Americans: Do not fear, you are not going to lose a conservative President next January and no conservative is going to be defeated on Super Tuesday.
First I must point out that this posting is not about Congressman Dr Ron Paul – no offence meant, I am just not going to be writing about him here. The United States will not lose a conservative President next January because George Walker Bush is no conservative.
No shock there – he is the man who gave the Republic such things as “No-Child-Left-Behind” and the Medicare extension (and so much other stuff). But just how un-conservative President Bush is was brought home to me by watching the rerun of the ‘Bush Special’ on FNC.
President Bush was asked about his 30 billion Dollar aid package for Africa and he replied that he had pushed it into effect because it was a religious moral duty to give to the poor and because terrorism was bred by poverty – the money would keep people away from the “ideology of hate”, which could never convince people with a chance in life. Mrs Bush then said something about a healthy workforce being good for the economy of these various African nations… Firstly, it is not a moral (religious or non religious) act to give away the money of other people, it is only a charitable act when one gives away ones own money.
Secondly, government aid does not build long term prosperity in these nations – if anything it undermines it. See the works of the late Lord Peter Bauer.
And lastly – terrorists do not tend to be poor, from a background of starvation and sickness. They tend to be from comfortable homes.
After all these years as President, George Walker Bush seems to know as much about the nature and causes of terrorism (and the attractions of the “ideology of hate”) as a Berkeley professor. George Bush is certainly not a conservative.
Nor will any conservative lose on Super Tuesday:
It is possible that some attacks on John McCain (McCain as Satan, believes in evolution…) are overblown – but the Senator clearly presents problems for conservative minded people.
However, the “true conservative” former Governor Romney presents problems that are at least as bad.
John McCain does not shout about his pro-life record – Mitt Romney used to be pro-choice.
John McCain does not stress being anti homosexual “rights” – Mitt Romney used to be in favour of such “rights”.
John McCain did not vote for the Bush tax cuts – Mitt Romney increased taxes.
John McCain was behind the vile ‘McCain-Feingold’ Act which restricts how much corporations and individuals can give to political campaigns – and Mitt Romney supported the idea at the time.
John McCain supported the Z visa for illegal immigrants – and, at the time, Mitt Romney did to.
Of course both Mitt Romney and John McCain now say they support cutting government spending and taxes. Indeed I just watched John McCain on F.N.C. attacking the high corporate income taxes in the United States, the complex tax code and the high taxes on investment – and promising to cut all these taxes way beyond the Bush tax rate cuts. And, of course, stressing his support for these tax rate cuts – “if only we had also cut spending…”
Of course John McCain could be telling lies – but then so could Mitt Romney.
Remember the “life time hunter” line? Which both misunderstood the reasons for the 2nd Amendment and was a lie anyway (even Fox news mocks Romney for this line).
But more serious are the times when Mitt Romney is not telling lies – for example the first FNC debate when the former Governor spoke of his support for President Bush’s “No-Child-Left-Behind” Federal government education spending and regulation orgy.
And lastly we have the Massachusetts pledge on universal health care:
The only good thing to be said about this is that the unexpectedly high spending has put off California from trying out its own scheme.
Of course the failure of “TennCare” in Tennessee should have warned people that whatever version of such a universal cover plan is used, it is going to fail.
One does not expect Hillary Clinton to get the message of such things as the collapse (before it even started) of the Californian scheme or the emerging problems of the Mitt Romney Massachusetts plan. But a conservative would have known that such things would not work.
So have no fear for Tuesday – no conservative is going to lose, because Mitt Romney is not a conservative.
“But you have not mentioned Governor Huckabee”.
No I have not, and I do not intend to.
…because Mitt Romney is not a conservative.
Absolutely. Where Romney picked the plastic conservative halo escapes me. Must have been a blue light special or something. The criticism of McCain would mean more to me if Romney wasn’t being held up as the “true” conservative alternative. And the idea that a businessman is somehow inherently conservative is ludicrous. Personally, I think McCain has more conservative instincts than Romney.
chuck, McCain has no conservative instincts. Romney is far more conservative though he is far from ideal. A businessman is not inherently conservative but McCain has repeatedly attacked Romney for making profits, attacks big pharma, energy, med, insurance…. that puke is just a hair to the right of Nader. Rabble rousing populist scum. Cap and trade from a republican? nope.
vote hillary or obama – don’t encourage this sort of crap in the Republican party
oh yeah, don’t not vote and don’t write in something or vote third party. vote for the dem to make sure McCain does not win. esp if hillary is in there this could be the battle to pick up the most of an all time low turnout and that weasel might pull it out.
I’ve donated to two candidates. I donated to Fred because I liked to hear him talk, but I didn’t think he would go far. Then after this McCain crap went down I donated to McCain. Why? Frankly, these self annointed “true” conservatives piss me off. And if there is one thing I can count on, it’s that McCain will knee them in the nuts when needed. Who the hell do these self righteous ass hats think they are? And that, folks, is a conservative attitude in my book.
I don’t have a dog in this particular race. I’m not a conservative; I’m a libertarian—that is, a radical progressive liberal. At the moment I’m leaning toward Obama, not as an ideal choice, but as a lesser evil than Clinton or than any Republican.
chuck,
Yeah. Isn’t it a bitch when people like me won’t follow orders? If you don’t like us, then live without us. It really is that simple. You vote how you choose and I’ll vote how I choose. I specifically do NOT want either of them in the White House, you do. So no big deal, you don’t have to send McCain to knee me in the nuts. The Republicans like you already have. But that’s okay. Really. You just go ahead and elect McCain without me.
I’d rather have either Hillary or Obama in the White House than McCain. McCain is just a populist, which means he has no discernable core principles so there’s no way of predicting his views on any issue. Furthermore, it’s clear (from McCain-Feingold, his statements on gun control, and a host of other matters) that he has at best a tenuous grasp of the Constitution. Romney, I’m not so sure about (yet). I want a true fiscal conservative (low taxes, reduced federal spending, smaller government), and Romney seems to be the closest thing to that we have available to us.
I despise the “social conservatives” (I don’t want their purported “morality” enacted into law, or even being spouted from the Presidential “bully pulpit”), but that doesn’t seem to be a serious problem with Romney. (Of course, one can always hope for a brokered convention turning to Fred Thompson or, even better, Newt Gingrich, but that’s just a wild fantasy.)
If Bush the Younger (and, for that matter, Bush the Elder) has taught us anything, it’s that a fiscally liberal Republican (nominally) President is putty in the hands of Congress, whichever party holds control. There is a much better chance of at least a modicum of fiscal restraint with a Democratic President, because the Republicans in Congress will have enough power to block his (or her) worst excesses and as the “opposition” they should have the desire to do so. That’s why the last six years of the Clinton presidency weren’t too bad.
Gridlock is good!
I specifically do NOT want either of them in the White House, you do. So no big deal, you don’t have to send McCain to knee me in the nuts. The Republicans like you already have. But that’s okay. Really. You just go ahead and elect McCain without me.
Fine with me. I’m talking about folks claiming McCain is a communist collaborator and further left than Clinton. That he’s a man who wants to surrender the US to La Raza. That he is lying scum and Romney is the second coming of Christ. If that ain’t you, I don’t have a beef with you. If it is you… good luck.
BTW, I’m not a Republican, where did you get that idea?
I specifically do NOT want either of them in the White House, you do. So no big deal, you don’t have to send McCain to knee me in the nuts. The Republicans like you already have. But that’s okay. Really. You just go ahead and elect McCain without me.
I don’t feel strongly about either, nor am I a Republican. But I do feel strongly about folks calling McCain a Communist collaborator, a man more left wing than Hillary, a fellow who wants to surrender the country to La Raza. In short, that McCain is treasonous scum, and Romney the second coming of Christ. If that ain’t you no problemo. If it is…
And then there are the dolts on the right who want Obama. McCain or Romney are certainly preferable to that loon Huckabee though it has to be said. He hopes to stage a minor comeback tomorrow in some of the states with lots of fundies in them.
McCain is certainly preferable to Obama or Hilary that is for sure. Republicans who can’t see that have some problems with their blinded hatred for the man.
Or maybe they are just sick of being lied to blatantly. The man is also either deaf or early onset senile.
Vote the Greater Evil? Not sure about that but sure as hell stay home and do NOT reward the Republicans for such a nightmarish set of candidates at the front of the pack.
Romney has changed his position so many times I dont know where he stands. His campaign is toast, he might as well give up now.
The case for McCain.
Yeah, shoot yourself in the foot to show them evil Republicans.
In what way is McCain NOT one of the bad guys? Gun rights? Nope. Incumbency protection? Nope. Continuing ‘social’ (i.e. society destroying) programmes? Yup.
Please PLEASE explain to me how rewarding the Republicans for fielding such a hideous candidate is the smart move? How is putting that man in the White House NOT going to lock in a political Ever Bigger State monoculture? Jeez.
Who votes for anyone these days? I vote against always. I don’t have a choice. It’s always the lesser of two evils on the ballot these days. The last time there were real people albeit uneclected in the US government was when Reagan stocked his cabinet with Bechtel engineers. Too bad those types are too busy to run for political office.
Perry,
I meant – voting for Hillary or Obama would mean shooting yourself in the foot.
As to McCain – Gabriel’s linked article above makes a good case for him.
I was mightily annoyed with his “cap-and-trade carbon” proposal, but the article calmed me down, it’s to bo done when China and India also participate, which means in, about, 2050. I can live with this.
Sorry, chaps. This discussion is a waste of time. Even if McCain gets the nomination, he will go down to total, humiliating, ball-crushing, absolutely humbing defeat in the general election.
That’s what the history of presidential elections since Watergate tell us. Obama or Mrs. Rodham-Clinton or the proverbial yellow dog will get close to 60 million votes. The establishment Republican McCain will get maybe 40 million votes. He can not attract the support of the contingent voters, who will stay home and watch McCain swinging in the breeze.
I can understand voting for Ron Paul – even though I have differences with many of his supporters.
Congressman Paul will not get the nomination so his view of Iraq (or anywhere else) is not a problem – by voting for him one shows how many libertarians there are, no bad thing.
But voting for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in November?
Both of these Senators are fanatical leftists – LOOK AT THE VOTING RECORD.
“But the Republicans in Congress will be able to block them doing stuff”.
Dream on.
But do not say you were not warned.
One thing John McCain is not is an “establishment Republican”. That might fit Mitt Romney – but not McCain.
As for McCain’s postion on the 2nd Amendment, perhaps Perry could send details.
McCain= McCain-Feingold. A candidate who restricted freedom of speech DURING ELECTIONS does not deserve the presidency. Period. End of Story.
Obama’s a blank slate. He’s a first term senator. People are projecting their own hopes upon him, which is a sure way to end up with incompetence, or worse.
Of all the candidates, Romney’s actually run things. The other three candidates are senators, who, by definition, don’t have to take responsibility for anything. I don’t vote for senators for president. It’s a different skill set.
Alice is right.
The real question, is do we prefer Clinton or Obama? Hillary is evil and machiavellian, but at least is the devil we know. Obama is a cypher; we could end up with another Jimmy Carter. Still, at this point my preference is for the latter; he is so inexperienced it’s doubtful he could get anything substantial done in one term, and that’s all he would likely have. We’d essentially be marking time for four years, not a bad thing.
Gridlock is good!
In all seriousness, you Americans would be better off if you simply nominated a bloke in a monkey suit – like they did in Hartlepool about 10 years ago!
How anybody can take this seriously is beyond me – I mean, if it wasn’t so frightening it’d almost be a laugh! The black man, the woman, the old codger – honestly these primaries are almost like some half-arsed episode of power rangers.
As someone who’s relatively ‘new’ to politics and political philosophy, I’m finding myself increasingly lost as to what a conservative is and what conservatism is about. I don’t know if it’s more ‘good’, more ‘bad’ or neither. I say that as an instinctive libertarian. I just don’t know what it means anymore.
Whenever I hear a ‘conservative’ outside of the libertarian sphere speak, I generally do not like the picture I broadly receive, whether that’s here or in the US.
No, the problem is that McCain is treasonous La Raza-sympathizing scum and Romney is a lying fascist sack of shit.
Just thought that needed clarification.
Paul:
John McCain on Gun Control
I personally thought that his being “intrigued” by so-called “smart guns” was telling. As was the so-called “closure” of the so-called “gun-show loophole.” Any time a buyer is required to fill out a 4473, the gun is de-facto registered for the next decade.
See also McCain-Lieberman.
I think it’s telling that he claims not to own one, despite being in a free state.
Romney’s (national-socialist-style, i.e. fascist-style) socialized medicine in MA doesn’t just have funding costs. Individuals who fail to show they have health insurance (i.e. have been taxed by a corporation) get taxed extra by MA, and corporations with a dozen or more employees that fail to provide them health insurance get heavily fined. The latter has predictably led to some corporate restructuring so as to keep the number of employees per corporation down to 11 or fewer.
And then Romney the liar (or is it drooling moron?) calls his solution a “free-market” solution!
Obama at least wasn’t the “co-President” of the most corrupt administration by far in US history. I wouldn’t vote for him, but on the maxim that politicians do the opposite of what they campaign on, maybe he wouldn’t be a complete disaster.
Prior to running for president, Romney was effectively what people used to call a ‘Rockefeller Republican’. His volte-face on numerous issues since he became a presidential candidate seems wholly opportunistic, and it is quite laughable hearing him be praised and endorsed by many conservative outlets, and says much about how degraded movement conservatism is in the US.
POLITICIANS VIE TO REPLACE POLITICIAN IN POLITICAL OFFICE!
Policy wonks, activists hardest hit.
Come on guys, these people are politicians. In order to get elected they have to get a majority of the electorate to vote for them. In order to do this they need to persuade enough people to their side on every issue on the agenda. To do this they triangulate. (Lie.)
They also have to keep their backers, ( party big-wigs, think tanks, pressure groups and pals) happy in order to get the money to run. (And keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.)
They have to walk a tightrope on issues such as guns, abortion, gay rights, drugs, GWOT, taxes, etc etc. and when they move from state to national politics their positions on the various issues have to change to attract a broader electorate, and then there’s that whole primary thing where they have to be pro-gun, pro-life, pro tax cuts etc on Tuesday and anti-gun, pro-choice, pro tax hikes, (for the rich), on Thursday in order to get the delegates to attract the money to keep on running.
And they have to do this while the media are on their every word and some bunch of activists on the internet are yelling at them for something they said ten years ago in a totally different election.
It’s almost enough to make one feel sorry for them. (well perhaps almost isn’t the word, but you know what I mean)
A large plurality of the people are pro-gun for themselves, but are uneasy about anyone buying a machine-pistol.
A large plurality are pro-life where feckless teenage girls are having abortions every year, but if their little sweeheart gets knocked-up by that useless high-school dropout, they want the right to wheel her down the abortionist tomorrow.
A large plurality are all for low taxes for themselves, but those rich bastards down the street with their foreign cars and foreign vacations sure ain’t paying enough tax.
And so-on and so-on.
So politicians will continue to get elected to office and purists will scream and rend their clothes, but real change will, (thank god), happen slowly.
James, the meaning of the term “conservative” varies depending upon who uses it. It’s the Humpty Dumpty approach: it means “just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” It’s sort of like the word “liberal” — it has been so corrupted over time that it no longer has any real meaning.
McCain will push for carbon cap and trade – we have a much better chance of avoiding this economy killer if the republicans in the house and senate are opposing a democrat president pushing for this foolish crap.
wanna fight a war on terror? the first step is not fucking up the economy as best you can. wonder how much ordnance you can heap on an ultralight – roll on the McCain GHG free solar powered tank! please.
Yes, but only if India and China do too. That means – not in this world, maybe in the next one.
Jacob: yes, but what if he changes his mind again? My major problem with McCain is his inconsistency and unpredictability.
I agree with Alisa. McCain is irrational, inconsistent and hot-tempered. A bad combination for someone with his finger on the nuclear trigger.
Laird.
That sounds good to me. Someone who would put those high personages in Iran (and elsewhere) who do NOT want to go and see Allah, on notice to show more respect – we do not want to pull the mad American’s tail too much or he might……..
Sunfish – the link showed me that most of the time McCain votes pro 2nd Amendment – but sometimes on some things he goes…….., well he goes McCain.
I suppose I am interested to see what would have happened in Bush brain had not got the nomination in 2000.
Would statism have grown just the same (i.e. is McCain the liberal Ann Coulter says he is) or would he not have gone for “no child left behind” and the rest of the crap.
It is basically “is the world doomed whatever happens” type interest.
I would not normally support John McCain – indeed if I was voting today I might well vote Ron Paul (in spite of his words on Iraq and stuff).
But I am interested in the unpredictable hot tempered John McCain.
Because I like hot tempered, unpredictable people.
Good point about the nukes, Paul. Of course the problem is with those who do want to go see Allah.