Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Douglas MacKinnon :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ten Things the Republican Nominee Must Understand to Earn the True Conservative Vote
by Douglas MacKinnon
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

1. First and foremost, he needs to understand that, by the tens of millions, true conservatives do exist in our country. That their unbending beliefs make them -- not only the backbone of this nation -- but the hope for a better future. That they unashamedly love their country and have reached the point of no return with regard to political correctness and pandering politicians who place themselves above the welfare of our Republic.

2. He needs to understand that they have a deep and abiding belief in God. A belief that is under a daily, escalating and obscene assault from those on the left who only use the word “Christian” as an insult, a punch line, or as an identifier to be added to a blacklist to deny employment at most schools, colleges, newspapers, and television networks. He needs to understand that this is a belief that must be acknowledged, respected, and defended. He needs to understand that all life is sacred and that it begins at conception.

3. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe we live in a sovereign nation with clearly defined borders that must be protected. Period. He must understand that the invasion of illegal aliens is not only a threat to that sovereignty, but widens the pathway for terrorists to infiltrate our nation. A scenario that the House Committee on Homeland Security has already documented as becoming a reality. He needs to accept that there are those in our country who would turn the United States of America into part of a “North American Union.” A suicidal strategy that was recently pushed and admitted to by former Mexican President Vicente Fox.

4. He needs to understand that we are engaged in a world-wide war against Jihadists and extremists who mean to wipe our nation off the face of the Earth. For that reason and more, it is imperative that we retain a national defense that is second to none. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe that the young men and women who serve in our military represent the very best of our nation and must be given every consideration. That without their heroic service, we will be vanquished.

5. He needs to understand that true conservatives do believe that large segments of the entertainment industry are purposefully and systematically exposing our children to the vilest forms of smut. That they do so first, to make money, and second, to indoctrinate as they continue their quest to subvert the morals, ethics, and character of our nation.

6. He needs to understand that true conservatives actually do believe in lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That if you proclaim yourself to be a “Conservative” and turn your back on these tenets, then you are worse than those on the left who believe in neither. He needs to understand that true conservatives understand the value of limited government and expect their leaders to be just as enlightened.

7. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe in strict enforcement of the rule of law. That aside from the terrorists from without, our nation is at war with hundreds of thousands of violent gang members from within. That in many cases, these gangs are aligning themselves with drug cartels, terrorist groups and foreign nations. That if we don’t acknowledge this war and win it, then many of our cities and much of our border, will spiral into lawlessness and unchecked murder as these gangs prevail.

8. He needs to understand that the appointment of judges is an overriding issue for true conservatives. That they believe in having a strict-constructionist Supreme Court. That there can be no compromise in this area.

9. He needs to understand that if he panders to them now to win the nomination and then stabs them in the back to try and win the general election, he has lost them forever.

10. And finally, he has to understand that true conservatives will never vote for the “lesser of two evils” come November of 2008. That to do so, would be to betray all that they hold sacred. Faith, family values, and conviction can never be compromised.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming novel, The Apocalypse Directive.

Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Well, that about sums it up nicely
while at the same time highlighting how much trouble the GOP is really in with some of their putative "front runners".


Mostly Right
Well written and concise. We do need a conservative candidate, as I wrote here:
http://walrus.townhall.com/g/b20050ce-fe9e-4fa7-8fe0-40c9f8 240b08

But I also think that the worst GOP frontrunner is better than the best Dem frontrunner. We should not sit on our hands in November 2008:
http://walrus.townhall.com/g/17999c1a-9cda-4efa-a01e-241533 b5f336

I can't agree, Ken
If in order to merely secure a "victory" we have to vote for someone who's no better than the other guy, what's the point?

If we have to surrender all our principles, what's the point?

If the slogan of a party basically boils down to "Hey! The other guy's even worse!", that party is in very deep trouble.

Maybe the GOP really does need to lose big in order to rediscover their roots, principles, values, and planks.

They sure don't seem to have learned a thing from last year's butt-kicking.

Mr Mackinnon

You forgot something.

THE CONSTITUTION

Funny how the one candidate who didn't is receiving the most support.



This true conservative...
...will work to see that his choice for the candidacy wins the GOP nomination.

Now, if it so happens that my brothers and sisters in the GOP vote to send somebody else up against Hillary, this true conservative would willingly low-crawl across 200 yards of broken glass in order to cast a vote for whoever that may be.

Because this true conservative understands that we exist in a two party system and the only PERFECT candidate I could possibly conceive of would be...me. Everyone else, even Reagan, would be a compromise.

So, will I vote for somebody I agree with only 70% of the time in order to defeat somebody I agree with only 40% of the time?

You damn betcha' I will. That's called strategic voting. You keep waiting for the perfect, no compromise candidate and by the time you realize that is never going to happen, America will resemble the worst parts of an Ayn Rand novel.

Nope, Citizen Carrier
What you propose is what I call being a GOP bobble-head doll, and giving up your own privilege of choice.

Another word for that is "lemming".

Hey, man, if you want to go running off a cliff, feel free. Don't expect me to join you.


I'm a conservative first, and a Republican a far distant second.

You'll vote for someone with whom you agree 70% of the time. Guess what? So would I!

But Giuliani? I agree with him maybe...MAYBE 20% of the time on his best day.

That doesn't get my vote, no way, no how.


THIS IS THE BEST
Article I have read that expresses exactly where I am.



The two party system
So who has made this the Law of the land?
----------

Citizen Carrier writes:

Because this true conservative understands that we exist in a two party system
-------------

Time to get out of the box and vote for anyone (almost) over a democrat or a republican.
Not much difference in who they run as far as I am concerned cause both parties are owned by the large corporations, the lobbyists who pay them to run.


TARZAN after JANE
Prolifers SWUNG over to CARTER a Dem. ,remember. Rudy is :on the wrong side of the fence,Proabortion,progay,antigun,and antifamily.Only the MSM is for Rudy ,because a vote for Rudy is a vote for Hillary. I will bet you a nickel that they do not vote for him.

I did get out of the box once
I voted for this guy named Perot in 1991.

It was my first election and I was a teenager.

I didn't get Perot (in retrospect, a blessing). I didn't get four more years of Bush, which would have been...acceptable.

What I got was 8 years of Clinton. All for stepping outside of the box. That's what happens when you leave a major party to vote third party. You insure that the candidate from the two major parties who LEAST agrees with you, wins.

So I don't think like a teenager anymore.

I have a simple creed when it comes to elections.

I will never NOT vote.

I will never cast a symbolic or protest vote.

I will vote for whoever most agrees with me AND has a realistic chance of winning. I will not forget this important modifier and I will apply it during the primaries.

That's how I roll. And it is a strategy that wins elections. With a politician I elect, I have influence. Once he is in, I can work through him to achieve what I want. Witness the killing of the Harriet Myers nomination. The ports deal. The killing off of amnesty. I did that.

So did you. But that only works with people in office. Not with people who lose elections.

Jesus freaks and the Wacko right
It is NOV 2008 the headline reads Hillary are first lady president. The split GOP base puts Hillary over the top.....cont. on page 14

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE POSTUM
30 OCT 2007 TODAYS NEWS .................Mitt leads by 36 % in the latest Iowa poll.Romney received Judd Gregg's endoresment today in N.H. This is better than the Pope's in N.H. Last week Mitt Got more than 51 % of the Prolifer's vote. Rudy only got 1 % .

I understand your reasoning Citizen
But
As long as we continue being played by the two parties, their owners will keep turning the county into a nation of nothing but consumers.

That is how they think of all of us now, if not worse.

GHOST STORY
On the evening of Hillary's birthday fundraiser ,Huckabee's band played at Buddy Holly's last venue. By chance , I think not.Imagine if you can a......HILLARY//HUCK......ticket ..we get......COLLECTIVISM......with...music. Huck drove.

Well, Citizen Carrier
In my opinion, if the choice boils down to Hillary v. the Bald Hillary, there is no winner.

The country loses big time either way.

And I have no dog in that race.


You think Bush was bad but workable? Giuliani makes Bush look like the spiritual reincarnation of Reagan himself.

His position on guns: it's a right subject to federalism and local interpretation. Really? Is your First A right to Free Speech, Press and Religion open to local interpretation? How about the 4th requirement for search warrants, or the 5th A protection against self-incrimination? Open to local interpretation? of course not; it's an absurd idea.

Obviously, he either has no clue about what "originalism" really means, which makes him the stupidest lawyer to ever pass the bar, or he's lying through his teeth and trying to fool people into believing he supports something he doesn't, which is the right of people to own guns.

Which then also casts some real serious doubt on his promise to appoint "Originalist" SCOTUS justices, particularly coupled with his record of judicial appointments as mayor and his statement that "Roberts is as qualified as Ginsburg".

Now throw in his declaration of NYC as a "sanctuary city" and season with his support of taxpayer-funded abortions, leaven with his endorsement of Mario Cuomo's governor run, and what you have is a liberal running in the wrong damned party.

He's a snake-oil salesman, an empty suit. There's no there, there.

BrianR looks like you're
doing well, good to see it. I know your position on Giuliani and voting for the lesser of two evils. My Question would be exactly what should Rudy have done in New York considering existing laws, how could he get elected and what would you have done differently?

Well, Doug
What should Rudy have done? Remained a Democrat, where he started and still belongs philosophically and ideologically.

Simple answer. As I wrote, he's running in the wrong party.

What would I have done differently in NYC? I'd have never been ellected to office in NYC. I'm a conservative. They have a funny idea of what a Republican is there. Bloomberg's a Republican! I mean, is that just the funniest thing there is, or what?


Throwing out the baby with the bathwater
So let me understand. If Rudy (honest among other things) a pro choice guy gets the nomination, conservative Republicans should stay home? Will that avoid getting a pro choice President? How do you do that?

The next President from either party will make
no difference in abortion law.

Having a President of your own party brings far
more with it than one issue and even that one issue will be totally unaffected by your decision, should you decline to vote. It would truly be a "lose lose" situation guanteeing a
Democrat, (dishonest among other things) 8 years to preside over the dismanteling of all the christian, conservatives hold dear!

PS, Doug
Your question made me think about this from a little different angle. It was a very good question, and I think really highlights what I particularly don't like about Giuliani.

I don't trust him at all. He is the personification of blind driving personal ambition. Everything he does is solely for his own self-aggrandizement and advancement. He has no principles at all. He justifies everything he's ever done by liberally burying it in lawyer-talk and murky legalese, always trying to rationalize away his past actions and history.

He started out as a Dem then switched parties out of pure political expediency, not principle, since he still advocates policies native to the Dem party.

I think he, like McCain, wants the Presidency for all the wrong reasons. It's sheer, pure, unadulterated lust for power and a place in history at the top of the heap.

I'm realistic enough to recognize that's going to be present to at least some degree in most candidates. But my take is that it's really his ONLY motivation.

I don't trust the guy at all, and don't believe a single promise that comes out of his mouth.

Phillup
I don't care about abortion, as that's rightfully a state issue.

Further, your posit that a Dem win automatically signifies an 8 year admin is also flawed, as both Bush 1 and Carter were single term administrations.

And Carter's abortion of a presidency led us directly to Reagan, a very good result!

Sometimes this country has to get hit with a really bad President to wake up and smell the coffee. It may be time for that again.

But the bottom line is that I will not vote against my principles and beliefs simply because the other candidate MAY be worse... and in the case of Hillary v. Giuliani, I don't even agree with THAT assessment.

If you have to turn into the other guy in order to simply "win", what have you really won in the final analysis? That's the very definition of Pyrrhic Victory.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us" -- Pogo.



Not an expert on Martial Arts
BrianR
Is it judo or jujitzu where you turn the advisarys strength against him such that he helps defeat himself?

Not an expert on Martial Arts
BrianR
Is it judo or jujitzu where you turn the advisaries strength against him such that he helps defeat himself?

Be smart or be stubborn?
Citizen Carrier "I will vote for whoever most agrees with me AND has a realistic chance of winning" is right. Realism is not only a quality I admire and try to possess, and it also has a higher success in the long run.

The problem is that I'm not "waiting for the perfect, no compromise candidate." The problem is that I d@mn well demand one that DOESN'T make me think, "God, have we come so low?" My vote means a lot to me, and I don't want to spoil the moment by hurling on the ballot box. Besides, it annoys the volunteers. LOL.

There is also this: nobody owns MY vote. If I can't vote for the other party and I can't vote for a third party then my vote is owned and I won't have that. All I can hope is that as we get down to the wire someone will suck it up and show me a man I can respect instead of what I currently see, which is media team creations.

Not a Republican
I am not a Republican; I am a conservative. I am not registered as a Republican and I have no obligation to vote for a Republican candidate.

If the choice comes down to Hilary vs a Democrat in Republican clothing I will vote for a 3rd-party, true conservative. It would be better to have Hillary in office with the Republicans and the true conservatives opposing her than to have a RINO like Rudy in office with the Republicans backing him in the name of party solidarity.


The country can be governed by
politicians responsive to the will of the people only when those who ignore us do not get re-elected. Despite approval ratings in the mud, the re-election rate in 06 remained very high. I can hardly wait to vote against Martinez, the alien enabler.

RON PAUL Ad
Powerful New Hampshire Ad by Ron Paul

Let the other candidates argue in favor of an open-ended occupation of Iraq and deficit spending.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/powerful-new-hamps hire-ad-for-ron-paul




Stand back and let it crash
When the building is about to topple, the sensible person will get clear of the wreckage and stand back and let it crash.

We have spent too much time trying desperately to prop up a tottering building and convincing ourselves that the edifice will hold up for four more years and that living in a building about to fall down is OK as long as we do not shift our weight too much ...

What is wrong with standing back and letting the building fall? Then when the dust settles, we can move in and rebuild.

But as long as people keep on trying to believe that living in a building on the verge of collapse is Normal Life, we are doomed.

Stand back and let the building fall. It is at this point the only solution.

BrianR Right on the money
BrianR WOW! I don't think I have ever read anyone describe EXACTLY how I feel about Giuliani. The man is a snake. And just like you his position on abortion is the least of my worries. Just look at his record in NYC and it becomes obvious that he is NOT a conservative. All you need to know about him is that Jorge Bush wants him as his sucessor. He is Hillary with less hair!

One thing is for sure ....
we will get exactly what we deserve. Very sad indeed!

Military Lovin' Dogg
LOVE IT!

Ron Paul 2008

Five Things To Get My Vote
1. Secure the Border
2. Build the Fence
3. Enforce the Laws
4. No Amnesty
5. Repeat

Hey Shaggy
hows the pup doing?
Oh, and don't forget the congress! Does Barney somebody ring any bells in those hallowed halls of yours?

BrianR
Geez brother, don't sugar coat it so much! I observe, you just busted out the flamethrower and "scorched-earthed" Ol RINO Rudy! haha

BTW, check my blog for an article on the IRAQI ARMY helping the USA!

PS: You WON'T find it on the Lamestream Media.

Virginia Patriot
You missed two amigo.

1. Make tax cuts perm.

2. Pass term limits.

The problem with...
...idealist voting, protest votes to third party candidates, or abstaining from voting is that we face a monolithic adversary.

They'll make noise about their various candidates during the primaries, but come Election Day they vote. And they don't go Green Party or any nonsense like that.

Those that are criticizing Hillary right now or throwing their support behind Edwards or Obama will vote for her on Election Day. This is not because the Democrat Party "owns" their vote. It is because they as a voting block understand that POWER has to achieved and held before all other considerations.

And even the people on the left who criticize Hillary for voting yes for Iraq know they'll still get plenty of socialist goodies from her if she wins.

You purists are driving me crazy!
Suppose we get attacked again, who would you rather have, Rudy or Hillary?

Suppose Iran keeps moving towards Nukes, who would you rather have Rudy or Hillary?

Suppose 2 supreme court justices need to be replaced, who would you rather have nominate, Rudy or Hillary?

Suppose the senate is tied for a vote, which vice-pres. do you want to break the tie, Rudy's or Hillary's?

Suppose, suppose and suppose a million scenarios and RUDY IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN HILLARY!

I don't buy the notion that the building needs to fall down. The next 4 years matter to me - especially on the court. 2 more liberal justices and we can expect a massive erosion of our constitutional liberties. Talk about having to rebuild - how long do you think it would take to fix that?

Rudy is definitely not my choice in the primary, but I will positively, absolutely vote for him if he is the nominee. And I am as conservative as you can get.

Mother of 4 - go ahead and vote 3rd party - you might as well cast for Hillary. Is that what you really want for your children?

It's NOT ABOUT PARTY SOLIDARITY! It's about being pragmatic and getting the best deal you can from the options.

DUH!~

Cont'd
One of the great things about the GOP is that it truly has a multitude of divergent ideas. Many different kinds of conservatives. Many who aren't all that conservative. We are far more susceptible to splintering than the Democrats are.

When is the last time you heard an animal rights activist disagree with a war protester? Or a gay rights activist? Or somebody lobbying for a minimum wage hike? They don't. They understand "The Game".

Because this is KEY. ABSOLUTELY KEY.

As much as they talk about diversity, they know that it is an inherent WEAKNESS. Especially on Election Day.

As much as we downplay the importance of diversity ("it happens, no need to celebrate it", etc.), it is our diversity that is our greatest weakness on Election Day.

PC
I used to agree with that stance but if we validate a RINO like Rudy, who is really nothing more than a Bald Hillary as Brian calls him, we'll continue to get RINO's and get farther and farther away from our Reagan roots.

Ex: Jindal, running on a strict conservative platform, wins in a liberal state!

The people WANT Conservatism as Reagan saw it.

I will not vote for a RINO again, nor donate to one, nor support one in any way, shape, or form.

My Reps/Sens as well as the RNC know my stance.

Gunny, SSGT, Citizen Carrier
Good morning, gentlemen!

Gunny: Went to your blog, cried a little, then got royally ticked. The story of the Iraqi Army's donation is doing the rounds here in SA, TX thanks to our soldiers down range. Of course, you won't see it anywhere else. The UN, on the other hand, always manages to make my blood boil.

SSGT: Yo!!

Citizen: I got out of the box once, too. Same election. Never again. BTW, Freaked me out to find you are younger than I. Not a good thing for me in the AM.

PC
Exactly, precisely.

I love this country far to much to "experiment" even for four years in the hopes that our electorate "gets it" and finds some way to clone Reagan's DNA.

What if the electorate doesn't "get it"?

What if four years of "Carter" aren't followed by 8 years of "Reagan"?

What if all the right things come to a head and the entitlement mentality becomes the dominant force in American politics?

The border? Hillary can open the borders in 4 years if she has the votes in Congress. RUDY or any other Republican will know that he'll only be a one-termer if he does that. They saw what happened to Bush.

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, you say? Brother, it wasn't the Democrats who signed a bill allowing me to carry a concealed weapon if I desire. It wasn't Democrats who cut everyone's taxes.

If Rudy is no better than a Dem, then why didn't his mayorship closely resemble that of the Democrat mayor he replaced?

Mind you, in every test survey of issues I've taken, Rudy finishes one notch above Ron Paul for me. And Ron Paul finishes just one notch above all the Democrats. So no, Rudy is not and never will be my first choice for the nomination.

But I will vote for whoever is most like me on issues (even if it is only by percentages) and has experience in leadership. I will not vote third party. And if all I can do on Election Day is vote AGAINST the most liberal candidate (even if it is a question of degrees), that is what I will do. And I wouldn't recommend trying to get in my way when I go to do it.

YLG
The UN simply sucks. Foisted on us by liberals. Figures that the sh*thole is full of liars, crooks, and scammers.

Shaggy
Just to enlighten you, most conservatives are like me! But, I'm glad Mister Buck is doing better. Mine was hurling all day yesterday. He seems a bit better today. Ate well this morning. Its amazing how they get sick, or hurt and they still wag a tail for ya when you get home.

Values
Let me try to explain something to you "compromise my values" people. You are simply voting for the head of one branch of government (technically you are voting for electors who will vote for the head of one branch of government). You aren't voting for the Pope, or the head of your church or Man of the Year. And voting for someone that doesn't exactly hold your belief system no more compromises your values than if the local dog catcher didn't hold your values. You are voting for someone that you think will do the better job.


Saying "they are exactly the same." yeah, I've heard that before--in 2000 when Nader said that about Gore and Bush. I bet those that voted for Nader in 2000 are singing a different tune now.

Are they the same when it comes to the war on terror? taxes? spending? socialized medicine. But of course since they are both pro-choice, they are EXACTLY the same. Abortion the most critical issue of our time...I forgot.

Oh but aren't abortion rights established law? You really expect any president to have any influence on this issue. The courts you say. Well since it is almost a 100% gurantee that the Democrats will pick up seats in the Senate in 2008, it will be impossible for any GOP president to get any justice on the court that could possibly be the 5th vote to over turn Roe.


Gunny
I am in total agreement with you. Those criminals should be kicked out, followed by the entire UN. If they hate the US so much, why not relocate to a country that absolutely adores them? Haiti needs the money.

YLG
Yo!!! right back at cha gal. I'm gonna try this and see if it works. Will give you a heads up on the trip up here weather wise.


nov 06
Scattered Showers
56° 39°
nov 07
Showers
49° 40°
nov 08
Scattered Showers/snow
53° 46°



YLG
Haiti is too close.

I nominate N'Djamena Chad as the new site of the UN!

Isn't Jorge Bush...
Proof that electing a faux conservative is dramatically worse than allowing the election of a liberal Democrat. I mean really can you think of a time when conservatives and Republicans were more dispirited and disorganized than now in recent memory? On the domestic agenda there has been virtually nothing conservative about the 8 years of Jorge Bush. Spending and government have grown faster than it ever did even during the LBJ Great Society days.

And why has all of this happened... Because the GOP congress is much more willing to acquiesce to the liberalism being peddaled by a RINO President than it is to the liberalism being promoted by a liberal Democrat President.

Let me state unequivocably, I want a conservative Republican to be elected to the Presidency in '08. But if the choice is between Rudy and Hitlary then I'm not so sure things would be any worse with Frau Klinton at the helm. I'll never vote for Hitlary, but I won't vote for Rudy either. If Rudy wins in '08 we are guaranteed to not have a conservative President for at least 8 more years. With Hitlary as President we at least have a chance in just 4 years. Sometimes you have to take a step backwards before advancing 2 steps. The '08 election might just be one of those situations.

Two party system
It isn't the law of the land. Washington warned against forming them, but that is how it has developed. The American system is also partly to blame. Want more choice, tear up the constitution, junk the presidency and go to a parliamentary system with proportional representation. Yes you can vote for a third party. The last time one was able to even win a handful of electors was 1968, even Perot's 19% in 1992 wasn't good enough to win a single state. The last time a third party was able to come to power was in 1860--when one of the two parties imploded and the other split in two.


HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND

.....That Democrats are the enemy ...that they are traitors to this Repubilic and that every action of theirs is designed to destroy the Constitution ...to destroy Capitalism and to replace it with Socialism and a Socialist State ...

.....He needs to understand that Democrats are not to be compromized with ...that they and their ideology needs to be confronted and destroyed ...

.....He needs to adopt the ten tenets of this article as his core principles and never compromise them away .....COLOSSUS

SSGT
Wholly spacecrud!

SNOW????!!!!

I HATE SNOW!!! IT REALLY BLOWS!!!!

You have NO IDEA how much I hate snow. I would rather my husband get a prostitute, bring her home, and have whoopie on MY BED than see snow again!!

SSGT
It's about 90 deg here with light to moderate incoming! haha.

Five day forecast shows continuing 90's with scattered 107mm rockets and possible plunging fire from celebratory gunfire.

Iraqis stepping up to the plate on my blog. More charitable than The Goreacle, that's for sure! HAAHAHAHAHA!

Rudy is right
The SCOTUS has never ruled that states don't have the right to regulate guns. And each state has various laws dealing with the issue of guns--some very restrictive and some less so. Sounds like a state issue to me?

Are you trying to tell me gun laws in New York are the same as they are in Mississippi?

Rudy's position was that like a car, weapons should be licensed and the ownner forced to have training. In most states, you must have a license to hunt and you have to complete a training course. This is a far from the "gun taker" picture the pro-NRA types have painted of him.


Gunny
What about the Congo? The Pygmies would not be so tolerant. Or even Christmas Island? This way, they would have to deal with the name, too, not to mention the relative distance from civilization.

Gunny
Has Al Gore's organization given any aid to the Californians? I haven't heard of any liberal giving money, but then again, I don't watch 'Entertainment Tonight'.

YLG
I'm with you girl. Snow is absolutely useless. C'mon down here to Florida. I have always maintained that the only proper place for ice is in your drink.

RUDY IS A DEMOCRAT

.....A close look at Rudy's positions and record clearly shows that he is a Democrat-in-fact and a Republican in name only (RINO) ...

.....The only reason that Rudy is leading in National polls is because most Americans believe that he is tough and that he has the best chance to beat Hillary ...

.....I don't agree that Rudy has the best chance to beat Hillary ...I think a true Conservative that can attract moderates and independents has the best chance ...

.....Conservatives need to stop voting "against" something (Hillary) ...and begin voting "for" something ...a true Conservative who won't compromise on core principles .....COLOSSUS

Akagi
Actually, RINO Rudy made it HARDER for legitimate NY'ers to get a gun permit, get a CCW permit, and that put them at the risk of criminals.

Dr. John Lott interviewed crminals in a study a few years back, and overwhelmingly, they stated that they AVOID someone who is packing heat or MAY be packing heat.

Dialing 911 should not be the only option but it was for RINO Rudy.

Cops = clean up crew.

Sammy
I tend to agree on most of your points. I do think, however, that Giuliani would do a better job by virtue of the fact that he has some experience DOING gov't work. Mrs. Clinton has done nothing. If it comes down to the two, at least Giuliani could be slapped down a peg or two by the conservatives. Mrs. Clinton would just turn a blind eye and scream 'VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY IS HURTING MY FEELINGS!!'

It's Judo
PhillupSpace:

It's Judo or in Chinese Roudao meaning "the soft way."


YLG
GOOD ONE!

Christmas Island would kill them!

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo
The most truth I have read on TH for months.

Conservatives do not demand 100% conformance to our views, but

1) there are some views that are cornerstones and must be followed for a pol. to have credibility. Abortion is the strongest of these in my mind.

2.)there must be more than just political unity. For example Rudi is favored becuase he has political strength and not much else that is conservative. Voting for a republican b/c they are republican is clearly insufficient.

Again, thank you for this article. So many on TH have destroyed their credibility with nonsensical pro-rudi conservative hit-jobs, where you just know the writer can't really believe what they are writing.

G. Will, M. Medved and others have lost my respect for good.

GunnyG/YLG
I guess you just had to rub those 90's in our mugs, huh? lol
YLG, I think I need the prostetutes more than your hubby! LMAO.
Seriously, if its still in the low 50's, upper 40's, not much chance of the fallen white flakes. So I would not worry too much. You'll get a better look and update next week. After all, its a 10 day forecast, and we know about our weather predictors, now don't we

Roberto: Morning pookie, how is my little snow bunny today?

Bobby
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm in TEXAS, boy! The only place for snow is on the Discovery Channel! I second the drink, though. I'm planning a soujourn to Gainesville to visit my godmother for her 90th birthday next year. THANK GOODNESS her birthday is in December!!

Continued...
11. "I'm Not Hillary" is not a platform.

12. As Jimmy Carville said, "There ain't nuthin in the middle except white stripes and dead armadillos." Quit trying to pander to a mythical moderate middle. Nobody wants Democrat Lite. Those who want what the Demmies offer will go their way, so think 'principle' instead of 'clever electoral strategy.'

13. Real conservatives want smaller government, not big government doing 'conservatoid' stuff. Taxes are too high now, & too complex & loaded with gimmicks. There are too many federal departments & agencies now, not too few. There are too many laws in the Federal Code already. Getting a clue yet on which way things ought to be headed?

14. Conservatives have already been burned by the "go along now & then when we get in power we'll govern as conservatives" pitch, so lose it. We don't want to give a mandate to someone who's not going to walk the walk & talk the talk.

15. We understand that leopards don't change their spots. If you got the nod after an overnight epiphany to embrace conservatism, when your track record has been (Ted) Kennedyesque or anticonstitutional up to now, you've simply used up oxygen a conservative should have gotten. "Looking Presidential" alone doesn't cut it.

16. Don't tell us how much federal $$$ you'll bring home; tell us how much of our hard-earned $$$ you'll leave in our pockets at the front end.

17. If the pop media despises you and calls you nasty names, that's probably a good sign. They are not your constituents, & if your name isn't Clinton or Kennedy followed by a capital D, they'll never give you fair coverage, so get over it.

McKinnon makes some....
good points. Especially on border control and a strong military and strict law enforcement and sound fiscal responsibility. I believe that in light of the way the people made their voices heard this past summer on the Amnesty bill that the candidate who keeps these issues at the forefront during the campaign will be the next POTUS.

Without the implementation of these important issues the rest won't matter. Yes, I want our leaders to be of good moral character, holding themselves to high standards of conduct but politicians are not our religious leaders, nor should they be.

I listened to the new Governor of Louisiana speak as to the reasons for the slap down of the GOP in 2006 and he gets it. We need Conservatives who will go to Washington and remain conservative having the guts to be partisan and stand with the people who elected him.


SSGT
Did you read Gray Ghost's post last night re: HalD?

Seems Miss Hal was a bureaucrat AF turd and got passed over for his "bird!" haha.

No wonder she's a bitter old crone and joined the other whiners at Vote Vets! haha.

I wonder if Robert Robert and his "wonder woman" got their penicillin shots last night!

Don't Tread On Me
Number 16 is a WINNER!

I'm waiting for Fred to embrace the Fair Tax and twist the t*tty of everyone else.

http://www.fairtax.org

He does that, he'll definately surpass the Bald Hildabeast.

YLG
YLG, I have to disagree with you on that one. I'd rather have an ineffective liberal in power rather than an effective liberal in power.

Mr. Mackinnon-BrianR-GunnyG
Mr. MacKinnon, nothing more need be said!

BrianR, Eloquent as ever!

GunnyG, Shaggy says you advocate beating up Liberals. I am DEEPLY OFFENDED...that you didn't tell me When & Where we were going to start :)!

YLG, GunnyG, SSGT....
Good Mornin' all. I live in the Texas panhandle and we usually get some pretty good snows especially in Feb and Mar.

YLG, I have lots of ties to the Gainsville area and love that part of Texas, of course if I understand correctly you live in the hill country, which is my absolute favorite part of Texas. I love the Live Oaks! I keep trying to grow them here but so far with no luck at all.

YLG, Gunny & SSGT
Good morning all...



What's on the menu for today?

Mackinnon
has, in my opinion that has come from reading many of his articles, the best grasp of the wishes of everyday conservatives across this nation.

There isn't an article of his that I've read that has prompted me to post any less than 5 stars.

Every point he makes here is spot on.

Coulter is funnier, but when it comes down to seriousness about the future of out country, this is it.

Fortress America
Banks:

The US should feel free to withdraw behind its borders--I don't think you'll like the results though.

If a power withdraws it leaves a vaccum and like a true vaccum it will be refilled. So who would you rather have control of the sealanes that your oil and goods depend on--the US or China? Or Japan, since if the US withdrew it could easily build one of the most powerful militaries on earth and unlike the 1930s, this time, it'd be nuclear and the ability to strike anywhere on the planet. If the JSA can send up rockets, a strategic arm of the newly minted Imperial Japanese Air Force could launch nuclear tipped ICBMs just as easily.

Which from the US perspective is better having Iran as the central military power in the Middle East or the US? Would a nuclear Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan really be good for the world and the region? Or for the US? Would a nuclear third Sino-Japanese War really be in the best interests of the United States?

For you Ron Paul trolls, this is not 1789 and the world has changed--hiding behind your walls will no longer protect you. I thought the Kido butai showed you that back in 1941.

Invasion? (and DD's guest worker plan)
No such thing is happening, say the Medved-Bush-McCain-Lott-Frist Republicans.

Here's my immigration solution:

Anyone in Mexico that can pass a health and criminal background investigation is eligible for a one year visa at the price of $500.

Half of everything earned in that year is put into an account that will only be accessible upon their return to Mexico.

The visa grants driving priveleges when used in conjunction with a Mexican driver's license and insurance.

The visa does not allow for anyone to come along with the worker, but it does grant free cross border travel.

Upon a criminal conviction, the visa is revoked and the holder may never apply for the visa again.

The visa does not put anyone in line for citizenship. If you would like to apply for citizenship, do so correctly. A command of the English language must also be demonstrated.

The 14th ammendment is repealed.

Under my plan, any Mexican that does not mean the USA or any of her citizens harm will be allowed legitimate and accomadating entry into the United States to work. Therefore, the border may be turned into a minefield with robotic miniguns stationed in high traffic areas since all of the "people who just want to work" will be granted visas.

The border patrol will be given orders to shoot anyone on sight seen in the border area. There will be a 1 mile wide "no man's land" section where the only living things will be the vultures picking the flash off of the bodies of smugglers and the criminals trying to get by our laws.

Sound fair?



Gunny, SSGT
Gunny: I thought about Easter Island, but after studying the Moai and the culture there, I couldn't in good conscience send the UN there. Besides, Christmas Island is even farther away from S. America.

SSGT: The prostitute line was something I used when the movie 'The Ring' came out on DVD. I HATED that movie, but hubby loved it. He asked if he could buy it. I told him the line. He came back with, " Are those my two choices, then?" Gotta love him!!

I have to run errands at the mall. Will check back soon!

Sammy
"Isn't Jorge Bush...proof that electing a faux conservative is dramatically worse than allowing the election of a liberal Democrat."

Actually, no.

Quick name something Bill Clinton did in his two terms that you agreed with!

Yeah. Welfare Reform is about all I can think of too. And that was a Gingrich idea. Anything else? Without "googling"?

Okay. Now I'm going to list some things we've gotten in the last 7 years.

Two pretty good SCOTUS appointments.

Across the board tax cuts.

An Attorney General friendly to gun owners.

A U.N. ambassador not inclined to act like the U.N. is anything other than a den of corrupt, inept socialists.

Principled opposition to U.N. efforts to enact international gun control.

Afghanistan no longer in use as a land of training camps for al Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein swinging from a rope.

Libya giving up it's nuke program. (Their equipment is now being stored at Oak Ridge).

Sammy, that's just off the top of my head. Do I agree with everything Bush has done? Of course not.

But how much of the above do you suppose we'd have gotten with Gore? Or Kerry?

Yeah. So do you REALLY believe that electing Bush was actually worse than if we'd just elected a liberal?

You lack a sense of proportion. Of perspective.

Man, I take four MORE years of BUSH if it came down to a choice between him and Hillary.

GunnyG writes:
...I'm waiting for Fred to embrace the Fair Tax and twist the t*tty of everyone else.


When is Fred going to come out swinging?
I have been a bit disappointed in his campaign so far.

But Rudy? Can you say Suing the Feds over immigration in NYC?

Not that it matters but is Blume-Head still running? What is he toady, an Independent?


How about a Thompson/Hunter or Thompson/Tancredo ticket?

Anyone?

Bman, Farmer's Wife
Farmer's Wife: LIVE OAKS IN THE PANHANDLE??? You have better luck finding a leprechaun!!

Bman: I'm outta here to have brunch with my sis-in-law before you ruin my appetite...

There is More
If Rudy opens the borders. (do not forget that his law firm is as we speak busy working on the spear through America NAU. Do you of the military mind know what a dagger this will be. I see that there is a ton of money pushing this RINO. I am resigned to Mitt as he is the only one who can compete. Hunter/Tancredo are two that I am most confortable.

Georgetwin
HAHA.

I wuz just a funnin! We never hurt em for real, just make them cry and then send them down the road in women's clothes. It releases their inner lib self! haha.

Now our VRWC trapper jerubaal, he traps them for our VRWC BBQ on Independence Day, and feeds them green beer and raw meat to get em mean!

More fun to hunt that way!

Don't worry, ALL VRWC members get a flyer in the mail around Apr/May. RSVP please.

Fair but unworkable
You'll never get 2/3rd of the US Congress and 3/4 of the state houses to ever agree to repeal the 14th Amendment and you'll never get anyone to allow the use of deadly force to stop immigration.

GunnyG
I did! And just reading some of his rants today, she is VERY BITTER!
haha


Hal: Robbie, why do they call me bitter?
Roberto: Because you are!

Don't Tread On Me....
I liked all your points. I would really like to see a candidate that would embrace them all and take special note of #17!

Bman3 you start the menu and the rest of us can refine it as the day goes on.


Akagi re your 10:09AM post
You: "The last time a third party was able to come to power was in 1860--when one of the two parties imploded and the other split in two."



Kinda like what we're seeing happening at this point in history, right now.



Bman3
I like both combos.

I also like Jindal about 8 years from now after he unscrews Louisiana and comes out swinging!

Fred stated a few weeks back that he is gonna campaign HIS WAY!

I hope he steps the heat.

Akagi re your 10:20 post
So you agree your gun rights can be federalized?

Okay, I'll buy that just as soon as you also agree that your Freedoms of the Press, Free Speech and Religion can also be regulated at the local level, the 4th Amendment requirement for search warrants can be modified at the local level, and the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination can be modified at the local level.

After all, they're all parts of the same Bill of Rights.


YLG...actually
there are some Live Oaks up here, but they have to be in a really protected area, sheltered from the especially brutal north winter winds.


But they still just don't get it
Yes Douglas. You are so right, but some of us are getting pretty exasperated as to whether the politicians will ever get it. Just as there are doubts that they will ever truly understand radical Islam until perhaps it is too late. I think it may have been Ann Coulter who said something to the effect that you can't negotiate with a snake.

Farmer's Wife
can we start it say, after lunch today? lol




Hal: Roberto, did you stir the gravy with your feet today?

It's a clear choice
Mitt is it. Did anyone see his interview w/ Hannity last night? The guy is brilliant, and he's one of us. He's highly educated but not an elitist; He's understands the true threats- Jihadists (as he calls them) and illegal immigration, he's pro-life, anti-gay MARRIAGE, and just a regular guy and is squeaky clean. He totally understands the oppression of high taxes, and he can beat Hillary. He totally creamed Shannon O’Brien in the debates to win his governorship in MA, and can do the same to Hillary. He chided the Marxist for bribing the people with their own money and said government should get out of the way and let people prosper on their own. And he's done it! He is a producer. Mitt is it.

GunnyG do you..
think is just laying low till the real fighting starts, or what? Wish he would get up more steam.

I would love to see more steam from Hunter too!

Begging the question
What this article is attempting to claim is that true conservatism is SOCIAL conservatism. And that is just flat wrong. Period. It's sad that we've reached the point that such a thesis can even be seriously proposed.

I can remember a time before the late 1970s, before the time when social conservatives became an important part of the conservative coalition. THEY are the aberration, the new kids on the block; we economic conservatives CREATED conservatism many years earlier.

Mr. Murchison didn't mention that:

True conservatives believe in the free market, including the international arena, and reject protectionism.

True conservatives believe in a limited Federal government that does not usurp the sovereignty of states--even when THEY are running that Federal government.

If all that is left of conservatism in America is the social conservatism of the Christian evangelicals, then it is DEAD as a political movement as far as I am concerned. It will never have another chance to sway the majority of Americans, who are not Christian evangelicals.

Out
The list pretty much leaves Rudy out. Of the remaining viable candidates that leaves Romney. Fred has a rapidly shrinking window that seems to be closing fast.

Quercus virginiana
Farmer's Wife:

It will grow in USDA zone 7. Not so sure about Quercus fusiformis though. But there are claims it can found as far north as Oklahoma, but depending where you are in the pan handle you can be as warm as zone 7a or as cool as 6a. The hardiness is said to be zone 6b for Q. fusiformis which is a little more hardy than Q. virginiana, so if you live in 6a or even 6b try to plant it in a sheltered site--like on the southside of a house, etc.

I've grown Q. virginiana in zone 7 with no problems.

This concludes my growing live oaks post for the day.




Who's got the stones...
(1)...to veto every spending bill Congress sends him until we get a balanced budget that doesn't take the hid off the military?

(2)...to attack Iran if that's what it takes to prevent nuclear war in the Middle East?

(3)...to deport women and children who came here illegally?

(4)...to explain to Congress, with respect to (1) above, that if the tax cuts aren't made permanent the budget will have to be SMALLER, not larger, to be balanced and avoid a veto?

(5)...to charge the New York Times with treason if they keep aiding and abetting our enemies while our troops are in harm's way?

(6)...to revoke the White House Press credentials of reporters who lie, obfuscate, tell only one side of the story, etc.?

(7)...to tell Democrats, the lib media, and the rest of the whining crying, mewling, lib establishment that no, the Executive Branch is NOT going to continue passively submitting to Democrat witch-hunt subpoenaes; that Executive Privilege will be asserted whenever and wherever necessary to get Dems in Congress to stop abusing their "oversight" function and get down to working on something useful, like actually fixing SS?

(8)...to dump this idiotic ethanol initiative and return us to crude oil? To explain that the best US energy plan is crude and coal? To drill Anwar? To state, in no uncertain terms, that man-made GloBull warming is all Bull and no glow?

(9)...to fix health care by getting gov't OUT of it instead of trying to take control of more of it?

Who's got the stones?

Not sure about Mitt
There's something about Mitt. I can't put my finger on it though. It's not that he is Mormon or anything to do with his religion.

I have to admit I don't know a lot about him. One thing that does bother me is the healthcare in MA. I understand that everyone is required to have health insurance and I have also read/heard that it is not going as envisioned. But I don't live in Taxachusetts nor will I ever so I don't care what they do 'up there.'

But it does bother me to know that I might have to vote for someone that is a sponsor of state healthcare.



SSGT:
Your last sign off took the thunder away from my menu today. Great minds think alike.

Farmer's Wife
I agree. He needs to start separating the RINO's from the herd and taking them down on at a time.

He hits on strong broders, strong defense, and the FairTax, he's leagues ahead of the rest.

Citizen Carrier
Citizen Carrier, once you get past the tax cuts on your list you're really having to search for relatively insignificant and esoteric conservative accomplishments under Jorge. I don't really have the time to catalog all of the liberal crappola that Tio Jorge has wrought with his rubber stamping Republican congress, but I have to believe that all of his big government (AKA compassionate conservative) programs and entitlements, amnesty, etc. would have been summarily rejected by the Republicans in Congress if proposed by a liberal Democrat.

As much as I desire tax cuts, it's the out of control spending on a thousand fronts that I consider the far more important side of the equation. On that front Jorge has been an unmitigated disaster.

Look, I am willing to bite the bullet and support a GOP candidate Romney or Thompson, but Giuliani is simply a bridge too far -- primarily because of his pro amnesty open borders agenda.

Bman3
sorry I tell ya! Just plain sorry!



Rosie: Can someone, anyone, help me up off the sofa? Pleasssssssseeeee!

LIVE OAKS IN THE PANHANDLE?

.....Farmers Wife ....

.....If you grow them in an arboretum ...

.....Live oaks will not thrive in the panhandle because it gets too cold, is too dry and most important ...the soil is too alkaline ...

.....Live Oaks like mild winters, high humidity and slightly acid soil ...the same with azaleas .....COLOSSUS

Akagi thanks....
for the info.

2nd has never been applied to the states
But unlike the Second Amendment, the SCOTUS has never ruled that states can limit your 4th, 5th, 8th, 1st, etc amendment rights. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated to apply to the states (see Gitlow V. NY (1925) for what I mean). Which means, the 2nd Amendment--at this point--doesn't even apply to the states. This isn't an opinion, this is just fact. Get the SCOTUS to strike down a state law and get the 2nd incorporated. At this point Rudy is right.

What you seem not to understand is that unlike the other amendments, the SCOTUS has never said states don't have the right to regulate firearms and the 2nd has never been applied to the states in the first place. So at this point, New York could ban firearms outright and it would be constitutional. Remember until 1868, the constitution only applied to the Federal government and it was not until 1925 that the Bill of Rights on a case by case basis began to be applied to the states. At this point, it doesn't. So a state (or its creations--cities, counties, etc) can do what in will in regards to firearms--this is not the case with many of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights


I was happy to hear that
Jindal was elected in LA.

That has to give us hope. Right?

If LA can elect a Rep Gov then WE can elect a true conservative.

In my state, S.C., there seems to be a big push for keeping Lindsay Graham in office. Sen DeMint and Gov Sanford have endorsed him and are co-chairing his campaign.

I am hoping that he is replaced. So far he has no Democratic opposition. Only a couple of Reps running against him in the primary. SC voters are apparently suffering from HUA syndrome and can't remember the "Gang of 14" fiasco.


GunnyG & SSGT:
Lindsay also was in the paper yesterday stating that if the AG nominee will not come out AGAINST water boarding as a form of torture he will have to re-think his support for the AG nominee.


Maybe I can move....
south someday. But for now the panhandle is home. There are a few successful live oaks and azaleas here but very few. The soil has to be amended and they have to be protected from the cold.

Guess I'll have to settle for a nice screensaver.

Sure hope a real conservative can beat out Lindsey Graham.

No BrianR
Last I checked vast areas of the country weren't about to leave the Union. Now if a party vanishes over some issue and another one splits in two and a number of states threaten to leave the Union if the candidate of this third party is elected and are starting to raise armies to defend itself from the Federal government--then, yes, that would be similar.

Assuming a useless "conservative" third party candidate were to come about, I'd compare 2008 to 1968. Unpopular war, unpopular party, a small segment of the ruling party leaves and forms a splinter party over a social issue and it steals enough of the votes away from it to cost it the election. 2000 comes to mind as well.

1912 or 1992 not so much since any person the crazed right fringe puts out there won't get as much support as Teddy (who actually came in second) or Perot. Perhaps 2000 is the best election to point to. Crazies flock to a person as they claim both sides are the same and they cause the ruling party to lose a close election, because your third party champion won't get as much as Wallace did in 1968 nor will he win any electors as Thurmond did in 1948 nor get over 5% as Anderson did in 1980. He will be like Nader, but he won't cost the GOP the election in 2008. I don't see it being all that close so even without the third party candidate and even if the social conservatives don't boycott the election, the GOP still loses by over 5 points.




Bman3
Go Sc's better drop a bomb on Lindsay in the next cycle! Serious man, heavy bomb!



Rosie: Hal you can water board off of me any ole day!

Barry! Help!
If only Barry Goldwater were here today.

An actual conservative could take office.


SteveL, chicken or egg?
You claim that "social conservatism" is some new phenomenon arisen from the 60s, and frankly, I disagree.

Today's "social conservatism" is actually the traditional and historical values norm for our society; the redefinition that arose from the 60s was in the labeling of it as something "new". It isn't.

Back in the day, I was able to walk into my local hardware store, select a gun, plunk down my money, and walk out of the store with my gun in a paper bag. Simple as that. EVERYONE owned one, or at least didn't think twice about the fact they were so common. It was the norm.


SSGT
The problem with the people who have announced against Lindsey is that they have no recognition. Graham has a big war chest. And I think Bush is coming down for a fundraiser sometime this week.
Graham has over $4m in the bank now I think.

I just hope that everyone will remember his amnesty support when the time comes.




Robert:
Hal, lunch is almost ready.


Akagi,
First of all, SCOTUS doesn't have to "rule" that states must abide by any amendment or the Constitution itself. By definition, it's the law of the land, and states aren't allowed to just pick and choose what part they want to observe. THAT, my friend, is in the Constitution itself.

Further, contrary to your assertion, SCOTUS has also never ruled that the states can limit 2nd A rights. The last major 2nd A ruling was Miller in 1939, and it didn't address the issue at all. What it did affirm was an individual right to own weapons commonly used by the military, and was fairly limited in scope to that issue. That's why Parker has the potential to be such a great win for the 2nd A, as it cuts right to the heart of the entire issue. At this point, the lower courts have pretty unformly upheld the individual, rather than collective, interpretation. So, frankly, you're all wet on that.

As to your statement that the 2nd A "doesn't apply to the states", I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying they don't have to abide by it? That's ludicrous. My parallel with all the other amendments shows how absurd that proposition is.

The states don't get to pick and choose, and SCOTUS doesn't have to rule on every single little thing in the country in order for it to be operative. SCOTUS also hasn't ruled that the Sun must rise in the East, but it does so anyway.

BrianR
There was a time when if you drove to school you had a shotgun hanging in the rack on the back window of your pick 'em up truck.

No one was worried. No one was concerned. It was the "norm."






Robert:
have you got Rosie prepped yet?

Further, Akagi
On your other premise about the changing of party makeup, are you saying that the only time the political landscape can change in this country is when states are seceding and Civil War looms?

Hate to tell you, buddy, but the country's as divided now as it's ever been in its history, we actually ARE in the midst of a cultural civil war, and thankfully it's been bloodless so far.

So, I guess, you may be right. Doesn't change what I wrote, though.

The eleventh thing
Outlaw homosexuality and punish child molestation with the mandatory death penalty.

Depends on the species
Quercus virginiana is more tender and is said to be hardy to zone 8, but I have grown them in zone 7. It is also one of the plants that the Southern Nevada Water Authority lists as one of its approved xeriscape trees and Las Vegas has pretty low humidy, it has similar soils and much hotter temps and much less rainfall than the Texas or Oklahoma panhandle (which is zone 6a). Quercus fusiformis is more hardy than Q. virginiana and likes drier soils. But it is hardly only to zone 6b and perhaps even 7a. If you live in zone 6a or 6b as I said plant it on a protected site like a southern exposure where you have buildings or other structures that serve as windbreaks. Also oaks do like acid soil, so use an acid-loving plant fertilizer like those used with camelias, rhododendrons, etc.

As you probably know they grow at a medium rate and will get massive--eventually (and you'll be long dead, and your children, and theirs and theirs) spreading 90 feet across or more.

I assume you are growing these in the ground? If you are trying to grow them in pots, good luck. I have never had one survive a winter in a pot.

The issue isn't the coldness but water. In pots they develop wet feet and simply die. If your winters are very dry, perhaps you'll have different results, but I never got them to survive. Same with Italian Stone Pines (P. pinea) never been able to have them survive in pots over the winter, but they'll survive in the ground...same issue...wetness.


That's odd...
...I thought we'll be electing a President, not a Messiah.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Bman3
Heck, that's STILL the norm in Virginia. What was funny was walking into an establishment, carrying openly, and watching the libs tweak.

A group of us did the NRA course in PA and walked into the hotel packing pistols, shotguns, ammo. THAT was a hoot.

Exactly right
The states do not have to abide by the 2nd amendment at all.

When the constitution was ratified it ONLY applied to the states. See Barron v. Baltimore (1833). What changed was the ratification of the 14th Amendment. In 1925 in Gitlow v. NY, the court then began to apply the various rights in the Bill of Rights to the states. But it did so on a case by case basis and has become known as Selective Incorporation. The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated and as such it no more applies to the states and their creations than it did when it was ratified in 1789.

"The states don't get to pick and choose."

Yes they do--they have to abide by the ones that have been incorporated. The 2nd isn't one that has been. In fact it is one of the few rights that have not been applied to the states.

ANd for your other point, the US has been much more divided before. Look at 1968 and the years just prior and just after. Riots in the streets, political and civil rights leaders murdered, an unpopular war, and economy that was heading south, inflation, unemployment...much calmer now.


Correction
I meant to say it only applied to the Federal government and not the states.


Sammy
"Citizen Carrier, once you get past the tax cuts on your list you're really having to search for relatively insignificant and esoteric conservative accomplishments under Jorge."

That's just the thing. I wasn't "searching". That was just off the top of my head.

So, the appointments of Roberts and Alito qualify as relatively insignificant and esoteric to you?

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Suppose we'd gotten two more Ginsbergs instead?

And the RULINGS of a court with Roberts and Alito are esoteric and insignificant to you? My goodness, as far as domestic policy, that court has tremendous power.

And destroying al Qaeda's infrastructure in Afghanistan is esoteric? They murdered 3000 Americans. Smashing them in Afghanistan was like liberating the Phillipines from Japan.

Sorry, but having a President who actually fights terrorims around the globe is not an esoteric and insignificant thing. There is no reason to believe that Gore or Kerry would've done any such thing.

Akagi
Allow me to educate you.

Article 4, Section 2:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

You're wrong.

BrianR
You're dead on in regards to the 2d Am. The words, "the people" are only used four time in the Amendments and they ALL relate to the 1st, 2d, 4th, and 14th Amendment if memory serves me.

Akagi,

BTW, those are ALL of the INDIVIDUAL rights afforded to US citizens, that is, bona-fide US citizens, under the Constitution.

Fred Thompson
Is a true conservative. He is truthful. If he has made some wrong decisions, he says it ewas a mistake, he doesn't try and make excuses for his vote, he just says it looked good on paper, and didn't work out the way he thought it would.

He has always been against amnesty, Romney,and Rudy haven't. He is pro life, he is pro gun, he's for low taxes, small government. He believes a lot of laws should be handled by states, not Washington.
He's my choice.

Enjoy
Off topic but a NICE read.

http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/456858.html

Red Nanny P-Lousy...really IS lousy! haha.

STOOOOOOPID liberals. Dumber than cattle.

Sorry Brain.
Look up selective incorporation. It doesn't apply to the states, it never has. And until there is a case to get the 2nd incorporated, it never will.

Now you can consider me all you want. So please go to a state or community that has a restrictive gun law and ignore it and claim they are violating your 2nd amendment rights...who knows, your case could be the one that finally gets the 2nd applied to the states.

You know the NRA has never attempted to have this done. You know why, because of the fear the court would rule that not only did the 2nd not apply to the states but it didn't apply to individuals under Federal law either.


Gunny
The 10th also mentions the people.


Wrong again, Akagi