and Romney in FL and nationally.
Opinions based on no information or misinformation are not helpful to voters who want to make an informed decision about candidates. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Bauer the mainstream media (MSM), the Republican establishment, the conservative elite, the religious leadership, the talking heads, and the pundits can repeat the misrepresentation that Mr. Huckabee’s economic and foreign policy views are liberal from now until November but that won’t make it so. They can say Huckabee’s support is limited to evangelicals, but that is far from true. They can state that Huckabee is out of contention in Florida and perhaps nationally but that is absolutely not the case.
Visit the web sites of the candidates and research them on the internet. Read articles written by them and about them. View videos of their speeches, interviews, and debates. After your research you may come to your own conclusion (not one fed to you by others) that Mr. Huckabee is by far the strongest advocate of faith and family values. He is very reasonable and logical in his economic policy, particularly regarding economic stimulus and job creation in the short term and the Fair Tax in the long term. Huckabee is a leader capable of putting together a formidable team of experts for foreign policy, defense, and security. He is very conservative regarding the size and scope of the federal government and states’ rights. Finally, Mike Huckabee enjoys widespread unwavering popular support. These are what make a candidate electable, not their “sound bites” in a debate or interview or their jabs at their opponents.
|
|
Help fight the MSM misinformation about the Huckabee campaign in FL and Super Tuesday states
All the TV news and the internet buzz have been falsely stating that Mike is “conceding” FL and may be out before or right after Super Tuesday.
Since the Huckabee cause is a movement of the people, not a wealthy elitist establishment political organization, it is up to all of us to set the record straight.
You do not have to live in FL to write comments following articles appearing in FL news sources. Please visit mikehuckabee.com and click on “about” and “issues” on the top of the page. Then go to “Blog” and look to the right at the list of “Bloggers for Huckabee” and click on “Florida for Huckabee.” There are several news articles reported there. Click on them and then post your comments. Note that there is also a FL HQ for Huckabee link on the main page.
Also search “Florida news” and go to every news source listed and search for Huckabee articles or FL primary articles and post comments there as well.
To correct the MSM misleading reports: Mike is definitely not conceding FL! He is strapped for cash and must focus his limited resources on the 22 states of Super Tuesday as well as FL. He can’t risk it all on FL because Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have the big bucks to conduct a media blitz. FL is winner take all so second place does not help.
This is a battle of the wealthy and powerful versus Mike and the people. Are we going to let the fat cats and the status quo win yet again?
This is a popular movement and a cause that can make history because it defies the establishment and supports a victory for faith, family, freedom, the Fair Tax, sane foreign policy, border security, and more—all for the common good of the American people. Be a part of that history.
|
|
Because I see people in the postings saying that if this guy is the nominee, I wont vote, or I will vote for the Dems or whatever.
DONT DO THAT!!! We need to send a message the Republican Leaders, we WANT true CONSERVATIVISM!!!
So I implore you, go to the polling place in November and in dark black ink write in the name:
RONALD REAGAN
Do not write in Thompson, Paul, or anybody else. The Leadership will only see that as sour grapes. HOWEVER, if enough of us cause the Republican candidate to lose because we voted for RONALD REAGAN then maybe, just maybe they will finally get it!!!
So, lets lead a new Regan Revolution, Vote for RONALD REAGAN in 2008 |
|
There is really only one revolt going on.
The McCain phenomenon is easy to explain. It is what it has always been: he attracts moderates and non-Republicans, who put him over the top in South Carolina.
The real revolt is against the Republican establishment's savaging of their best candidate, Huckabee. Voters see through the lies (yes, LIES, research a bit) that are being echoed about Huckabee: that he is a "tax-and-spender", a "liberal," an "open-borders" type, or even a "socialist."
In South Carolina, Huckabee won decisively among self-identified conservatives.
I admit my own opinion of Huckabee was affected by the attacks, which originated with the Club for Growth, with Romney himself, and in part due to misinterpretation of Huckabee's non-conventional rhetoric.
But I was curious enough to dig deeper. I found the attacks to be very shallow and one-dimensional. His actual positions are quite conservative and his record is quite good. He is not orthodox on every point but overall he is a solid conservative.
What makes him our best candidate is his communication skills, his bold vision (FairTax, energy independence, etc.) and his ability to break out of the boxes that the media has put us Republicans into for so many years.
I'd encourage everyone to question the attacks you are hearing against Huckabee, and find out more for yourself. IT WON'T HURT YOU! Go to first-hand sources and independent sources. OnTheIssues.org, for example, doesn't necessarily make him look good, but it shows clearly how on the issues he is squarely in the conservative camp.
No, we are not revolting about McCain. We largely agree that McCain is not conservative. We ARE revolting against the slander of Huckabee. |
|
"McCain... scorned by powerful conservative insiders --... still standing?"
McCain has been propped up and drooled over by the main stream media. In addition, most pundits have propped him up as the "front-runner" and "most electable" candidate. Even the Washington insiders that owe him favors have thrown their support his way (that's politics).
...While few pundits and most Republicans have rejected the mean-spirited RINO. His amnesty plan alone (that he tried to shove down our throats a second time after it was soundly rejected by the people) should be lesson enough to keep anyone from voting for him. And that was not the first or only time he spit in the face of Republicans.
It is the voters that reject McCain, his dangerous attempts at legislation and his "straight talk" lies. He won't win because of himself, in spite of being propped up. |
|
If it weren't for that whole "let's lose the war" thing, I'd even consider voting for Ron Paul. But no, the only hope the GOP has of getting me back this year is a deadlocked convention that ends up nominating someone other than the faux-conservatives left in this race. It would be funny if that ended up being Fred.
As for Hunter's endorsement: I guess I only thought I knew what he was about. And having reviewed the man's policy positions on his website, I now know which among them were the only ones he was serious about. I am now through saying nice things about him, though he took so few votes that it's hard to say even that he was in anyone's way. Back to obscurity with you then. |
|
Have been pushed by the MSM because...
The Dems are in Meltdown Mode & a Conservative would have Brought out enough voters to take the House, Gain in the Senate & Remain in White House.
Clinton Inc is playing gthe 'race card' against a Black candidate...maybe the Baby-boomer black voters will continue to support Bill/Hill & the Dem Party BUT Younger, better educated African-Americans are going to see the Party of Diversity for the racist cabal it is and abandon the Dems or AT THE VERY LEAST sit out this coming election!!
Because Mrs C's support in the south is by and large 'voters of color', losing this key demographic would spell D-E-F-E-A-T in November.
If Obama gets the nomination, the Hispanic Voters will not come out. The Dems lose key states and the Conservatives roll to a landslide victory.
Quite naturally then, the MSM had to pump up Hucks 30% as a 'victory' even though the RINO Minister never broke through the Stained-Glass Ceiling to get more than the most ardent Evangelical Christians...that alone would make Mike easily beatable even if the Dems alienated (no pun intended) one or another bloc of their racist supporters.
Same for McCain and his 30% accomplished only in states that allowed Crossover Voting. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many of Angry John's 30% were ACTUAL Republicans, let alone Conservatives!!
Thus it was imperitive to drive Thompson & Hunter from the race ASAP...
How about we DRAFT ourselves a REAL Conservative
OR
Re-draft Thompson (just kidding)
W/O= |
|
|
The Billary team are kidding themselves if they think Hillary will loose in this race because Obama may pull more of the black vote. Hillary will loose because the Billary team is turning off those over 50 white women that she is so sure of getting. Not many of us remarry and not many of us want to be subjected to her "donkey" on the news. We realize he owes her big for the Monica thing, but do we all have to pay the price |
|
The Billary team are kidding themselves if they think Hillary will loose in this race because Obama may pull more of the black vote. Hillary will loose because the Billary team is turning off those over 50 white women that she is so sure of getting. Not many of us remarry and not many of us want to be subjected to her "donkey" on the news. We realize he owes her big for the Monica thing, but do we all have to pay the price?
|
|
Now that Thompson is out of the race, I have question about Romney. I understand that in the LDS, "the family" is ruled by "the prophet" and must receive his approval in all they do. Who is the Romney prophet? If it came between pleasing the prophet or pleasing the citizens of the US, who will be the priority? How much of his success in Staples, was his, or was it backed by the LDS? I respect the family values of the Mormons, but beyond that, I have a lot of questions. If Romney was elected, how much influence would the LDS have on the nation?
If Romney is elected, will he place limits on the premium insurance companies will charge for his manditory health plan? My son lives in Massachusetts. His monthly premium for a family of four just jumped from $600 per month to $1000 per month. I do not know to many people with income enough to pay $12000 per year for medical insurance. I don't believe to many people could afford the $7200 that was assessed before the increase. How much higher will the insurance companies be able to raise the premiums? In essence, how will the plan benefit the citizens of our country. It seems to me it just adds another burden that most cannot afford.
|
|
|
I have never been a governor of a liberal state. I have always been pro-life. I have never fund raised for planned parenthood. I may have taken a different position from my fellow republicans on immigration and a comprehensive tax cut that included cutting spending because I believed it to be the best policy for ALL americans, but americans know where I stand on all issues at all times. My opponent, has never been consistent on any position in the past 5 years, so how do you know what position he will take if he becomes president? Also, my opponent takes free advice from lobbysts and says that the lobbysts will not influence his presidency, should americans trust him? Finally, the president is also commander in chief. When given a choice Mitt and his 5 sons chose to become missionaries, my sons and I chose to join the military - It would be a great honor to lead my fellow american soldiers in these great times of peril and ensure that our Iraq policy is made more effective and that Jihadists are dealt with in a timely manner. If you vote for me, I promise you that you will always know what I believe and what my policies will be when I am president. You can not say so about my opponent Mitt Romney. |
|
What it says is that the GOP insiders and so called leaders of the conservative movement are out of step. The people have been shouting and they haven't been listening (arrogant bunker mentality). We're getting fed up already - the people are saying "listen up or be marginalized".
Where there is freedom, leadership is not limited to positions of power and/or authority. Rather it's unleashed by the exercise of choice and positive action based on principle and integrity. It's not about the chair you sit in, the hat you wear, or the post you have it's about DOING THE RIGHT THING over just"being right".
Duncan Hunter is a warrior, he knows that listening, that paying attention and working together is essential to winning leadership. I believe he just just modeled that kind of strong, principled leadership by recognizing and endorsing the same strong, principled leadership of Gov Huckabee. |
|
Emanuel is just another Dem who thinks they can earn their pay by standing up blaming Bush for all the woes of America. He needs to be the first in line to offer his paycheck from 2007 back to the tax payers for being "dead weight". We taxpayers are looking at these democrats the same way we look at the bully on the play ground who keeps saying, "Billy did it! Billy did it!". After a while you look at poor Billy and figure out he is just a good little kid getting the blame for what the bully has been doing.
|
|
revolt against an establishment that gave us the following jokes of candidates as original "frontrunners"?
Romney: northeastern liberal pro-gun control, pro-government run health care, pro- I mean anti- I mean pro-life windbag who will say *anything* to get elected.
Julie-Annie: 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 faux-machismo tough-talking lispy self-proclaimed liberal candidate whose family hates him. Pro-gun control, pro-sanctuary city, pro-abortion. Gangster who'd shred the Bill of Rights if given half a chance. Career was dead until 9/11. Is in the process of getting "swift-boated" by brave NYC firefighters, thank God.
McCain: pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, free speech squelching "maverick" who's detested among conservatives.
Then Fred faded as fast as he arrived.
That leaves us with the Huckster, an intellectual lightweight pro-tax authoritarian evangelical hot air factory.
With these candidates, this conservative voter has only one choice: Ron Paul.
|
|
|
If you can't see the difference between McCain and Hillary, then there's probably no swaying you with the facts. I'd much rather see a guy like McCain, who I disagree with some of the time, win the WH, as opposed to Hillary, who I disagree with on everything, winning the election. Seems like a no-brainer to me. |
|
Now that Thompson is out of the race, I have question about Romney. I understand that in the LDS, "the family" is ruled by "the prophet" and must receive his approval in all they do. Who is the Romney prophet? If it came between pleasing the prophet or pleasing the citizens of the US, who will be the priority? How much of his success in Staples, was his, or was it backed by the LDS? I respect the family values of the Mormons, but beyond that, I have a lot of questions. If Romney was elected, how much influence would the LDS have on the nation?
If Romney is elected, will he place limits on the premium insurance companies will charge for his manditory health plan? My son lives in Massachusetts. His monthly premium for a family of four just jumped from $600 per month to $1000 per month. I do not know to many people with income enough to pay $12000 per year for medical insurance. I don't believe to many people could afford the $7200 that was assessed before the increase. How much higher will the insurance companies be able to raise the premiums? In essence, how will the plan benefit the citizens of our country. It seems to me it just adds another burden that most cannot afford.
|
|
The confusion we see relates to the fact that Conservatism is a philosophy, and has little to do with election campgains or candidates. The issue for many is that the GOP has hijacked the concept of conservatism by claiming that it is conservative, when most of those elected do not subscribe to the central tenets of the philosophy. But they sure do love the word - so they claim it as theirs. All we hear about is conservative X vs. conservative y vs conservative z. They pander to conservatives but appeal to others. They are perfectly willing to talk about spending - or about tax cuts, but they never talk about balancing the budget, the damage debt is doing to the dollar, how to solve the balance of trade deficits, what to do about manufacturing, nor what to do about entitlements. I have a word for Romeny - and that is that his $20 b plan for Michigan will not bring the auto industry back to Michigan if he doesn't first deal with trade. I also would point out that talking about spending without spending cuts will solve nothing. Today, we're told that the $250 B deficit we're running will increase this year to $350 b to $400 b if these spending programs are enacted. Now just who do you think is going to buy that debt? And how can you negotiate realistic trade agreements or deal with manufacturing when you have to sell it to countries who have to buy it?
Oh, I get it. They want to get elected. And spending money and selling blue sky is more popular than talking about discipline and sacrifice. God forbid they'd do that.
But that's ok. Go ahead and elect them. After all, they vaguely promise to do better once elected - but please don't ask what that will be during a campaign - that just isn't fair. |
|
Look at where the conservative 'leaders' have led the GOP.
Straight back to the minority party in Congress, likely to lose the Presidency, and widely despised by the next generation of voters who are skewing overwhelming Democratic right now.
|
|
If McCain is the Republican nominee, I am starting a movement to write in Joe Mercer come November.
http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com
Maybe if enough people do this, the Republican Party will finally get a hint. They didn't after 2006, though.
|
|
gunlock bill: Do you not find it very coincidental that now that McCain has effectively made it illegal for any organization to put out ads to try to
'sway' an election that all these so called "endorsement" news articles come out for McCain?
Fox News describes some 24 political "organizational machinery" put in place to help McCain. Yet these people have absolutely no agendassss themselves??...bull. They all have an agenda...duh...ENDORSEMENTS are propaganda...They are meant to sway an election...pure and simple. There is no difference between this and that antiabortion clinic ad.
People should have enough self-esteem to value their own opinions and realize this. These endorsement people are not soothsayers or royalty...they all go to the bathroom the same as anyone else. They might be full of crap or not. |
|
Matt Lewis wrote;
--------------
"... And how about the fact that John McCain and Mike Huckabee -- both scorned by powerful conservative insiders -- are still standing? What does that say about the state of things?"
--------------
Matt,
As other commenters have pointed out, the fact is, both McCain and Huckabee have been buoyed by the MSM.
But both McCain and Huckabee are basically bankrupt !
Why aren't all "the people" who support them writing checks for their campaigns ?
Eh ?
What does that say about their support ?
As other commenters have pointed out, McCain and Huckabee have each won primaries with unimpressive pluralities in a crowded field.
A couple weeks ago, you lied when you boldly asserted that McCain won a "majority" of Republicans in the New Hampshire primary---when in fact, he did not.
It may turn out that McCain is the most electable Republican currently in the race, but that is exclusive from the points you assert, Matt.
Your problem, Matt, is that you keep trying to make the case for McCain with passive-aggressive posts toward Mitt & Rudy while at the same time denying you're even a McCain supporter. Thus, you restrict yourself from making simple, direct declarations of support for why McCain ought to be the nominee.
And that hurts your credibility with readers.
You should be transparent and admit you want McCain to be the nominee.
|
|
The answer to your question above:
TREASON |
|
|
If it's pandering to promise American citizens that you will do what they want if you are elected, what is it called when you promise amnesty to citizens of other countries, illegally in our country? |
|
Fred's campaign was lackluster at best and doomed to failure by bad strategy, timing and organization.
McCain's momentum is a function of the timing of the NH primary which was a natural for him and the pull out of Rudy who has under performed. So far McCain has won only two open primary states where he had considerable support in 2000. He is a lot weaker this year.
The rise of Huck is a function of his camping out in IA for 9 months and the timing of IA which was a natural for him. So far that is the only state he has won.
Neither McCain nor Huck would have much except they are being pumped by the media and rarely get negative press. |
|
|
Bigkam, you say we need McCain to beat Hillary. Why bother? At that point, we've stooped so low that there is little difference between the two. I say, let the Dems take it if we have nothing better to offer. Let them try and fail, and take the blame. Let's salvage some of our party's dignity. We cannot allow ourselves to be represented by this man. I am thankful for his military service, but his ideology is all wrong for this country. |
|
He might have a lifetime rating of 82.3 (which rounds to 82, not 83, BTW), Rashum, but his 2006 rating is 65. That's the last year for which they provide figures. He seems to be on a downward trend.
Even if the Democrats disinter the mouldering bones of Leon Trotsky and run them, I still wouldn't vote for McCain. |
|
Joe, McTex or any other McCainiac explain to me why McCain file that amicus brief?
I would really like to hear an explanation. |
|
McCain filed a brief in the Supreme Court with several Democrats against the Wisconsin Right to Life organization challenging its right to run informative ads prior to an election. Wisconsin Right to Life won. McCain claims a solid pro-life record, but when push came to shove he opted to use his anti-free speech law to muzzle a pro-life group. McCain also claims he’ll appoint conservative judges, but–
The blunt fact is that such judges would be innately hostile to schemes like campaign finance reform, a signature McCain issue. It is not for nothing that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were in the majority ruling against McCain’s side in the Wisconsin Right to Life case last term.
McCain went 0-3 in that one case, against freedom of speech, against right to life and against the two conservatives President Bush has appointed to the SCOTUS. McCain didn’t have to file an amicus brief in this case. He chose to, making himself a partisan in it.
The problem with McCain goes deeper than what he says about taxes and what he says today about immigration that contradicts what he said days or weeks ago. It’s about the battles McCain chooses to fight and the enemies he chooses to make. McCain consistently chooses the wrong battles and makes enemies out of the very people he now expects to carry him to the White House.
This is a conservative?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
well
fact is: pro Hillary, extreme liberals
have all crossed over to vote for McCain
so that says what ???
we the Independent Conservatives will decide
NOT the MEDIA
and McSHAME will never be President
McCain and Hillary are identical twins:
FOLLOW THEIR VOTES in the Senate:::: |
|
The Stupid Party
The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, or until they are supplanted by the La Raza Party, why doesn't the RNC know that? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty trio (McCain, Huckabee, Rudy) is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP
|
|
|
The Republican base is NOT strong enough to elect a president this time around. If we don't nominate someone who can turn a couple of blue states red by bringing in the votes of Indies and Moderate Dems, this election is lost for the GOP. For this reason, Romney CANNOT win, and anyone who has been fooled into believing that should do a little research. Voting for Romney will only get Hillary elected come November, that's a promise. |
|
|
What it says, Mr. Lewis, is that the liberal press in this country is trying to usurp the power of the people and select the next president for us. The press neglected, down-played, and wrote-off Thompson, because they were afraid of him. They wanted a weak, wishy-washy, compromising, spineless, middle-of-the-road, populist, socialist-leaning Republican candidate, who would try to run on "liberal Republican" ideals, but who could never out-liberal the Democrat candidate, and would therefore not stand a chance against the next would-be "Savior in Chief." The Republican party needs to find a candidate who will espouse conservative ideals, without apologies. Until then, the Republican party remains impotent, and I WILL NOT vote for McCain or Huckabee, if that is the press's choice for me. Think about the puffball coverage you guys are giving to Huckabee! Any other Christian talk would garner such hatred and vitriole from the press, but he can do no wrong, while you guys laugh out the other side of your faces. No thanks, I'll wait 4 more years before I vote for the likes of him. My point is that the press props up the candidates it wants, according to its agenda, and you cannot convince me otherwise. But there are many out there who are clueless to this, and allow it to go on. |
|
|
What it says, Mr. Lewis, is that the liberal press in this country is trying to usurp the power of the people and select the next president for us. The press neglected, down-played, and wrote-off Thompson, because they were afraid of him. They wanted a weak, wishy-washy, compromising, spineless, middle-of-the-road, populist, socialist-leaning Republican candidate, who would try to run on "liberal Republican" ideals, but who could never out-liberal the Democrat candidate, and would therefore not stand a chance against the next would-be "Savior in Chief." The Republican party needs to find a candidate who will espouse conservative ideals, without apologies. Until then, the Republican party remains impotent, and I WILL NOT vote for McCain or Huckabee, if that is the press's choice for me. Think about the puffball coverage you guys are giving to Huckabee! Any other Christian talk would garner such hatred and vitriole from the press, but he can do no wrong, while you guys laugh out the other side of your faces. No thanks, I'll wait 4 more years before I vote for the likes of him. My point is that the press props up the candidates it wants, according to its agenda, and you cannot convince me otherwise. But there are many out there who are clueless to this, and allow it to go on. |
|
|
a lot of "independents" and Democrats voting in Republican primaries. That being said, "electability" has been the watchword of this election, which hurt Fred, even though I think he would have fared quite well against any of the Democrats. |
|
|
Cannot win the general. Conservatives will not support him, and the Democrats will own the White House. Romney's the only one left in the race who's acceptable. And this should be made obvious by the hatred of him by all the Libs on this site. |
|
|
McCain is a conservative despite all the lies spread about him by all the Romney supporters. McCain has an 83% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. |
|
First - no one propped Fred up. They said a couple nice things about him and noted that he was one of only a few conservatives running.
Second - Rush and co. are just saying what all conservative know. That McHuck is not our guy.
Don't worry, Matt. It will be clear real soon. Don't tax your brain. |
|
|
With a field of so many viable candidates, were you really expecting anyone to win 50+% of the vote? I didn't either, but McCain did win the most, which I do believe was what everyone was looking to do in SC, just as in FL. |
|
John can't take the conservative vote and thus won't win even if nominated. I and every conservative I know will be voting on the Dem ticket this year if McNot is the nom.
As usual same bashers Joe and others are here cutting and pasting. Those folders in their hard drives must be full of anti-Romney material much of which is incorrect, out of context or used to portray someone that can never change ones mind.
Now of course OLD MAN McCain has never changed any position and is of course the bastian of conservative records including recently proposed support of carbon taxes. Just what we need! |
|
|
Moderates and Liberals have pushed McCain and Huckabee forward. Please tell me the states where either of these two have won more than 51 percent of the vote? Is 33 percent a majority? Here is a hint for Matt Lewis you idiot: 33 is less than 51. |
|
the reason Conservatives don't buy McAmnesty and Romney is because the liberal Bolshevik neo-Cons who've hijacked Conservatism with the aid of their MSM controllers Pinchey and Rupert studiously ignore Ron Paul, the only real Conservative Constitutionalist with any principles who is in the race.
the leaders are in fact the CFR Dems and CFR Reps who've studiously managed to get the opiated masses to take their eyes off the ball as to how their country has been hijacked by the TASS Democrats and the Prada wearing Pravda Republicans. the two state solution to the Middle East has been put in place already: racist Saudi Arabians and racist Likudniks who studiously prop up the Palestinian Union Boss Corruptocrats abetted by the neo-Cons in Washington. |
|
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likes to tell Republican voters that he is the true conservative because, unlike Sen. John McCain, he has not been "part of the Washington scene for a quarter of a century."
Yes, McCain has been in Congress since first elected in 1982, but he never succumbed to the Beltway Culture of Spending, whereas Romney fell into Washington's big spending trap somewhere between Michigan and Florida.
As Romney courted the Michigan vote, he proposed a $20 billion energy research/auto industry bailout plan likely to appeal to the Motor City state. Later, touting himself as the turnaround guy for a flailing economy, Romney released his own $233 billion stimulus package -- a price tag that dwarfs President Bush's $145 billion proposal.
In the package, Romney cooked up a pricey way to court Florida's powerful senior vote: He proposed a permanent elimination of payroll taxes on seniors. And he opposed "any increase in Social Security taxes."
The man who says he is not a creature of Washington presented no spending cuts in the stimulus package. Romney spokesperson Sarah Pompei said that the price tag is big because it needs to be "large enough and immediate enough to have an impact to help turn around the economy." And while there are no specific spending cuts, in general Romney wants "to cut wasteful spending in Washington." Forget that without spending cuts, Plan Romney can only further expand the federal budget deficit.
We've seen that movie before. It's called Politics as Usual.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_real_ conservative_republic.html |
|
|
of course brooks didnt look at the exit polls showing that conservatives and republicans really were not voting for mccain. so brooks is just talking junk because there is a wide open field with lots of opinions. such things should not be published. |
|
LIE #4: John McCain supports higher taxes.
TRUTH: John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes.
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has acknowledged that even though McCain refuses to take the “no new taxes” pledge he has kept that pledge with his voting record, throughout his service in the Senate and the House. Yes, he did vote against Bush tax cuts – but did so because no cuts in spending accompanied the cuts in taxes. Unlike some of his colleagues, he insists that tax cuts and increased revenues won’t be enough to close the deficit – there must be spending cuts as well. It’s increasingly obvious that he’s right: tax cuts without spending cuts won’t shrink the national debt or trim the size of government. He currently supports making all the Bush tax cuts permanent before their schedule expiration in 2010 to allow individuals and businesses to plan their futures without uncertainty. He also backs an immediate cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% (second highest rate in the world) to 20% (one of the lowest in the world) as a means of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. He also backs instituting new rules requiring a super majority – a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress-- rather than simple majorities, to approve any tax increases. This would make it vastly more difficult for future Congresses (even under Democratic control) to take more money from hard-working Americans.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23 /six_big_lies_about_john_mccain |
|
Please don't try to sell David Brooks as a Conservative. You embarass yourself and insult true conservatives.
Since when did conservatism support open borders, failure to protect our sovereignty, raising taxes, excessive personal/business regulation, a stronger central government, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, government created 'economic stimulus', wimpy foreign policy, a smaller military, infringement on the bill of rights (espescially #1 and #2), bloated gov't programs, more entitlements and a lack of personal accountability and responsibility?
I still believe in all of those things. So, according to David Brooks I guess I'm not a conservative. To borrow a phrase from my six year old: Who died and made him boss?
My party left me no true conservative choices but I will not leave my children a socialist country, so help me God. I will fight the small battles I can win. I will force my reps to move to the right. I will never give up what the founders themselves identified as the things which make America great no matter what the self important enormously stupid David Brooks, Michael Medved, Newt Gingrich etc say.
Conservative principles haven't changed. Only the spineless jellyfish 'leaders' of the "conservative' movement have. |
|
|
And if people like you had not built up the liberal liar Romney he would have sunk by now. If Romney is nominated, you will get a democrat President, even if he is elected. But he wont be. People will give it to someone honest enough to call themselves democrat. |
|
|
|