With Fred Thompson now gone... all Conservatives are left with are wannabe's. McCain? Too Liberal. Huckabee? Too Liberal. Rudy? Is he still in? Was he EVER in? Romney? Not AS Liberal, but not Conservative by any stretch, and may well be the only viable choice left TO Conservatives.
The question now is, can Romney beat ANY Democrat candidate in the general?
McCain? Might as well elect Hillary. There's not more than an ounce of difference between them.
40 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But let's not give up. Yeah, the remaining candidates are mostly RINOs (Republicans in name only) but they are still far superior to Hillary and Obama, who I predict will form a ticket and be hard to beat.
As to Romney? No, he can't make it. Perhaps it might be a little close if the Dems do something stupid like nominate Clinton. But even then, I think we need to accept that Clinton or Obama will be our next president and support them the best we can.
Which would include holding them accountable if they push us in a wrong way, as Bush has done for these last eight years.
I'm doubtful, but a big showing in Florida could further muddy the Republican Waters.
No we do not. That's what Media wants us to think, and you've obviously bought into it.
Media all but chooses who we have as candidates. They bend over backward to promote the candidates, Democrat AND Republican who they deem "acceptable." Ever notice how they build up one candidate, but of all the others they say "he has to win ____ or he's out"? Look what they did to Ron Paul. They decided he was no longer a factor and DIS-invited him to a debate. John McCain? Why do you think they call him a Maverick? Because he bucks his own party. Media approves of McCain because a McCain presidency is not appreciably different from a Clinton presidency... they are both Liberals.
Think this is just conspiracy? Sure sounds like it, right? But let me ask you... when did "Polling" become the most important aspect of reporting news and politics? Far too many stories are accompanied by polls conducted by networks or old-media print; crafted and designed to elicit specific responses. They're creating news, rather than reporting it. This is no longer simply a trend, it is the norm.
And this would be nothing more than a wild-eyed conspiracy except for one thing. Every "breaking" story reported by all the major news outlets invariably contain the same specific word or language... The most famous episode of this is George Bush's selection of Dick Cheney as a running mate in 2000. Do you mean to tell me that every network, on their own, without collusion, latched on to the word "Gravitas"? And if they're all parroting the same line, who's feeding it to them?
Government controls HOW we live, and Media controls HOW we think. That's how it is. Which is why it is extremely important to learn to think for oneself.
Having said that, neither Hillary nor Obama are inevitable. THAT line of reasoning brought down both Al Gore, AND John Kerry. In Politics, the EXPECTATION of a desired outcome, when unrealized, creates in the minds of the expectant that something has been stolen. What happens if Huckabee, who is NO conservative by any stretch of the imagination, wins the election? How many cries for recounts will there be? Which state will be the new "Florida"? How many more cries of protest against Diebold?
Hillary nor Obama are inevitable. And only a fool would say such a thing. Now, I know you are not a fool, so that can only mean one thing... you've bought the lie Media and "Cyber-Consensus" WANTS you to buy. And consensus is unreliable in public opinion, since even THAT is manipulated.
Can anyone say "Exit Polls"? It's a product of Consensus, and it's easily manipulated. WE... are being manipulated into expecting a specific outcome, and when that outcome does not bear fruit, we get outraged, demand recounts, and wail that we've been disenfranchised as voters... Which is exactly what our shepherds expect. The only thing left for the sheep to do then is break out the sack-cloth and ashes and perform exactly on cue, exactly as expected.
Interestingly enough. The Supreme Court was the big equalizer in 2000. And that was BEFORE Roberts and Alito. Strict interpretation and adherence to Law trumps Opinion Polls. Every time.
No one is inevitable.
Rather, I've looked at the stories out there (all over the place - especially in conservative sources! and in what the candidates are saying themselves) and have seen that:
1. Bush has damaged the Republican party severely.
2. These Republican candidates are flawed. There's not a one of them that can unite and excite the Republicans in significant numbers to overcome Bush's deficit that they were saddled with from the get-go.
3. Obama has a lot of enthusiasm surrounding him. He comes across as presidential, inspiring, hopeful, a change for the better (mind you, Obama's not my favored candidate at all, I'm just telling you what I'm seeing in a variety of places).
I'm looking at all that and thinking that Obama is going to be our next president. He will have to overcome the not insignificant Clinton/DLC machine and we've yet to see if he can do so, but I suspect yes, he will.
Honestly, Eric, have some respect for your fellow citizens. We're not all morons (eight years of Bush notwithstanding).
I mean, one of those two may get the nomination, but they're not going to rally the Republicans enough to win the day. Romney may fare slightly better, but not enough.
Again, as I already stated, IF the Dems nominate the clearly hated Clinton, she MAY be enough to enthuse the Republicans to vote against her, but it will be an uphill battle if the Republicans can't find a nominee to rally around and, quite frankly, they simply haven't.
Where am I wrong?
Now there's a number of way you can interpret that, but all I'll say is what I mean by that is not the most obvious interpretation.
Who do I think can rally Republicans? Hillary Clinton. But we're in Primaries right now, not the general. Obama is not polling as well as he should be among registered Black voters. As to whether that's a good sign or bad for Hillary remains to be seen. She is still polling quite well nationwide. Obama is polling well too, but not AS well. It all depends of a few key states. Super Tuesday will either decide the primary race or further muddy the waters. Same on the Republican side. So what else is new?
But McCain has some serious problems.... There's the Amnesty bill co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy, McCain-Feingold which trashes our first-amendment right to free speech. He supports Embryonic Stem-Cell research, and he DIDN'T support the Bush tax-cuts. Then there's the "Gang 0f Fourteen"... That man has the biggest monkey on his back I've just about ever seen.
Romney has the whole Mormon issue hanging over him. I believe his flip-flop on abortion is the result of a genuine change of heart, but that won't be enough to get him the nod. His Mormon faith is an all but insurmountable hurdle.
Huckabee? He raises taxes. Is against School-Choice, and is endorsed by the Teacher's Union... A LIBERAL organization! He looks presidential every bit as much as Romney, but....
Overall... a vote for McCain is worse than a vote for Hillary because supporting McCain the Maverick is equivalent to supporting and endorsing a redefinition of Conservatism. McCain is NO Conservative. Huckabee is NO Conservative. Romney might be a Conservative, but he can't win.
I can't in good conscience vote Democrat because the only two candidates that have a chance at the nomination are anathema to Conservatism and Godliness.
So what am I to do?
The only thing I can do... Pray. Seek his will in this election. And if He CLEARLY tells me to vote Hillary... I will. I'll swallow the bile in my throat and vote Hillary.
Per a post of mine a week or two back, God raises up weak leaders when it's time to chastise a nation... specifically "once God-fearing" nations. When he desires to bless such a nation He will raise up strong leaders. No one candidate today, Republican OR Democrat can honestly be considered a strong leader.
Everyone wants to talk about how important the Women's vote is, or the Black vote. But truth is, elections are determines by who wins the greatest number of white males.
Will that paradigm hold true for this election? Only time and tide will tell.
If anything, I think it may help him as people are thinking, "Wow, an african american CAN be president," and be swept up with enthusiasm partially for that reason.
And it only took 232 years.
But, wow, you might seriously vote for Clinton? Even I can't imagine doing that!!
You nutty liberal, you.
I think that's a trap that folk on various "sides" of issues can get themselves into: Thinking that the Other side is either evil or fools.
It's entirely possible to be sincerely concerned about logic and morality and end up looking at things in a different way than another individual interested in logic and morality.
Which is not to say that both "sides" would be right, just that they'd be right in doing their best to act morally and logically.
If it's Obama, I think it'll be a shoo-in, simply because the Republicans are wholly unthrilled with their choices.
I do not expect such a prompting.
For my money, Huckabee is the only Republican candidate I'm considering. Romney's my distant backup.
I don't believe McCain has a prayer of winning the nomination, however much Media wants him.
[wymnfrm]
None of the GOP four are conservative enough for most of us. (I'm getting that HTML thing going, eh?) But McCain was given a high rating by some conservative union that tracks such things. Don't forget, he's got like 25 years upon which to judge his conservatism. I understand that his vote against Bush's tax cuts was only because he had a similar plan (as far as how big the cuts should be) but with a much stronger tie to spending cuts as well. So he wasn't "against" tax cuts, only the way in which it was presented.
That being said, I have a really hard time with other aspects, such as McCain/Feingold, but particularly with his attitudes toward Gitmo and the so-called "torture" that allegedly goes on there. Bringing Gitmo prisoners here entitles them to rights not afforded POWs like they are. Certain aggressive interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, are crucial and positions like his put interrogators at risk for legal action. Not a good thing when we're trying to protect American lives. And in the same realm of protecting America, his position on illegal immigrants isn't tough enough, either. Unlike some, Islamofasism is still a major concern and should be for everyone.
Whichever Rep wins the nod, I believe it will be a "lesser of two evils" situation in the general and any of the three Dems chosen will inspire enough fear for our country to provoke widespread feelings of "anyone but him/her".
Despite what Dan thinks he's read, the feeling about the Republican party is that it has NOT been conservative enough and THAT'S where they've gone wrong and lost support.
I have read what I have read. From a variety of sources. Including conservative blogs.
The varied conservative blogs out there have bashed just about all of the Republican candidates for one reason or another. Romney's too Mormon and questionably conservative. McCain, Guiliani and Huckabee are all too liberal at many of these sites. One of these will be the Republican nominee and none of them will enthuse the conservative base.
But apparently, the more "conservative" ones - Hunter, Thompson, what's his name - didn't excite the Republicans at large out there - hence the lack of support for them and their subsequent drop-out.
Bush is NOT popular across the US (and world). For those on the Left and many in the middle, he has been too divisive and questionably moral in his Iraq invasion, his corporate/oil support, etc. For those on the Right, he has been too liberal and dangerous on the Border/immigration issues.
He has driven support and enthusiasm away from the Republican party.
Where in all of that is what I'm reading "wrong"?
1. Because you take it so well.
2. Because your perception is so distorted.
Obviously Bush has not been the type of conservative that for whom conservatives long. He's great on taxes, excellent on issues of innocent life, fantastic on national defense and the war on terror. And his judicial nominees, with the exception of Meyers, is just what this country needs. Not so good on the illegal alien situation, and he's done little to curb federal spending. Frankly, I don't think he even had a veto pen until recently. I count myself among those who are certain history will judge him better than many do today.
The problem people have with the GOP is that too many in Congress, as well as Bush with spending and immigration, have not acted like conservatives in recent years. This is what causes people to sit back and believe their votes would be better held than cast. An unfortunate and stupid position considering the alternatives.
But I don't think you're hearing pundits express any such positions other than still voting for what lame Republicans might be available rather than to allow idiotic Dems to capture more seats. The lament is that there aren't enough real conservative choices and that the message of conservatism isn't being widely articulated well enough for folks like yourself to understand. Smaller words might be the way to go.
As far as why those like Thompson and Hunter didn't fare better, I'd have to agree with Eric that much of it has to do with the media. Members of the right aren't above being taken in by the herd mentality that so aptly describes the left. If the media leans toward one guy, some will feel like jumping on the band wagon. Money for campaigning is another factor. Hunter had little. Thompson may have started spending too late. But I think that soon, we'll see campaign money being a bit less important as candidates begin using websites more effectively. Thompson's was very detailed about his plans, but again, I don't think he ran his campaign well enough.
Finally, each of us who claim to be discerning, has to hold the feet of others to the fire and ask them why they'd support someone like an Obama and demand an answer that isn't something like "change" or "he'll unite us" or some superfluous crap like that.
BTW, Dan. Care to mention who you're looking at and why?
He's the only candidate who's talking about the serious problems of being dependent upon fossil fuels and the desperate need to cut back the rate of our overconsumption. This, to me, will be the major issue facing us in the next ten-twenty years and it's way past time to start confronting the reality of living in a finite world.
He is pushing for world and US security by ending this war in Iraq, which is destabilizing things, making us less, not more secure. He's the only candidate talking about developing a Cabinet of Peacemaking - recognizing the notion that if you want peace, you need to develop strategies for peace.
He is pushing for reform or an end to NAFTA, et al.
He is pushing for a strong defense of our Constitution.
For starters.
But, since Kooch is simply not going to win (part of that vast media strategy to keep progressive, conservative thinking out of the Whitehouse - and the sheeple have played right into their hands! d'oh!), I'm hoping for Obama. I'd be okay with Edwards, too.
I won't vote for Clinton. Period. (Well, as Eric noted, I guess short of God speaking directly to me, telling me to vote for her).
After Edwards/Obama, I'd lean towards Ron Paul (or has he already dropped out?) if I had to choose a Republican - although realistically, I'd vote for a third party candidate before Paul, likely... I just haven't heard any names of any third party candidates).
So, the short answer is, I'd likely vote for Obama, who is likely going to be our next president. If so, it'd be the first time I've ever voted for a winning president!
The problem people have with the GOP is that too many in Congress, as well as Bush with spending and immigration, have not acted like conservatives in recent years.
Well, of course, this might be better stated is that the problem SOME people have with the GOP is that it hasn't acted like conservatives. The problem other people have with the GOP is that it hasn't acted like compassionate conservatives.
For others, it's because they haven't behaved like historic conservatives (the Good Republicanism of the Mark Hatfields, Harold Stassens, John Andersons and Dwight Eisenhowers of the GOP World). For others, it's because they have embraced a dangerous neo-conservatism as defined by the PNAC-type groups out there; an anti-American, rabidly pro-big-business kind of "conservatism" that has little to do with prudence or morality.
In short, Bush and the Republican party as a whole are hurting because those who have become the face of Republicanism are too distasteful to too many people for a variety of sometimes opposing reasons.
It would take a miracle (say your prayers to Lord Diebold!) for them to win this election.
Of course, the Dems have turned off a good number of folk, too. But this is where I think Obama has the advantage as he comes across as a uniter, not a divider; as hopeful, not dangerous; as presidential, not petty.
We'll know more after next Tuesday. I sure hope that Clinton begins her final spiral downhill after this week.
"It would take a miracle (say your prayers to Lord Diebold!) for them to win this election"
Quoting myself:
"In Politics, the EXPECTATION of a desired outcome, when unrealized, creates in the minds of the expectant that something has been stolen... How many cries for recounts will there be? Which state will be the new "Florida"? How many more cries of protest against Diebold?"
Thanx for proving my point. You want to make fun of me for my "conspiracy theory" about the media's diabolical control over which candidate gets how much media exposure, and dare in the next breath to provide me with all the fodder I need to mock your OWN theory involving the diabolical Diebold? That takes some serious testosterone, Dan.
Fair to say, however, that it's far too soon to be saying "Impossible." Please, Dan, don't fall into the "Expectation Trap"*.
---
* An Original ELAshley truism
2. There is a difference between finding reason to be suspicious of ALL the media who somehow seem to have a tendency to marginalize your preferred candidate (and Hey, I agreed with you that they did, indeed, marginalize Kucinich - as they have Ron Paul) and finding it questionable in the extreme to have the owner of one company which is responsible for honestly counting votes to exclaim "We'll deliver Ohio to Bush!"
Would you have a problem with a Clinton Campaign supporter to be the one responsible for counting votes? I would. And I have a problem with a Bush campaign supporter counting votes.
Transparency and neutrality, is my rallying cry!
Nothing AT ALL unusual about raising legitimate impartiality questions, says I.
FAR different than suggesting that the media as a monolith is acting against the Republicans or the Dems. I agree entirely that candidates that are perceived by the media (Not LEFT or RIGHT, as you noted, but the media) as being marginal are treated as marginal.
Yet another point on which we agree, I suppose.
If there was a genuine problem with Diebold Democrats would have made it their TOP priority to correct the problem BEFORE this election cycle. Truth is, Gore tried to steal the election in '00, and Bush DIDN'T try to steal the election if '04.
Disagree if you wish. Your boy won that fight one way or the other. You trust Team Bush much more than I do.
Besides which, the evidence tips heavier to Bush as winner in BOTH races. The Supremes saw it in '00, and Kerry saw it in '04.
And have you not yet heard of Obama's record as an ILL senator, particularly his position against the Born Alive Act? I'll say it again, the irony of a black man having the AUDACITY of believing he can adjudge one human being a non-person, that being a child who has survived an abortion and is outside the womb, is beyond measure. He voted against proposed legislation that would prohibit the early release of sex offenders. He voted against extra penalties for gang-related crimes. He voted against porn filters in schools. He voted against adult prosecution for kids using guns on school property. This is just a taste. I can't believe any of his opponents have mentioned ANY of this. I'm betting his opponent in the general won't be so foolish. The guy is a creep.
Aside from his connections to white supremists and his goofy stance on the war, Paul might be more conservative than the top four GOP dudes, though I've only heard that belief and never confirmed it for myself.
As lacking as they may be, without a doubt, any of the top four from the GOP is head and shoulders a better choice than any of the Dems.
Speaking of Obama's lack of moral rectitude concerning the unborn... here's a couple questions Neil would like to pose to these "abortion on demand" candidates (all Democrat, by the way....)
"If a genetic predisposition to homosexuality were proved and could be identified in utero, would you favor a ban on abortions to protect the unborn in this category?
If yes, then why not extend these protections to the unborn who are being aborted due to being female, or because they are in the way of careers or economic goals, or are just plain “unwanted?”
If no, then are you homophobic? Why should the GLBT lobby support you? It seems that the Republicans value their lives more than the Democrats."
Click on the link for comments at Neil's place.
America simply does not believe they are the Party of Morals anymore, seems to me.
I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.
Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.
Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don't think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves.
fyi.
All abortion is bad. Period. I'd see ALL abortion banned outright, but as that is not likely to happen, we're stuck with abortion. Obama and others base their support for continuing the practice of abortion-- specifically Partial Birth abortion --on the whole "health of the mother" issue. Partial Birth Abortion is one of the most heinous acts I personally can imagine, and is a practice where the "health of the mother" should legitimately be questioned. Just what constitutes "health of the mother"? Far too many PBA's are performed on this very subjective basis.
Here then is a short article which asks the hard question: who decides what "legitimately" can be considered as negatively impacting the health of the mother that makes Partial Birth abortion a legitimate procedure?
August 27, 2004
Gruesome and Constitutional
On Roe and partial-birth abortion
I thought you didn't trust gov't solutions?
as to that rhetorical 1%: 1% of roughly 700,000 a year is still, 7,000. but the number is actually far less than that. under the enigmatic "health of the mother" clause, it was 182 in 2004... under the ban on PBA. even if last year's total was only half of 2004's, that's still 91 children that didn't need to die... that COULD have lived on their own outside the womb, were they given the chance.
interestingly enough, not one instance of those 182 PBA's in 2004 were performed because the mother's life was at risk. what then constitutes "health of the mother"? whatever the doctor decides in order to justify performing an act of murder.
and that's all i have to say about that. anyone want to discuss candidates?
This is what a good conservative does, he maintains expectations for the most beneficial behaviors and doesn't remove them for convenience, which is what abortion "rights" has done. Obama has only forgiven the stupidity which brought about the pregnancy and then allows any means to alleviate the responsibility for those actions. Abortion: the most heinous abdication of personal responsibility allowed by law.
...But, but, you and Eric have been saying that we ought NOT implement laws such as they sometimes had in ancient Israel that required giving to assist the poor because we ought NOT maintain expectations that people give and other beneficial behaviors! Which is it? Ought we legislate the expectation that people HAVE to give and not kill pre-born babies or ought we NOT legislate "good" behaviors?
Which is it?
We outlaw the murder of other people, born or pre-born.
One is legislated, the other is not. Can you tell which is which?
A man on the street asks for money to buy some dinner, do you give him cash? or give him the burgers in your own dinner sack? What if what he really wants is a pack of Newport Lights? Good Stewardship is the key here, and our government has shown exceedingly poor stewardship. I am not, therefore, inclined to give them any more than what current law allows.
I was never given an opportunity to vote on whether or not I wanted my government to tax every dollar I earned. Therefore, given an opportunity to do so, and in light of its past failure, I will most certainly vote "No". No thank-you.
Look what our government did immediately after Katrina. How much cash was given out? And how much was spent of cosmetic surgery? strip clubs? booze? cruises? People who live in poverty, are generally there because of poor lifestyle choices. Throwing money at them does not insure they are cared for. "Caring" for them insures that. Caring. Tending to their needs. Supplying their needs as the need arises.
Throwing money at the problem-- something our government is very good at --only insures one thing: wasted money.
For those who cannot care for themselves or the needs of their children, WE should take care of them...... not throw money at them. Care for them, let them know they won't be allowed to sink beneath the waters, thereby giving them the assurance they need to work to improve their lot. If they want money, they need to work for it. Everything else should be provided. Food. Shelter. Clothing. Medical (accept abortions). Job Training. Even Community College for those who qualify. But if they want out of the "refugee camp" they need to know that it will require them getting out and working. They will not lose their place in the camp until they have what they need to survive outside the camp. If they fail in the "real" world, there will always be the "camp"... but not money.
Jesus said, "you didn't feed me, clothe me, shelter me, visit me," etc. He didn't say, "you didn't give me money..."
If a man asks for a coat? give him cloak also. Hmmm. No mention of money at all.
The Good Samaritan? He gave money to the inn keeper, not the Jew fallen on hard times.
Ask yourself... honestly. If this were the times of Christ, and you, knowing the charity of Jesus and His disciples, ran and asked for help. Would he have simply thrown money at you? It's true they did give coin to the poor, but not enough to live on... just enough to get by a day or two or three. The image I see of Jesus in this respect-- though I cannot prove it through scripture --is one of assistance. You need work to support your family? Jesus knows of a man in Capernaum who benefited from His ministry or healing... What would Jesus likely has said? Remember, this is just speculation, but I think it would have been something along the line of... "Go, and tell him I sent you."
Now, how is that for radical?
Banks to strictly regulate how much they can withdraw, insuring they are saving (tax free) toward living on their own, outside the camp.
Disciple must be learned. No one prospers in this world for very long without discipline.
If you want a Godly system in place that will tend to the needs of the poor while giving them lessons in self-esteem, and a viable trade and/or work-ethic, something along this line would work far better than what is currently in place.... unsupervised welfare.
Sounds harsh and cruel, but I'm not talking about the veritable prison of boot-camp. They are not prisoners. They are cared for. Educated. Clothed. Fed. Free to come and go; to movies, bowling, what-have-you... Given medical treatment (accept for abortions). They are given meaningful work, and skills. But made to save for a rainy day.... TAUGHT that nothing good in life comes from simply holding out ones hand. It requires taking up that shovel (metaphorically speaking) and begin digging.
Anyone who's ever been in the Military should understand this concept.