Thursday, January 31, 2008

McCain Derangement Anger..RUKIDDINGME?

What is it that those who TODAY consider themselves to be conservative want?

Are they conservative a la Goldwater or is it something else which defines conservatism today?


Do they want Roe V Wade overturned?
Would that be because it is bad constitutional law, or because abortion is murder. Or does it matter? What about a woman's control over her own body? (Hey just asking) Does it matter? Goldwater believed it WAS a woman's right to control her body.
Do they want a balanced budget? In a war without a defined endpoint?

If so, what about taxes? How do you pay for the security of the people? (Hey, just asking)

Is a secure nearly impenetrable border (from the outside, to illegals) a conservative issue? I think so. Then what about immigration? 1900 US Census, 76 million. 1900-1924 18 million southern europeans, slavs and jews make it here. That's 24%. Our population in 1980 was 226 million and we took in HOW MANY? Did we do okay with our immigrants from 1900-1924? Is that a conservative issue? Was our culture destroyed by this flood of one fourth of our nation JUST from southern europe?

Family VALUES, is that conservative issue? Well.... ‘To Goldwater, government did not belong either in your boardroom or your bedroom.’ That's a judeo christian (and OTHER) ethic NOT a conservative value. I don't care if my neighbor sacrifices goats and has orgies as long as his fence is high enough. Neither did Barry Goldwater.."When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. " In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned,” Goldwater retorted: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”. This, btw is an almost exact match for Mr. McCain's thoughts on that.

How about gay rights....well....“You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” (Guess who?)

in 1996 Barry Goldwater told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?”

Upset because Mr McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts, well he wanted SPENDING CUTS to match. That's the record. Which is the more conservative viewpoint?

Likewise Harry Truman and FDR would be considered reactionary, xenophobic war criminals by many in today's democratic party.

So for those of you foaming at the mouth and with loosening bowels over John McCain, get a grip and think of what the middle east will be like 3 years after an Obama or Clinton victory because you indulged yourselves in a fit of conservative chic deranged bashing of John McCain IF HE IS NOMINATED

Among those in New Hampshire who valued a candidate who “says what he believes,” 53 percent supported McCain. The next closest candidate? Mitt Romney at 13 percent.

I wonder if Barry Goldwater would be 'conservative' enough for those who wish to sacrifice the next election on the altar of conservative purity?


Anonymous said...

Epam, thank you, thank you for standing up for one of my great heroes, Barry Goldwater. He would have made a superb president.

Talk to me about McCain. With Rudy out of it I am leaning towards Romney only because he appears more solid on my two Issues, which are combating Islamofascism and defeating the most destructive element of illegal immigration, the "Reconquista" movement. I want to believe that McCain, with his military background, would be as strong against Islamofascism (he doesn't seem to be clued in to the Reconquista danger yet) as Romney says he will be, but he hardly even touches on the subject on his campaign site. Romney has 2 or 3 pages dedicated to it.

As everybody knows, I am pro-choice but if it is necessary I'm willing to put that on the back burner to work to spare women the nightmare of Sharia law in future generations.

I would have trusted this nation's security to Barry Goldwater without even a second thought. Will I be able to do the same with John McCain? Because that is what is going to decide it for me.

Epaminondas said...

There is no doubt that Romney fits more of the criteria of what conservatives are self identified as NOW.

Now think of what liberals self identify as.

That is the problem. Those guys are not liberals they are freakish critical-progressives, and too many 'conservatives' are not that either. They have taken other 'values' and grafted them to the republican movement and frankly destroyed in an orgy of spending, corruption and perversion, and most of all HYPOCRISY what Goldwater started, Reagan achieved and Newt institutionalized, and ALL against the odds.

McCain has made some big errors (but so did TR, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK.....). He absolutely HAS learned the reality that the govt has NO credibility with its citizens when it talks of immigration reform AND secure borders. He understands there has to be a border FIRST.

He has NOT learned that McCain Feingold decreased freedom of speech and did nothing to prevent whacked out $$ from getting into campaigns.

He is 100% all root on Iraq and Afghnistan, but then mentioned Jim Baker as an adviser for the Middle east .... POISON. He supposedly backed off..but is that real? I'm not sure YET.

Romney (I'm in Eastern Maine) is thought of up here by many as a big fat fake by people who are anywhere right of left. He was elected as a republican in Massachusetts. Either he IS a moderate liberal or he faked being one to get votes. Just like Ed Brooks, you have to be perceived as LEFT to get the vote.

He now mouths the 'right' words.

This AM at Atlas I blamed this all on the lack of a well grounded REAL conservatism in the GOP, and leadership which was incompetent at best (Hastert) and corrupt (Abramoff-Delay), and sexually dysfuntional in public (Craig-Foley), making these GIGANTOR of spenders utter hypocrites for seeking sudden purity of essence from McCain.

I believe Romney is probably unelectable in the present circumstances. It will be hard enough for a war hero John McCain.

It doesn't matter ... either one is vastly preferable to the other side. That is the way it has been for me since 1976.

That's why talk that the 'right' will be unenthusiastic and/or stay home is mind boggling.

It's one thing if an unexciting Bob Dole 96, or a disconnected and unconservative Bush in 92, create a numbing stay at home factor. But look at what that did in the most beneficent of times.

From those elections we got Rahman, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Hojatieh, a worldwide resurgence in ancient racism, and a lackadaisical attitude about national security since they believed they had to manage our decline.

Sorry but talk of staying home, or allowing Hilldog or the idiotic Obama to drive the train off the tracks so dems do it is not just irresponsible, it's utterly unpatriotic and for strictly partisan reasoning.


Krishna109 said...

VDH has some similar thoughts on the subject Democrats Want to Lose—but Republicans Don’t Want to Win

Anonymous said...

Walid Phares has come out in favor of Romney, though he considered Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee to also be sound on the subject of combatting jihad. Phares thinks Romney has a deeper understanding of the issue and a more detailed and proactive plan for dealing with it. Phares is very concerned about the infiltration and compromise of our educational, government and military by pro-Islamists and between the Pentagon sacking Coughlin and the whole Obama nightmare (as well as Shrillary's Saudi girlfriend) his point is well taken. He wants someone in office who will be proactive about educating the public.

He was pretty steamed about Ron Paul, Edwards and Kucinich, all but called them jihadi fellow travelers. Oddly, he had no strong words about either Clinton or Obama beyond approving of their anti-al Qaeda stands but indicating that neither has a clue about what the real problem is. I continue to be amazed and horrified that more people are not picking up on the racist/Muslim-favoring aspects of Obama. Talk about your Manchurian candidates.

I will get down there and vote against Hillary or Obama, whatever the case. Deliberately letting the country fall into their hands at a time like this is just suicidally irresponsible.

maccusgermanis said...

So, I'm supposed to vote for the architect of McCain-Feingold because he's "conservative a la Goldwater?" Said architect didn't have the temerity to make that case before the Goldwater Institute.

If Goldwater is the measure then Ron Paul, though failing to speak plainly about islam, is the most libertarian of candidates. And, of those candidates that use class warfare rhetoric, Hillary Clinton is the only one known to have supported Goldwater in '64.

Romney's a better fit in terms of foreign diplomacy. -and perhaps even gay rights-