[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

At what point do you think the rats will start fleeing the sinking ship? We've already had quite a few principled conservatives speaking out against the McCain debacle (and Karl Rove), but when do you suppose the rank and file running in contested seats will start distancing and speaking out against this freakshow? When will the cheerleaders on this board start saying McCain was the wrong choice?

Dude, where were you during the primaries? Conservatives never wanted McCain to begin with.

Instead, we got the 1976 campaign season all over again: A moderate GOP candidate versus Jimmy Carter (Obama).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You know what?

I honestly thought stupendous and Big Mac were joking at first.

I honestly thought at some point someone could come up with a rebuttal as to why it would be okay to be associated with a known, unrepentant terrorist. I"m surprised. I was looking for those on the left to excuse bombing the pentagon and other goals Obama's political associate had. Apparently, all that can be mustered if phony surprise that Obama's political opponents would take on the mainstream media's lame defense of his association with this guy. I know that Obama and his staff on the NYT aren't so "meh" about it, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with the latest non-effective damage control.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It was not just a "party" It was a fund raiser and official kick off for his Illinois Senate campaign.
O' Bama worked for Ayres as well

This is more than an association, it has been, until recently, a working relationship.

But hey..they aren't best friends, so having a "working relationship" with a terrorist is okay. The NYT says so!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Dude, where were you during the primaries? Conservatives never wanted McCain to begin with.

Apparently they did, otherwise they would have voted for someone else (e. g. Fred Thomson). By votes, he is the Republican choice.

Now that Bush is accepted as an `unpopular president', people on this forum now start saying that `he's not really a conservative.' Although if you dig up posts from three, four years ago, you see them writing the exact opposite. It's as if they don't want to tarnish the label `conservative.'

It's the same with McCain, almost, I got the impression that quite a few R-leaning people have already conceded defeat. So McCain is not a moderate conservative, just a moderate.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Instead, we got the 1976 campaign season all over again: A moderate GOP candidate versus Jimmy Carter (Obama).

I'm not sure if Obama or Carter have anything to do with it, McCain is blundering on his own and he simply is simply a weak candidate. In part this is due to the fact that he is beyond his prime (which would have been 2000 or 2004 in my opinion). Another factor is that the incumbent is unable to support him (when McCain was nominated, Bush was absent), kinda like Clinton and Gore.

[Dork.]

OK, I'll bite (even though I think the premise of this conversation is silly, since I don't believe the two men are "associated", although they've worked together on committees and such.)

If Ayers is a terrorist, why isn't he in jail? I'm seriously asking, I don't know his history all that well. I know he "turned himself in" in 1980, but now he's some sort of professor and community activist. Has he served his time for his crimes? If he has, then does that count for anything? If he's not involved in terrorist activity anymore (and I find it hard to believe he could get tenure at a university if he still is), then wouldn't he be best described as a Former Terrorist?

[Ghoser777]

Hannity's big point about him is that he's "unrepentant." Charges were brought against him, but I believe they were thrown out after it turned out evidence against him was obtained by the FBI doing illegal wiretaps or something similar. His article in the NYT on 9/11 didn't help is image. His line that ruffled feathers was that he felt that the Weatherman (the radical group he was a part of) didn't do enough (hence he's unrepentant). He didn't specifically say he thought they should bomb more buildings (he claims that they never targeted people, and I don't believe anyone died in any of the attacks), but you can read that in there if you want (it's not the largest leap ever).

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Apparently they did, otherwise they would have voted for someone else (e. g. Fred Thomson). By votes, he is the Republican choice.

Meh. None of the choices were fantastic, but the Republican leadership in Washington doesn't really take seriously the notion of, the importance of conservative principles. They're too interested in something more moderate that plays well at dinner parties in DC.

Now that Bush is accepted as an `unpopular president', people on this forum now start saying that `he's not really a conservative.' Although if you dig up posts from three, four years ago, you see them writing the exact opposite. It's as if they don't want to tarnish the label `conservative.'

Actually, if you look, you'll see that I've said all along that Bush is not a conservative. When you have to preface conservatism by 'compassionate' or 'neo', you're not a conservative. Conservative is compassionate by its nature. If you're trying to dress it up, it's because you ain't it.

And, you're correct - if you let people claim the mantle of conservatism and they're not, then you run the risk of letting them define the term as something other than what it is. Since conservatism is at its root about maximal freedom, I'd rather not let anyone try and redefine it.

McCain is also no conservative. At least he isn't positioning himself as one, he's positioning himself as a "Maverick."

It's the same with McCain, almost, I got the impression that quite a few R-leaning people have already conceded defeat. So McCain is not a moderate conservative, just a moderate.

I'm not sure if Obama or Carter have anything to do with it, McCain is blundering on his own and he simply is simply a weak candidate. In part this is due to the fact that he is beyond his prime (which would have been 2000 or 2004 in my opinion). Another factor is that the incumbent is unable to support him (when McCain was nominated, Bush was absent), kinda like Clinton and Gore.

McCain is a moderate. He makes his own blunders. He's facing Obama in much the same ways as Gerald Ford was facing Carter. Carter had horrible policies, but appealed to populists. Ford wasn't a conservative and made plenty of blunders. Similarly, Nixon wasn't able to support Ford.

Conservatives are left with a bad set of choices. Vote for the anti-freedom Obama, or vote for the anti-freedom McCain. Neither are desirable, but Obama wants to cause more harm actively. McCain will probably cause harm as well, but mostly due to the law of unintended consequences.

Dangit, we all know how Washington works. Now if we could find a way to get Washington to stop.

[ort888]

There is also a big difference between what the weather underground was doing and a genuine terror organization. Yes, what they did was inexcusable... no one is condoning their actions... but all they were destroying was property. The only people who were ever harmed by their actions were their own members.

They were a bunch of whackos that wanted to end a war. They wanted to save lives not take them. They made some sort of warped judgement call that lead them to decide that blowing up government property was a good way to get their message out... but ultimately they weren't striking terror into the hearts of the populace. They weren't killing people. They were not a terror organization.

They were a bunch of militant and whacked out hippies, not terrorists. Yes, what they did was reprehensible, but again... not terror.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Dude, where were you during the primaries? Conservatives never wanted McCain to begin with.

Well, the radical Conservatives, at least. Apparently, a majority of Republicans *did* want him.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

There is also a big difference between what the weather underground was doing and a genuine terror organization. Yes, what they did was inexcusable... no one is condoning their actions... but all they were destroying was property.

Oh...so blowing up buildings is okay and not terrorism as long as you assume people aren't in them. CHECK!

Obama's guy was in charge of that stuff. He says they didn't do enough. This is the sort of fellow who Obama picks as a political mentor and it speaks volumes, regardless if they were "best friends", "close" or "secret lovers".

Ok..Ok...so you say, maybe this was an isolated incident. Maybe Obama didn't know how much this guy hated the United States and it's government. Maybe it was all a big misunderstanding. I mean, it's not like Obama had other personal mentors who where known America haters

Ooops.

His personal spiritual advisor and the Rev. of the church he belonged to was a CLEAR hate monger who believed that God should "damn America".

Fool me once......

Let's face it. Obama has no problems with radical leftism. That's something that the NYT will fail to report each and every time and why their reporting is essentially meaningless.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

Hannity's big point about him is that he's "unrepentant." Charges were brought against him, but I believe they were thrown out after it turned out evidence against him was obtained by the FBI doing illegal wiretaps or something similar. His article in the NYT on 9/11 didn't help is image. His line that ruffled feathers was that he felt that the Weatherman (the radical group he was a part of) didn't do enough (hence he's unrepentant). He didn't specifically say he thought they should bomb more buildings (he claims that they never targeted people, and I don't believe anyone died in any of the attacks), but you can read that in there if you want (it's not the largest leap ever).

Interesting. So not only was Ayers a radical leftist criminal in his youth, but when called to account for his crimes he got off on a technicality, and has actually made an honest living for himself while never really disavowing the radicalism of his younger years. Now that's sticking it to the man!

I still think there's nothing here. Even if Ayers is unrepentant regarding the violence in his past, there is no indication that he still advocates the same violence, and every indication that he has left violence behind and integrated himself well into civil society. Heck, the man is accused of associating with Obama in committee meetings and at dinner parties. If this is what passes as "radical" these days, we have nothing to worry about. I doubt they were the type of parties that serve Molotov Cocktails....

[hyteckit]

There you go again Joe, talking about the past.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

We'll I'm certainly ecstatic that the McCain campaign is trying to protect a stupid electorate from being hoodwinked into voting for a radical leftist who's going to harm the country. When he takes office, I suppose he'll immediately declare a socialist state and every agenda he favors will immediately become law, because, y'know, being President means you are actually King and just make decrees. Somehow, his radical leftist agenda will be advanced because, in addition to him, a majority of Congress will also turn out to secretly be radical leftists too and will support America-hating and terrorist loving.

Seriously. What do you expect Obama will be able to do without a majority support of the Congress ? And anything that is too radical for 2/3 of congress can be forcibly overridden by congress. Has America, district by district and state by state, voted for closet radicals such that they'll all just "activate" once Obama comes in to power? 2/3 of the Senate have been voted in to power in 2004 and 2006 and only 1/3 will be fresh in 2008. It's mathematically impossible for Obama to force a "radical" agenda on the US unless, over the next two election cycles, the bulk of the states and districts fill up congress with a majority of radicals. But, if such a majority is created, the "radical" agenda no longer can be defined as radical, but would by definition become mainstream.

^ What he said.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

it's called fear mongering. it's been the staple of the Republican party for at least 8 years now. it appeals to simple minds.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's called "Obama has spent his life surrounded by unrepented terrorists and America-haters".

It's clear the truth hurts. Are you saying that Barry should be ashamed of his lack of class for associating with these people?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win. The McCain campaign is obligated to do everything within the letter of the law to prevent him from winning.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is more than an association, it has been, until recently, a working relationship.

On the money.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Oh...so blowing up buildings is okay and not terrorism as long as you assume people aren't in them. CHECK!

Obama's guy was in charge of that stuff. He says they didn't do enough. This is the sort of fellow who Obama picks as a political mentor and it speaks volumes, regardless if they were "best friends", "close" or "secret lovers".

Ok..Ok...so you say, maybe this was an isolated incident. Maybe Obama didn't know how much this guy hated the United States and it's government. Maybe it was all a big misunderstanding. I mean, it's not like Obama had other personal mentors who where known America haters

Ooops.

His personal spiritual advisor and the Rev. of the church he belonged to was a CLEAR hate monger who believed that God should "damn America".

Fool me once......

Let's face it. Obama has no problems with radical leftism. That's something that the NYT will fail to report each and every time and why their reporting is essentially meaningless.

Well, the media knows about this. The world knows about this. They know all about Obama and Bill Ayers and their relationship... and guess what... no one really seems to care because to reasonable people it's a complete non-issue.

People who want to twist the worlds events into a reality that better fits their own agendas may see it differently. But rational people don't care.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Dude, where were you during the primaries? Conservatives never wanted McCain to begin with.

Instead, we got the 1976 campaign season all over again: A moderate GOP candidate versus Jimmy Carter (Obama).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Apparently they did, otherwise they would have voted for someone else (e. g. Fred Thomson). By votes, he is the Republican choice.

What happened, is that many of the early primaries were open primaries. Dems and liberal No Party Designated voters crossed over to vote for McCain because they all figured that Hillary was a lock and wanted someone they felt she could easily defeat. They did not count on O' Bama coming on so strong until it was too late.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

LOL… so wait, McCain's campaign win was due to Democrats and Liberals sneakily voting for McCain because they thought he'd be easier for Hillary to defeat?

This gets better and better the entire time. Wait, where do the communists fit into this picture? Were they controlling the Liberals or something?

greg

[Chongo]

Bill Ayres from the aforementioned 09/11/01 article

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Well, the media knows about this. The world knows about this. They know all about Obama and Bill Ayers and their relationship... and guess what... no one really seems to care because to reasonable people it's a complete non-issue.

THEY DO? I don't remember Obama being asked on national TV, in an interview why he has chosen violent leftist radicals as his political mentors. All I can find in "the media" about this (mainstream anyways) is the NYT's making excuses since Obama and Ayers didn't share a bunkbed, nor named any of their children after each other, that it's okay for Obama to have had him as one of his political mentors.

People who want to twist the worlds events into a reality that better fits their own agendas may see it differently. But rational people don't care.

Rational people DO NOT KNOW. I'm sure they soon will though, and they can decide for themselves. Obama can run from his crazy past, but he can't hide. Not for long anyways.

[Chongo]

Mr and Mrs William Ayres
I'm not sure if Bernadine's is when she were arrested prior to their trial. I believe Bill's is at the 68 convention

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

LOL… so wait, McCain's campaign win was due to Democrats and Liberals sneakily voting for McCain because they thought he'd be easier for Hillary to defeat?

Yep, dontchaknow that more liberals voted during the Republican candidate selection than conservatives? Conservatives apparently stayed home and gave up their right to complain because they didn't like the candidates.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bill Ayres from the aforementioned 09/11/01 article

OMG he hates our freedoms!!!

EDIT: That's actually from an August 2001 Chicago Magazine article: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...01/No-Regrets/

The New York Times article from 9/11/01 (not that the date should really be significant -- he would have been interviewed for the article well earlier) that I linked to did not appear to have any photos accompanying it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Oh...so blowing up buildings is okay and not terrorism as long as you assume people aren't in them. CHECK!

so, like, you believe that the Pro-Life abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, right ...?

[stupendousman]

That photo is going to look great in a commercial with the caption:

"Obama's early political mentor".

...then a slow fade into Rev. Wright damning America with the caption..

"Obama's spiritual advisor"

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

so, like, you believe that the Pro-Life abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, right ...?

Of course not! They are just looking out for the best interest of America.

[SpaceMonkey]

Side note: that New Yorker cover has now actually become funny. About 3 months too late.

[vmarks]

When you can find any evidence that an abortion bomber has ever befriended, mentored, or served on the same committee as a Republican candidate for President, kindly let me know. Until that time, you've got Ayers and Obama, with Ayers saying his only regret is that he had bombed more buildings, and McCain who has no such association. Not even an analogous one.

This should be a real problem for Obama, and for any rational voter. McCain is no conservative, and but geez, he hasn't actively affiliated with people who declared war on the United States and "carried out a campaign consisting of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots. Their attacks were mostly bombings of government buildings, along with several banks, police department headquarters and precincts, state and federal courthouses, and state prison administrative offices." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

Yeah, so Obama was a boy when Ayers did that. It all becomes unimportant if Ayers regrets it and has changed. Except that Ayers doesn't - he wishes he had bombed more, and the title of the article on him is accurately named "No Regrets."

When some of you folks who are carrying water for Obama write "No one is condoning Ayers, but he was a part of a group trying to end a war, and only blowing up property" - well, you're condoning Ayers. That's the magic of the word 'but' - it erases that which precedes it. To you, destruction of property is ok as long as its something valiant like 'ending a war' or the property isn't yours.

So, cumulative. We've got Obama, who refuses to wear a flag pin, because his patriotism is more than that, until it becomes expedient and necessary to show some patriotism by wearing a flag pin, we've got Obama, who refuses to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem as is proper etiquette, instead covering his groin. We've got Ayers, who is an associate of Obama, trampling a flag for a photograph and saying he wishes he'd blown up more buildings. We have Obama stating that the people who won't vote for him cling to guns and religion - they're not refined or intelligent enough to vote for him essentially.

The man who would be President just doesn't sound like he has a lot of respect for the nation he wishes to lead.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

LOL… so wait, McCain's campaign win was due to Democrats and Liberals sneakily voting for McCain because they thought he'd be easier for Hillary to defeat?

This gets better and better the entire time. Wait, where do the communists fit into this picture? Were they controlling the Liberals or something?

greg

Because you likely didn't know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_pr...ential_primary

* Alabama
* Arkansas
* Georgia
* Hawaii
* Idaho
* Indiana
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* North Dakota
* South Carolina
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Vermont
* Virginia
* Wisconsin

All have open presidential primaries - people from any party can vote in any opposing party's primary. In some cases, they don't even mind that you aren't a citizen of that state.

John McCain did not win a primary among Republicans up until Super Tuesday - it was due to open primaries that he won the nomination.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

so, like, you believe that the Pro-Life abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, right ...?

Yes.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Until that time, you've got Ayers and Obama, with Ayers saying his only regret is that he had bombed more buildings

Actually what Ayers claims he said to the NYT reporter, from the link I posted on Page 1, is that he didn't do enough to stop the war. Not that his only regret is that he hadn't bombed more buildings.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The man who would be President just doesn't sound like he has a lot of respect for the nation he wishes to lead.

Which is why Sarah Palin's comments are so spot-on.

Typically, once voters learn of a candidate's ultra-liberal philosophy, they drop them like flies. The problem is that until now, McCain being the sweet moderate that he is, hasn't had the balls to call Obama on it. The best Obama can hope to do in part is to mention Keating, which a Democrat controlled Congress said he did nothing illegal or unethical but which most involved admit he was just lumped into so it wouldn't be a 'democrat' scandal.

Now, Obama hopes to do it all over again to him despite him being innocent of any wrongdoing when he can't defend his lifelong associations with radical leftists and known unrepentant terrorists. Of course, Obama will have help with his task via his employees on staff at the NYT and all the other mainstream media organizations. There will be a full-page article on Keating in the next couple of days highlighting NOT McCain's exhoneration on all charges, but rather the "appearance' of wrongdoing the accusation brings - all the while STILL not doing a story explaining why F&F decided to give him more money proportionally than any other Senator serving. But of course, Obama is in the midst of a new scandal involving all the illegal donations he's getting.

If that's the best they can do.....

[Rumor]

This will be my second chance to vote. Yes I am young. So I do not have the "experience" that some of you may have.

Yet, I always find it amusing to speak with partisan people. However, I find people to speak with in person often with a specific set of political views, and then defend the opposite of their party. I find it highly interesting, and much more informative than listening to any news broadcast.

By reading the comments posted here, it is almost the same, except I do not get to see the faces of those that spout these "truths" about the "other" candidate.

Many of you are so partisan, that you couldn't speak a lick of truth about the "other" candidate even if it meant your demise. This is something that somewhat reflects the nation as a whole. On one hand, it is comical, on the other, completely sad.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Dude, where were you during the primaries? Conservatives never wanted McCain to begin with.

Instead, we got the 1976 campaign season all over again: A moderate GOP candidate versus Jimmy Carter (Obama).

Yet the cheerleaders on this board speak of him as though he was anointed by the almighty. Go figure.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

John McCain did not win a primary among Republicans up until Super Tuesday

Except the tone setting first primary, New Hampshire. But let's not get bogged down in the facts.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

it was due to open primaries that he won the nomination.

Do you have ANY data to back this up? At the time, conventional wisdom was that the crossover was happening the other way round- with Republicans voting for Hillary to prolong the Democratic primary bloodletting. In fact Limbaugh took credit for making this happen.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Except the tone setting first primary, New Hampshire. But let's not get bogged down in the facts.Do you have ANY data to back this up? At the time, conventional wisdom was that the crossover was happening the other way round- with Republicans voting for Hillary to prolong the Democratic primary bloodletting. In fact Limbaugh took credit for making this happen.

This is great. Before it was that Democrats and Independents voted McCain to make it an easy win for Clinton, and now the Republicans and Conservatives voted for her to keep Obama from winning.

So why did Obama get the primary?

[OreoCookie]

It's a lot of whining, really: hordes of Independents and Democrats have `manipulated' the result of the Republican primaries and chosen a weak candidate on purpose. (All these arguments hold for Democratic primaries, too, in states where they, too, have open primaries.)
(1) I doubt that these Democratic mavericks had a significant impact on the result of the primary (especially considering that McCain won the primaries in states that only allow registered Republicans to vote there).
(2) The Republican party in that state has set the rules to allow for open primaries. I'm sure they have their reasons to hold an open primary -- it's their rules and I haven't heard anything that these rules have been broken. Has any of the states in vmark's list changed their system from having open primaries to closed primaries after the nomination of McCain? (Again, I haven't heard that any state has.)

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Meh. None of the choices were fantastic, but the Republican leadership in Washington doesn't really take seriously the notion of, the importance of conservative principles. They're too interested in something more moderate that plays well at dinner parties in DC.

You're just using `conservative' as a badge of approval.
And if the Republicans cannot come up with a `good' candidate, it's their own problem.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, if you look, you'll see that I've said all along that Bush is not a conservative. When you have to preface conservatism by 'compassionate' or 'neo', you're not a conservative. Conservative is compassionate by its nature.

Again, you're just using that badge and redefine it when it agrees with your current sentiments. I have not said that Bush is or isn't a conservative, I am saying that he was hailed as a conservative up until recently. Just dig up old threads from the PL and some of the same people who now claim that Bush is `not really a conservative' have been defending him as such. That's what I mean here. I don't want to get into a sort of arbitrary discussion whether Bush `deserves' to be labelled as conservative.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And, you're correct - if you let people claim the mantle of conservatism and they're not, then you run the risk of letting them define the term as something other than what it is. Since conservatism is at its root about maximal freedom, I'd rather not let anyone try and redefine it.

This is your definition of conservatism (I'd say `libertarian' is more accurate rather than `conservative'). Many people focus on social issues when they want to judge whether someone is or isn't conservative (e. g. abortion, gay marriage, role of religion in politics, that sort of thing).

Originally Posted by vmarks 

McCain is also no conservative. At least he isn't positioning himself as one, he's positioning himself as a "Maverick."

He's a moderate conservative. Fact is, the large share of people are moderates and not conservatives.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

McCain is a moderate. He makes his own blunders. He's facing Obama in much the same ways as Gerald Ford was facing Carter. Carter had horrible policies, but appealed to populists. Ford wasn't a conservative and made plenty of blunders. Similarly, Nixon wasn't able to support Ford.

I don't think McCain will lose this election, because he's a moderate. He will lose the election, because people are fed up with conservatives of the Bush era (call `em neoconservatives if you prefer). People want to vote for change, not because they are for Obama, but because they are fed up with the status quo. Most of the problems are associated with a Republican (presidential) leadership. And McCain has no support of the incumbent. Also that will contribute to his likely defeat. That's how Gore lost to Bush (which was a very tight race). It's not unlikely that if he could have relied on Clinton's full support, he could have ended up in the White House. (I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with the Republican candidate being a moderate.)

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Conservatives are left with a bad set of choices. Vote for the anti-freedom Obama, or vote for the anti-freedom McCain. Neither are desirable, but Obama wants to cause more harm actively. McCain will probably cause harm as well, but mostly due to the law of unintended consequences.

Semantics and propaganda. I don't buy this `anti-freedom stuff' for any but the most radical candidates (which are not running). Both will have to deal with the same Congress and face the same challenges. I doubt they have a lot of leeway in what they will do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, you're just using that badge and redefine it when it agrees with your current sentiments. I have not said that Bush is or isn't a conservative, I am saying that he was hailed as a conservative up until recently. Just dig up old threads from the PL and some of the same people who now claim that Bush is `not really a conservative' have been defending him as such. That's what I mean here. I don't want to get into a sort of arbitrary discussion whether Bush `deserves' to be labelled as conservative.

Yet this seems to be the crux of your point. I've been seeing this point raised with increasing regularity. By all means, show us the conservatives of this board supporting the liberal policies of Bush being defended as conservative policy. Of course you can't. What you're really saying is that Conservatives leapt to the defense of policy that may have been more conservative than the alternative. This really doesn't mean anything.

I'm convinced the best way to get a liberal to denounce liberalism is to put Bush behind it, but that's no reason to rail on Vmarks.

I don't think McCain will lose this election, because he's a moderate. He will lose the election, because people are fed up with conservatives of the Bush era (call `em neoconservatives if you prefer). People want to vote for change, not because they are for Obama, but because they are fed up with the status quo. Most of the problems are associated with a Republican (presidential) leadership. And McCain has no support of the incumbent. Also that will contribute to his likely defeat. That's how Gore lost to Bush (which was a very tight race). It's not unlikely that if he could have relied on Clinton's full support, he could have ended up in the White House. (I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with the Republican candidate being a moderate.)

I'm not sure I understand this. People are fed up with the status quo, they connect that with Bush and the Republicans, but McCain will lose because he doesn't have Bush's support? If McCain lost, it is because he suspended his campaign to work on the "problem" while really contributing nothing to the effort and unwittingly connecting himself to what may full well be deemed the worst failure of government yet.

The fact of the matter is that by all rights, this should be a landslide for Obama, but it isn't. The only failure of McCain has and will continue to be the mismanagement of his campaign. Regardless of Obama's ties to dangerous, ideologically diseased morons (by the dozen), this campaign should be focused on why McCain is not connected to the alleged market failures. He was up prior to it, he'll be up if he can separate from it. If the market struggles, McCain will struggle because while he can tout that he tried to do something about the market problems several years ago, he and his running mate suck at getting the message out.

McCain won't though. Instead of disconnecting himself from the alleged market failures, he'll say; "but Obama wants to raise taxes!" and instead of substantively disconnecting himself with the Washington establishment, he'll say; "We're mavericks!" Old School politicin' is what people are fed up with. That's how Palin managed to "win" a debate she was technically lambasted in.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

(1) I doubt that these Democratic mavericks had a significant impact on the result of the primary (especially considering that McCain won the primaries in states that only allow registered Republicans to vote there).

It's actually quite pathetic for the Republicans if this were indeed the case, because it means that more liberals got out to vote in the Republican primaries than conservatives.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

This will be my second chance to vote. Yes I am young. So I do not have the "experience" that some of you may have.

Yet, I always find it amusing to speak with partisan people. However, I find people to speak with in person often with a specific set of political views, and then defend the opposite of their party. I find it highly interesting, and much more informative than listening to any news broadcast.

By reading the comments posted here, it is almost the same, except I do not get to see the faces of those that spout these "truths" about the "other" candidate.

Many of you are so partisan, that you couldn't speak a lick of truth about the "other" candidate even if it meant your demise. This is something that somewhat reflects the nation as a whole. On one hand, it is comical, on the other, completely sad.

Quoted for emphasis.
(of course, there are some here that would define you as 'liberal' simply for not pledging you allegiance to a side)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yet this seems to be the crux of your point. I've been seeing this point raised with increasing regularity. By all means, show us the conservatives of this board supporting the liberal policies of Bush being defended as conservative policy. Of course you can't.

Oh yes, some have and all you need to do is crawl through older threads here. When his approval rating was around 70 %, people loved him.
In regard to vmark's distinction between the different `types of conservative thought' -- which he says are bogus: you yourself claimed to be a compassionate conservative (last sentence of the post I've linked to).

My point is only that regardless of the label `conservative' or `liberal' or `whatever,' you can support or object to certain actions and policies. Instead of thinking critically, people look for people with the right badge and support or dismiss ideas out of hand. This won't help the Republican party either, because instead of saying we conservatives screwed up here and here, you (as a conservative) are saying `well, they haven't been real conservatives to begin with …'

I don't have a problem with people who are aware of what's going on, I have a problem with sheepish cheerleaders who are ecstatic, because their pony dresses in blue or red (depending on the taste, of course). People who would go either way of an issue, depending on whether it was proposed by the `right' person. (This rant is not meant personally, neither against you nor vmarks.) People with principles should stand up for them, no matter what they may be. If they are for personal liberties, they should be furious at some of the legislation of Congress. If they are for low taxes, then they should calculate whether `their' candidate's tax proposal really means that they will have more money in their bank accounts at the end of the month. This is really an invariant all across the world.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you're really saying is that Conservatives leapt to the defense of policy that may have been more conservative than the alternative.

No, this is not what I was saying.
For a long time, there was little to no criticism from conservatives when it came to official Bush policies. Their comments weren't putting his policies into perspective, they were cheering for their conservative candidate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not sure I understand this. People are fed up with the status quo, they connect that with Bush and the Republicans, but McCain will lose because he doesn't have Bush's support?

They connect many of the recent failed policies (Iraq, `the economy') with 8 years of Bush and 6 years of an all-Republican Congress.
And I was saying that the lack of Bush's support contributes to the uphill struggle McCain faces. I did not say that this is cause enough for him to lose the election.

To a certain degree, the Republicans have lost the last elections in Congress because of that. Certainly the Democrats didn't win, because of strong and decisive leadership or consistent work as opposition. They've won, because the Republicans were even weaker. Despite that, they were `the better alternative' to enough people so that both chambers are now in the hands of the Democrats (if only barely so in case of the Senate). The old mantra of `small government,' `frugal budgeting' and `liberties' has been used up -- at least temporarily.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact of the matter is that by all rights, this should be a landslide for Obama, but it isn't. The only failure of McCain has and will continue to be the mismanagement of his campaign.

It's not a landslide, because the Democrats themselves don't appear as a strong, enticing alternative. It's just that the Republicans are still weaker than the Democrats -- despite the 20-something percent approval rating of Congress.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

This is great. Before it was that Democrats and Independents voted McCain to make it an easy win for Clinton, and now the Republicans and Conservatives voted for her to keep Obama from winning.

So why did Obama get the primary?

Truth be told, I don't think Limbaugh's Operation Chaos had any substantive effect. However, I've never seen anything before this thread claiming that McCain got in because he'd be an easy target. Everything I've seen or read showed the democrats were most worried by a McCain win, thinking he would appeal to independents and moderates. No one thought he would self-destruct so gloriously.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Truth be told, I don't think Limbaugh's Operation Chaos had any substantive effect. However, I've never seen anything before this thread claiming that McCain got in because he'd be an easy target. Everything I've seen or read showed the democrats were most worried by a McCain win, thinking he would appeal to independents and moderates. No one thought he would self-destruct so gloriously.

Another member of this board posted the claim. I am working on finding the post right now, but some of these people post so damn much in the Poly lounge, it may take a while (I think I know who posted it, just sifting through right now).

[vmarks]

I don't know that any Democrats were worried by a McCain win. Why vote for a liberal Republican (half-way), when you can vote for a liberal Democrat and have the whole thing!

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't know that any Democrats were worried by a McCain win. Why vote for a liberal Republican (half-way), when you can vote for a liberal Democrat and have the whole thing!

Are you being serious? For the most parts, the electorate likes moderates. Hard-line ideologues tend not to be particularly successful on the National stage, except in extraordinary times. Have you not noticed the trend of almost all the recent successful presidential campaigns? The candidate that can win the middle/independents wins the election. This isn't rocket science.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Except the tone setting first primary, New Hampshire. But let's not get bogged down in the facts.

Yes, let's not. Like the fact that Mitt Romney won New Hampshire among registered Republicans.


Facts, tricky things, my friend.

Do you have ANY data to back this up? At the time, conventional wisdom was that the crossover was happening the other way round- with Republicans voting for Hillary to prolong the Democratic primary bloodletting. In fact Limbaugh took credit for making this happen.

Limbaugh is an entertainer. Some callers to his show claimed to have switched registrations to Democrat just to vote in primaries with the intent to switch back after voting, but there's no real evidence to back up that it made much of a dent.

Hey, good for the goose, good for the gander, no?

[vmarks]

Never let the middle of the road go undefended - of course, there's no great honor in that, either.

Freedom lies at the edges - when Dudley Hiibel gets out of the passenger side of a car and is arrested for refusing to show an officer a driver's license, because he wasn't driving. Or similarly when Michael Righi is arrested for not producing a driver's license and he's in the back seat. Or when New London decides to take land the owners don't wish to sell, for a public purpose (more money to the city!) instead of a public use (road or a park that all citizens can use.) These are violations of freedom that happen and will never affect most people - so let's just elect moderates that only defend the middle.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. It's what limited government protects against. Limited government is the way to maximizing freedom.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yes, let's not. Like the fact that Mitt Romney won New Hampshire among registered Republicans.

Facts, tricky things, my friend.

1. The list you posted of states that had open primaries did not include New Hampshire. New Hampshire does in fact hold an open primary. Shame on me for relying on your data.
2. The chart in Wikipedia is based in exit polling and shows a 1% diff between McCain and Romney. WELL within the margin of error. Not definitive.
3. There are those, including myself, that do not declare party allegiance. My home state, VA, has an open primary. I voted for Obama in the primary. If I'd been surveyed, I would have said, truthfully, I was not a registered Democrat. Would you assume my vote was made to manipulate the election? If so, you would be wrong.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Limbaugh is an entertainer. Some callers to his show claimed to have switched registrations to Democrat just to vote in primaries with the intent to switch back after voting, but there's no real evidence to back up that it made much of a dent.

Hey, good for the goose, good for the gander, no?

What exactly is your point, and how exactly does this support your assertion that McCain was granted the nomination by Democrats? Let me help. It doesn't.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Never let the middle of the road go undefended - of course, there's no great honor in that, either.

Freedom lies at the edges - when Dudley Hiibel gets out of the passenger side of a car and is arrested for refusing to show an officer a driver's license, because he wasn't driving. Or similarly when Michael Righi is arrested for not producing a driver's license and he's in the back seat. Or when New London decides to take land the owners don't wish to sell, for a public purpose (more money to the city!) instead of a public use (road or a park that all citizens can use.) These are violations of freedom that happen and will never affect most people - so let's just elect moderates that only defend the middle.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. It's what limited government protects against. Limited government is the way to maximizing freedom.

While moderately interesting, what does this have to do with the conversation? In such an equally divided political climate, the candidate that wins the middle wins the election. The conventional wisdom was that McCain was the republican candidate most likely to appeal to the middle. While it's certainly turned out differently, trust me, the Democrats did not want to face McCain. I've never seen anything, and you've not produced anything, that says otherwise.

That is not to say the Conservative base did want McCain. But again, those at the "edges" to not win national elections.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Another member of this board posted the claim. I am working on finding the post right now, but some of these people post so damn much in the Poly lounge, it may take a while (I think I know who posted it, just sifting through right now).

That would be me. The democrats tried it in 2004 against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpiao in 04. We don't have an open primary, but they had a campaign going to register republican and vote for Dan Saban in the primary.

As far as "Operation Chaos" is concerned it was to keep Hillary in the election, and O' Bama from winning the nomination without the help of the "SUPER delegates". He was hoping for a brokered convention.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

But again, those at the "edges" to not win national elections.

like Reagan, dead in the middle.