Conservative Support or Not?

I thought about that, but decided to take it at face value and expound on the McCain's politics and his possible running mates.'

So, even if that much of Semper's post was misinterpreted, the essay regarding McCain, his possible running mates, and my opinion of them still stands.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


When McCain decides on his running mate, he will have to consider electability. If you look at the primaries, you will see that many more Democrats showed up at the polls than Republicans. This makes me think that many R's felt that they didn't have a conservative choice, so they stayed away in droves.

I like Lieberman, I always have. He is one of the most highly regarded men of integrity in DC. But once again, he is not conservative enough to get the R's off the couch and into the voting booth, imo.

Grady this was an excellent point that you made:

I think that what the American people really want is the same level of security that has been established in the wake of 9/11, but with some new faces and some fresh ideas.

I don't think Obama or Clinton can supply that. And I just can't picture either of them as CiC.

But I disagree with this point you made, Grady:

Regardless of who McCain picks as his running mate and regardless of McCain's leanings over the span of his political life, McCain will have to face up to the realities of the current world conditions, which trump the petty arguments over whether or not McCain is conservative enough, which given our current state is about a meaningful as the argument over whether Obama is black enough.

The next president had better pay lots of attention to domestic issues, and with a conservative stick. Things like border security - which I'm still not comfortable with McCain, even though he allegedly saw the error of his ways, his private conversations have rumored to be delivered with a snicker and a sneer - and taxes & the economy.

By world conditions, I mean domestic policies as well.

I would rather see McCain pick a conservative who would mobilize the conservative base, but if the prospect of Hillary or Obama being president isn't enough to get the conservatives off their couches, then they deserve what they get.

I'll be voting for who I believe will be the best candidate for the job, regardless of who my ideal ticket might be.

[edit on 2008/3/20 by GradyPhilpott]

As a conservative, I certainly dont feel as if I have a candidate I can support at all in this race. Like so many posted before me, its really just a choice of picking the least-worst option. Unfortunately, that's probably McCain. The same McCain that wanted to pass an amnesty bill for illegal immigration, and the one who essentially fortified the position of the media in America with the passing of McCain-Feingold, thus empowering them to elect the next president and taking away everyone else's freedom of speech.

I don't see Hillary making it much longer, and I utterly despise Obama. Guess I'm just a "typical white person" that way...

reply to post by jsobecky


I agree with this assessment. The turnout was so much higher for Democrats because they are two dream candidates representing two previously unrepresented minorities (black people and women).

The Republicans however, had a choice between an apathetic mormon, an old liberal, a man whose first name coincides with one of santa claus' raindeers, a religious zealot or a libertarian in GOP clothing.

We conservatives didn't have a single candidate who we could earmark and say "Yes! This is the man I would like to lead our nation and act as commander in chief". Just as British conservatives like me are wailing for the new Maggie Thatcher or Winston Churchill, I can see the GOP grassroots waiting and biding their time for their next Ronal Reagan.

In the meantime, could we bear four years of Obama as the heir to JFK?

I like the McCain/Lieberman ticket, save for the little issue of McCain at the top of it. But who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us, and do a bang up job. I think, right now, he's a better choice than the other two. It pains me to say it, though.

Concervatives, and I are one, must realize that the POTUS is representing all of us, if he does a good job, I couldn't care less what his leaning within his party are...just because we don't like him, doesn't make him the antichrist, though some of the comments I've heard make him out to be something close. No I don't agree with the man, but the office of President does strange things to people when the sit there, that's why there are so many one termers.

Any one of the three might surprise us.

Lieberman is a moderate Democrat, McCain is a Moderate Republican, it would give a living breathing example of bipartisanship to Congress for their edification. Maybe then somethings would actually get resolved, or at least moving towards a resolution.

This currant economic downturn is in no way even remotely resembles the Great Depression. Ask anyone who lived through it. Ease up on the rhetorical flourishes there.

[edit on 3/24/2008 by seagull]

Originally posted by semperfortis
McCain : Lieberman

McCain : Feingold

McCain : Kennedy

With McCain's apparently liberal leanings, can we as Conservatives truly get behind him and support him in this election?

If we can not, what are our choices?

This is something I am truly torn about and would like to know what any of you think in reference to this dilemma I am having.

Semper

Edit from Feinstein to Feingold to fix the DUH



[edit on 3/22/2008 by semperfortis]

Semper I am not a republican, but I am fairly conservative, I think the repubs lost their chance when they went for the social conservative route rather than back a candidate like Ron Paul, who speaks truth to power while having a realistic foreign policy position....IMHO.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by realmatrix]

reply to post by realmatrix


That is not a bad assessment RM...

I'm not sure RP was what was right for the country, I was really impressed with Romney, but apparently the majority of my fellow Republicans disagreed with me...

However.... I do think that RP would have led us down a much better direction than McCain. Yet, McCain it is and looking at the alternatives, I will support him..... *sigh*

Semper

reply to post by realmatrix


Ron Paul didn't gain any traction, because his platform was not attractive or even rational to most conservatives.

I think everyone thinks he's a very nice man, but they're not convinced that he would be a good president.

Governor Romney is just too weak on key issues in the Republican party. The same goes for Giuliani.

They're both good men and Giuliani is a good leader, but they're stances on abortion and the Second Amendment are too weak or vacillating to appeal to the conservative voter base at this time.

In the long haul, overriding all else, voters are looking for values that define the men they support. A person's values are not enough, but if all other things were equal among the candidates, the candidate with the demonstrated values that appeal to the broadest cross-section of a party and the country will get the votes.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


It is unfortunate that he did not get better coverage by the media, but his positions on the Federal Reserve and Foreign Policy were indeed correct and right on target.

The problem is that most people don't have any idea about the Fed, or what it does and how it effects the economy, so it just goes right over their heads until BOOM the crisis hits and then there is clamoring and finger-pointing by the usual suspects. Same is true on Foreign Policy....we need to leave other countries alone and stop with the PNAC agenda.

For now however, we have the candidates who are...as you would say "the most attractive" who are now the choice for the public.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by realmatrix

 

Ron Paul didn't gain any traction, because his platform was not attractive or even rational to most conservatives.

Foreign Policy : Non-interventionist, anti-NAFTA, anti-UN etc. Basically a proponent of Adam Smith's Laissez Faire approach. I consider this to be the classical conservative approach to world engagement. Do you?

Immigration : Hardest line of any candidate in the GOP race. No amnesty for illegal immigrants. Closing of the porous border with Mexico. Against extending welfare to illegal immigrants. Ultra-conservative proposition. Far more conservative than McCain and Guiliani.

Terrorism : Reprisal of Letters of Marque to combat 21st century "piracy". I concede that he is somewhat "weaker" on terrorism than the strong appearance of McCain et al, however it is just a failing in appearance rather than ability.

Taxes : Closure of IRS, Federal Reserve, repeal of sixteenth amendment, Massive scaling back of the tax burden. I consider this to also be a very conservative position. Do you?

Constitution : Upholding the constitution at all costs. Again, a very conservative proposition.

2nd Amendment : Fervent campaigner for 2nd amendment rights. The only GOP candidate to gain a A+ rating from GOA. Anti- AWB ban. The most conservative candidate I have ever seen with respect to the 2nd Amendment.

Habeas Corpus : States that he would never, ever violate Habeas Corpus. Unlike Bush who signed the PATRIOT act and nullified Posse Comitatus.

Pro-life position : Devolved states rights and a state level decision on this subject. He introduced a bill to categorise life as "beginning at birth". Unshakeably pro-life... Another conservative position

Death Penalty : Pro. 'nuff said.

Healthcare : Rejects Universal Healthcare. He wants to let the free market control the price of healthcare.


Now Grady, I respect your intellect so I have to question why would you make such a generalised, unbacked and downright misleading statement as you made above.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Governor Romney is just too weak on key issues in the Republican party. The same goes for Giuliani.

Which key issues is he weak on?

Abortion? At one time, he was pro-choice, but now he is pro-life.

I don't consider that wavering. I consider that a sign of maturity. Who among us holds all of the same views that we held 10 or 20 years ago?

Rigidity is not a desirable characteristic, imo. The ability to change and mature with age, after life has taught us it's lessons, is much more desirable.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by realmatrix

 

Ron Paul didn't gain any traction, because his platform was not attractive or even rational to most conservatives.

Foreign Policy : Non-interventionist, anti-NAFTA, anti-UN etc. Basically a proponent of Adam Smith's Laissez Faire approach. I consider this to be the classical conservative approach to world engagement. Do you?

Immigration : Hardest line of any candidate in the GOP race. No amnesty for illegal immigrants. Closing of the porous border with Mexico. Against extending welfare to illegal immigrants. Ultra-conservative proposition. Far more conservative than McCain and Guiliani.

Terrorism : Reprisal of Letters of Marque to combat 21st century "piracy". I concede that he is somewhat "weaker" on terrorism than the strong appearance of McCain et al, however it is just a failing in appearance rather than ability.

Taxes : Closure of IRS, Federal Reserve, repeal of sixteenth amendment, Massive scaling back of the tax burden. I consider this to also be a very conservative position. Do you?

Constitution : Upholding the constitution at all costs. Again, a very conservative proposition.

2nd Amendment : Fervent campaigner for 2nd amendment rights. The only GOP candidate to gain a A+ rating from GOA. Anti- AWB ban. The most conservative candidate I have ever seen with respect to the 2nd Amendment.

Habeas Corpus : States that he would never, ever violate Habeas Corpus. Unlike Bush who signed the PATRIOT act and nullified Posse Comitatus.

Pro-life position : Devolved states rights and a state level decision on this subject. He introduced a bill to categorise life as "beginning at birth". Unshakeably pro-life... Another conservative position

Death Penalty : Pro. 'nuff said.

Healthcare : Rejects Universal Healthcare. He wants to let the free market control the price of healthcare.


Now Grady, I respect your intellect so I have to question why would you make such a generalised, unbacked and downright misleading statement as you made above.

ALL good points....I could not have said this better myself!