Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Reasons Why McCain Deserves the Republican Nomination

Reasons Why McCain Deserves the Republican Nomination (Page 2)
Thread Tools
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 02:58 PM
 
Who would win in an election: 1864 Abraham Lincoln or 1986 Mike Ditka?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 03:08 PM
 
Well its beginning.
The sucking up that is. msnbc

His critics are facing the arduous task of standing their ground or sucking up to him. some conservative groups who opposed him last summer are beginning to "warm up" to him now that he's the front runner. I guess they don't want to be left out in the cold if he wins the whole shabang.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 03:19 PM
 
Who would win in a hot dog eating contest: 1864 Abraham Lincoln or 2008 Hillary Clinton?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Would you be more interested in the subject if there was an openly atheist candidate? Maybe people are "concerned" because they have more of a stake in it than you do, since none of the candidates share your religious choice... just speculating
If that were the case then wouldn't I be "concerned" that these people who are running don't represent my religious views? Or lack thereof? I voted for old Bush too, and we all know how he felt about atheists.

I guess I would be more interested because of the uniqueness of the situation.

I just don't see how having a mormon in the white house is supposed to harm any non-mormon. One who was considered the greatest President we've ever had wasn't even a Christian at all. These days he would never even make it into office because of it. He wouldn't even get the nomination. It's ridiculous.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 04:07 PM
 
I think Mitt Romney *is* a hotdog.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
If that were the case then wouldn't I be "concerned" that these people who are running don't represent my religious views? Or lack thereof?
No, because your views are off the table. To you (I'm assuming you're atheist, if that's ok), it's just a choice between lots of "unlikes," just as it always has been. But if you did get the choice between "like" and "unlike," you might feel differently. To people who are either mormon or protestant, the choice is (or can be I suppose) "like" vs "unlike," which is very different from most other presidential races. While the very same candidates to an atheist or jew are "unlike" vs "unlike," or in other words "who cares."

I guess I would be more interested because of the uniqueness of the situation.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of people who find a mormon in the race unique, for the reason I explained above, before you scorn them for even being "concerned" about it.

One who was considered the greatest President we've ever had wasn't even a Christian at all. These days he would never even make it into office because of it. He wouldn't even get the nomination. It's ridiculous.
who?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
who?
I'm assuming he means Lincoln, though it's also probably true of everyone before Lincoln too, and probably just above every president prior to maybe Eisenhower?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I'm assuming he means Lincoln, though it's also probably true of everyone before Lincoln too, and probably just above every president prior to maybe Eisenhower?
Yes Lincoln.

Most Presidents were Christians of some sort.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You have to put yourself in the shoes of people who find a mormon in the race unique, for the reason I explained above, before you scorn them for even being "concerned" about it.
Ok, it's one thing to discuss it.

It's another to have this fantasy that it will somehow make him an unfit, or "less fit" than another who happens to be Christian. Why should it even be a question?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 06:03 PM
 
This may be her greatest trick yet!

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 07:18 PM
 
As I've always said, she's an IRL troll.

As a side note, though, that bit about how McCain was confusing Republicans with "his liberal friends" was actually pretty smart. McCain's supporters generally seem to be more liberal than your average conservative.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Feb 1, 2008 at 07:54 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 07:30 PM
 
Wow, that's the smartest, and most devious, thing I've ever seen from Coulter.

I don't like the woman, but my hat's off to her, that was brilliant.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 09:23 PM
 
I hope during this election cycle somebody comes forth and dispels us of the notion that "liberal" is a bad word. Liberal is not a bad word any more than "conservative", black or white, or night or day is a bad word.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 09:34 PM
 
We've been over this in this forum in the past.

Liberal, as it originally means, is close to some aspects of US libertarianism. It means the government is small, and minds its own business, staying out of yours and mine. Conservatism as it stands today is really the same as the original meaning of Liberal.

In the US, the word liberal has been taken over by people who use it to mean progressive or socialist. People calling themselves liberal in America in this day and age tend to want the government to regulate or prosecute what is frequently none of the government's business.

The word itself is not bad, in either use/mis-use. However, the policies by those in America who call themselves liberal, are in my estimation, bad for the American people.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 09:35 PM
 
"White" isn't a bad word?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 09:38 PM
 
back on topic.

McCain - worthy of the GOP nomination?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
It's Obama's middle name.
How many people do we call by their middle names when they don't call themselves by their middle name? Calling Obama "Hussein" is a blatant attempt to link him to the only other person Americans know as Hussein. Sadly, many voters will probably fall for it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
back on topic.

McCain - worthy of the GOP nomination?
No.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
We've been over this in this forum in the past.

Liberal, as it originally means, is close to some aspects of US libertarianism. It means the government is small, and minds its own business, staying out of yours and mine. Conservatism as it stands today is really the same as the original meaning of Liberal.
I don't agree. Conservatism today is *not* about minding their own business. Look at the whole social conservative movement, the patriot act, etc. I agree that conservatism used to be about this in recent history, but I don't see how what you wrote accurately defines Bush conservatism.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 11:05 PM
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I will not vote for McCain.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't agree. Conservatism today is *not* about minding their own business. Look at the whole social conservative movement, the patriot act, etc. I agree that conservatism used to be about this in recent history, but I don't see how what you wrote accurately defines Bush conservatism.
That's exactly the problem. For many people 'conservative', as far as I can tell, just means 'Republican'. So anything that Bush does is conservative, despite the fact that quite a lot of it is anything but. There really isn't any set definition for either word anymore, and most people, when they use those words, just use them as a synonym for whichever party popular opinion says they belong to.

Honestly, I actually think the world's smallest political quiz does a pretty good job of providing a metric (thought the quiz itself is obviously extremely simplified and somewhat biased). If you're not familiar with it, it uses two axes rather than one so that in addition to the regular right/left dichotomy there's also the libertarian/statist dichotomy.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2008, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
We've been over this in this forum in the past.

Liberal, as it originally means, is close to some aspects of US libertarianism. It means the government is small, and minds its own business, staying out of yours and mine. Conservatism as it stands today is really the same as the original meaning of Liberal.

In the US, the word liberal has been taken over by people who use it to mean progressive or socialist. People calling themselves liberal in America in this day and age tend to want the government to regulate or prosecute what is frequently none of the government's business.

The word itself is not bad, in either use/mis-use. However, the policies by those in America who call themselves liberal, are in my estimation, bad for the American people.
What's a poor `ole Goldwater Republican like me supposed to do? I dislike McCain, Hillary, Obama, and Romney.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I hope during this election cycle somebody comes forth and dispels us of the notion that "liberal" is a bad word. Liberal is not a bad word any more than "conservative", black or white, or night or day is a bad word.
The term "liberal" has been abandoned. The new word is "progressive". You will never hear a "progressive" say anything positive about a "liberal" - because "liberal" is a bad word. Remember, all current "progressives" were liberals a few years ago. Almost nobody will claim to be a liberal. Instead, they will either describe themselves as "progressive" or "moderate". So when you hear the word "progressive" or "moderate", rest assured those words mean, simply, "liberal".

Rush Limbaugh made the term "liberal" a sign of stupidity.

Contrarily, all conservatives are proud to describe themselves as "conservative" - as they've done for decades.

Ask yourself why there were no "progressives" back in 2000. Where did they all come from? You know the answer.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 12:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What's a poor `ole Goldwater Republican like me supposed to do? I dislike McCain, Hillary, Obama, and Romney.
Join the club.

I'm hoping that George Phillies gets the Libertarian nomination so I can vote for him. Otherwise it's any Republican over Hillary, but I'd have to put some real thought into it if it's Obama because I can't really say that I like McCain or Romney any better. I can't even say which of the two Republicans I'd prefer because while there are plenty of reasons not to like McCain, Romney was my governor and I have no desire to see him repeat that performance (or lack thereof) while President. Honestly, if Obama gets nominated I'll probably vote for him despite being a libertarian...

Sigh...
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 07:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The flier features Obama posing in churches -- in one instance, in front of a cross -- and reassures the reader: "Guided by his Christian faith, Barack Obama is the leader we can trust to challenge the ways of Washington."

It also includes a passage quoting Obama on the "power of prayer," saying: "We’ve got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions."
I can't remember what crowd he was addressing, but I do recall that a week or so ago I saw Obama on TV making statements to the effect that he wasn't particularly religious.

Don't you have to proclaim you're a Christian to certain parts of the US demographic, otherwise they all think you're a Satanist or Communist?

Maybe NewsCorp and pals are editing Obama material to make him more appealing to the generally less religious Western European television audiences?

______________________________________

Originally Posted by Big Mac
I don't consider Jews from Germany to be "Germans" except in a narrow nationalistic sense.
I find that a somewhat ridiculous position to take, considering that the overwhelming majority of Jews living in Germany prior to the persecution by the National Socialists thought of themselves as German, and were in fact integrated reasonably well into the general fabric of society.

Hitler obviously didn't think of them as German, and to prove it he had to resort to ludicrous racialist reasoning, but for a Jew nowadays to essentially use the same argument to retroactively distance His People© from the Evil Germans™ strikes me not only as utterly absurd, but sick.

______________________________________
Originally Posted by vmarks
back on topic.

McCain - worthy of the GOP nomination?
I think the guy is a joke, but considering that someone like Guliani was actually running as well, maybe he fits in with what's perceived to appeal to traditional Republican voters?

Oh, but of course. He knows how to catch Bin Laden, hunt him down to the gates of hell, doesn't he? Wow.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 07:39 AM
 
I agree that none of the candidates sounds particularly appealing, but I still think McCain is a better fit than Romney. Romney is without substance. I can at least disagree with McCain and be sure it's his opinion.
I'd have preferred to see Ron Paul catch the nomination. Although some of his opinions are apparently from outer space (abolish the IRS, yeah, right), I think 4 years of Paul are good to repair some of the damage 7 years of Bush have done to America. However, he's not going to get the nomination (also thanks to the media), so all of this is just speculation.

@Spliffidaddy
We don't need someone to regurgitate the terminology of Fox News for us, thank you.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
I find that a somewhat ridiculous position to take, considering that the overwhelming majority of Jews living in Germany prior to the persecution by the National Socialists thought of themselves as German, and were in fact integrated reasonably well into the general fabric of society.

Hitler obviously didn't think of them as German, and to prove it he had to resort to ludicrous racialist reasoning, but for a Jew nowadays to essentially use the same argument to retroactively distance His People© from the Evil Germans™ strikes me not only as utterly absurd, but sick.
I'm going to have to agree here. While I do think it's fair to say that Jews have a separate cultural identity beyond whatever nation they happen to live in, I think it's not only inaccurate, but downright dangerous to say that they are only Jews and not Germans. It is exactly that sort of thinking that's been used to justify so much of our persecution in the past. Stalin used exactly that argument to justify his persecution and even extermination of Russian Jews, and it was hardly a new idea when he did. That way of thinking led to people believing that Jews couldn't be trusted and were inherently unpatriotic because our loyalties were not to our country (sort of in the way that Liberals are now often reviled as America-haters, though obviously a bit more extreme).
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree that none of the candidates sounds particularly appealing, but I still think McCain is a better fit than Romney. Romney is without substance. I can at least disagree with McCain and be sure it's his opinion.
It's really too bad, because there's no question in my mind that Romney is a more competent and just as rational individual as McCain. He's been very successful, and he's been a centrist Republican all his life, until trying to get this nomination. He obviously felt that he had to become insane in order to fit in with the national Republican party, and I'm not sure he's wrong. Double Guantanamo! Tax cuts increase revenues! Global warming is a liberal plot! I've been wrong on abortion my whole life but now I've seen the truth!

I even devoted my sig to the pathetic mess that Romney has become. He may not have won the nomination, but at least he lost all dignity in the process.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2008, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't agree. Conservatism today is *not* about minding their own business. Look at the whole social conservative movement, the patriot act, etc. I agree that conservatism used to be about this in recent history, but I don't see how what you wrote accurately defines Bush conservatism.
Bush isn't a conservative.

He had to invent "compassionate conservatism" in order to be able to use the word at all.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 08:22 AM
 
I find this way of thinking a bit misleading and part of the marketing machine: as nonhoman put it, to many people (especially those in rural America), conservative is interchangeable with Republican. Right now, there is a big effort underway to dissociate Bush from `conservatism'. Fact is that conservative voters voted for Bush (first they have nominate him twice as a presidential candidate and then put him in the White House). His policies have been supported by the Republican majority.

It's nothing more than a marketing ploy to claim he's `not really a conservative'. I can understand if Bush's neo conservatism does not appeal to you ideologically, vmarks, but to claim he was never `really a conservative' is a stretch. (Also, I think the key term here is not `compassionate conservatism', but `neo conservatism'.) Especially during the first term, he was surrounded by people who have served in (several) previous conservative administrations (e. g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney). You can make an argument that he doesn't represent the flavor of conservatism you would like to see, but that doesn't make him any less of a conservative than he is.

Essentially the Republicans will get a centrist candidate this time around (at least that's what the results of the Republican primaries are saying up until now), and in my opinion the reason for that is because Republicans have realized that Bush is too far right. Ditto for the Democrats, they're opting for centrist candidates as well.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 10:03 AM
 
I guess it is accurate to say Bush isn't a "classic" conservative but a NeoCon. NeoCons believe in big American government and the projection of American military power throughout the world.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 10:47 AM
 
Perhaps.
But what is a `classic conservative'? Ron Paul-type libertarians? Bush Sr (keeping in mind that a sizeably share of Bush Jr's first cabinet served under Bush Sr)? To me, these are just different flavors of conservatism, and diversity is good. It's needs to evolve to stay up to date with current issues.

IMO these nomers are just marketing: I've even heard supporters of Huckabee claim that with him, a real Christian would move into the White House -- so what's Bush Jr, a fake Christian, a Mormon priest and we failed notice? I think voting decisions shouldn't be made on the basis whether someone is a `true conservative' (a term that depends on your personal definition), but on the basis of issues and policies.

People like Ron Paul will of course say that neither Bush nor any of the candidates who want to continue Bush's (foreign) policies aren't real conservatives. Like supporters of Huckabee will try to argue that McCain is more of a `liberal' (see Ann Coulter's `endorsement' of Hillary Clinton). Everybody is trying to push their candidate of choice (which is fair enough, this is what democracy is all about after all), but in the end, either McCain or Romney will be the `conservative' candidate.

In either case, I think the Republicans will lose the upcoming presidential elections -- for the same reason Harriet Myers hasn't been appointed to the Supreme Court. They will have a better chance winning against Clinton (for some people the antichrist incarnate) than Obama, though.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 11:01 AM
 
A classic conservative Republican, IMO, would fit the Goldwater or Reagan models. Or Ike if you want to go back that far.

A classic conservative is a proponent of smaller, less intrusive government, adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law, and the free market.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 11:42 AM
 
There are plenty of Republicans who are not conservative.

There are three legs to conservatism.
Social conservative
Fiscal conservative
National Security Conservative

Bush made himself the candidate of social conservatives, but tried to temper it with "compassionate" which weakens and confuses the whole thing. If you're going to make a stand on principles, then you don't get all wishy-washy on them to get elected. It's demeaning to us all. Note: Social conservative means a few things. It means adhering to the Constitution strictly.
It also gets rolled into the arguments about stem cells, abortion because these are issues where the meaning of life is not settled. It gets dragged into marriage and what that means, but Dick Cheney (a conservative if there ever were one) said it best, it's an issue up to the states (Constitution, 10th amendment.)

Bush was never a good fiscal conservative. His fooling about with tariffs, his willingness to partner with Kennedy to make a new entitlement, his only getting around to addressing earmarks at the end of his term, show this. His biggest show as a fiscal conservative was the tax cut (which I am not rich, but did benefit from) and his reform message on Social Security in State of the Union speeches. We'll see if his earmarks bit ever goes anywhere. The rest, we know.

Bush never intended to be a National Security Conservative. He found himself thrown into it, and responded. Mind you, he didn't really stick with it when it came to border security.

Bush basically adopted one out of the three legs of conservatism, and weakened that one by tacking on "compassionate." Bush is not a conservative.

McCain -- remember, this is a thread about McCain?
McCain is even less of a conservative.

McCain does not have any interest in the Constitution, and has publicly said as much when he openly disparaged the 1st Amendment. I've related the quote in another post in this thread.

McCain has consistently voted for fiscal nightmares.

McCain has a weak standing on National Security.

McCain is no conservative.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 12:53 PM
 
I believe you. With Ron Paul in a clear third place, the choice is between Romney and McCain. I would be intrigued by 4 years of Ron Paul, none of the other candidates would have the guts to do some of the things he proposes.

Does Romney appeal to you more? (I would like to know what you think of him.) Would you consider voting for Clinton or Obama if McCain is nominated by the Republicans?

As I tried to explain earlier: I disagree with McCain on one of the most important issues of the upcoming election: he wants to continue Bush's strategy in Iraq. I agree to his idea of creating a path to legalization for illegal immigrants (also something that Bush has proposed). By the way, Reagan -- the posterboy of conservatism -- has done the same thing in 1986. He's not my first choice as a candidate, but still be best on the Republican side.

Edit: fixed the year.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 3, 2008 at 01:00 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
There are three legs to conservatism.
Social conservative
Fiscal conservative
National Security Conservative
What about Constitutional conservatism?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I believe you. With Ron Paul in a clear third place, the choice is between Romney and McCain.
What about Huckabee? He certainly appears to have the votes to beat Paul. Actually, it will be interesting to see what happens when Huckabee (hopefully) drops out. Will he hand out an endorsement? I don't think he could possibly endorse Romney for religious reasons, and I don't think he would endorse McCain for ideological reasons.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 02:50 PM
 
In my opinion, if he won't endorse Romney for religious reasons then his endorsement is completely and utterly worthless anyway.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post

4. The Republicans need a moderate in November or else we put ourselves at greater risk of the socialist nightmare of Hillary or Hussein;
Yes, we must be very careful not to elect Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden! That would be a horrible mistake, and since one of the Democratic candidates has a similar sounding name, well... you can't be too careful! Thanks for convincing me!

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
In my opinion, if he won't endorse Romney for religious reasons then his endorsement is completely and utterly worthless anyway.
Except that whoever he endorses will probably get the evangelical vote...
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by chris v View Post
Yes, we must be very careful not to elect Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden! That would be a horrible mistake, and since one of the Democratic candidates has a similar sounding name, well... you can't be too careful! Thanks for convincing me!
You're very much welcome. Any time.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
What about Constitutional conservatism?
Unspoken and unneeded as a label. Constitutionalism is tied to each of those three legs inseparably.

Fiscal conservatism - article one, section eight.
National security - article one, section eight, 4th amendment, 2nd amendment,
Social conservatism- 1st, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 21st...

Conservatives are constitutionalists.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
For those who think names do not matter, I'll pose the question again: Would you vote for a candidate with the first name Adolf? Certainly it's not intellectually proper to hold something against a candidate just because of German ancestry, but would you cast your ballot for Adolf for president? We're all friends - let's be honest.
Uh oh, I just realized that Hillary's husband is well known for playing a musical instrument invented by Adolphe Sax! Coincidence???
( Last edited by CharlesS; Feb 3, 2008 at 04:21 PM. )

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Conservatives are constitutionalists.
Perhaps true conservatives are. I don't think very many who define themselves social conservatives are constitutionalists, nor are many NeoCons.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 04:20 PM
 
@vmarks
What you describe to me is a (strict) constitutionalist and libertarian, not a conservative.
According to your classification, Ron Paul is one of the few `real' conservatives in Congress! To me, this sounds rather like wishful thinking (what you wish conservatives shall be like) and not a useful definition of a political school of thought.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I believe you. With Ron Paul in a clear third place, the choice is between Romney and McCain. I would be intrigued by 4 years of Ron Paul, none of the other candidates would have the guts to do some of the things he proposes.

Does Romney appeal to you more? (I would like to know what you think of him.) Would you consider voting for Clinton or Obama if McCain is nominated by the Republicans?

As I tried to explain earlier: I disagree with McCain on one of the most important issues of the upcoming election: he wants to continue Bush's strategy in Iraq. I agree to his idea of creating a path to legalization for illegal immigrants (also something that Bush has proposed). By the way, Reagan -- the posterboy of conservatism -- has done the same thing in 1986. He's not my first choice as a candidate, but still be best on the Republican side.

Edit: fixed the year.
No candidate that is left in the race is going to dramatically change the Iraq war strategy on the ground.

Pulling out troops in numbers is a losing strategy, and no President is going to want that loss in his or her term.

So, in every other respect, here's something you need to consider. The Republican establishment has been trying to get rid of conservatives for ages. Conservatives make it hard to campaign candidates, because of their insistence on candidates who have conservative principles. Candidates can either make overtures to conservatives even if they've never really fit the label (Huckabee, McCain, Bush) or they stand a good chance of losing without conservative support.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@vmarks
What you describe to me is a (strict) constitutionalist and libertarian, not a conservative.
According to your classification, Ron Paul is one of the few `real' conservatives in Congress! To me, this sounds rather like wishful thinking (what you wish conservatives shall be like) and not a useful definition of a political school of thought.
Good news! A strict constitutionalist libertarian has a lot of intersect with what a conservative is.

However, Ron Paul, conservative as he may be, is also unacceptable as a candidate for reasons I've explained in other threads.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Perhaps true conservatives are. I don't think very many who define themselves social conservatives are constitutionalists, nor are many NeoCons.
Well, this is what happens when people realize they need the support of true conservatives to get elected - they fashion a conservative-lite nickname, and hope the rest of the conservatives will hold their collective noses and vote for them.

Conservatism has never needed a conservative-lite, compassionate, neo, or other label tacked onto it - it simply is conservatism or it isn't.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2008, 05:45 PM
 
Reasons why McCain deserves it? Umm, My take?

John McCain is right now positioned as one of the top figures in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. But one thing about McCain that the mass media chooses not to report is his family connection to the organized crime-connected interests that have run the state of Arizona (through both major political parties) since at least the 1940s.

To understand McCain—in particular his devotion to the interests of Israel—it is necessary to recognize the little-known fact that the powerful Bronfman family empire, based on its Seagram’s liquor fortune and its controlling influence over the Time-Warner media conglomerate, has been the primary behind-the-scenes force dominating Arizona politics.

While the Bronfman family first came to power in Montreal in the 1920s under Sam Bronfman, a foremost partner of U.S.-based organized crime chieftain Meyer Lansky whose so-called “Mafia” henchmen peddled Bronfman liquor in the United States during Prohibition, the current head of the family, Edgar Bronfman, spent many years as president of the powerful World Jewish Congress.

The Bronfmans, along with the Rothschilds of Europe, the Oppenheimers of South Africa, and Armand Hammer of the United States—all patrons of Israel and the global Zionist network—constituted what has been dubbed the “Billionaire Gang of Four.” But the Bronfman family has emerged as the virtual royal family of American Zionism, and their tentacles reach far and wide throughout the United States through a vast array of holdings little known to the public.

One particularly famous Texas-based mob functionary, nightclub keeper Jack Ruby, for example, is known to have actually been a lieutenant of the Bronfman family (a point that has often been lost or suppressed in the legends surrounding Ruby’s ties to organized crime). And it is known—although again not mentioned by most JFK assassination “researchers”— that Ruby was a key player in a Texas-based network smuggling arms (stolen from U.S. military installations) to Israel, the Bronfman empire’s favorite foreign nation.

Aside from that historical digression, the fact (relevant to our review of John McCain) is that McCain’s home state of Arizona has long been under Bronfman control.

While most Americans perceive Arizona as a paradise of cowboys, cacti and wide-open spaces and a conservative stronghold independent of the corruption and intrigue found in the big cities like New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles, Arizona ranks right up alongside the great crime capitals. That status can be traced directly to the influence of the Bronfmans.

The Bronfmans are the “godfathers” behind the political career of John McCain.

In 1976 a crusading Phoenix reporter, Don Bolles, was murdered by a car bomb after writing a series of stories exposing the organized crime connections of a wide-ranging number of well-known figures in Arizona, including one Jim Hensley. Five years later “Honest John” McCain arrived in Arizona as the new husband of Hensley’s daughter, Cindy. “From the moment McCain landed in Phoenix,” according to Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, “the Hensleys were key sponsors of his political career.” But the people behind the Hensley fortune are even more controversial.

McCain’s late father-in-law was the owner of the biggest Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship in Arizona—one of the largest beer distributors in the nation. But the mainstream media has had nothing to say about the origins of the Hensley fortune that financed McCain’s rise to power. The Hensley fortune is a regional offshoot of the big-time bootlegging and rackets empire of the Bronfman dynasty.

McCain’s father-in-law got his start as a top henchman for Kemper Marley, who, for 40 years until his death in 1990 at age 84, was the undisputed behind-the-scenes political boss of Arizona. But Marley was much more than a machine politician. In fact, he was also the Lansky crime syndicate’s top man in Arizona, the protege of a Lansky lieutenant, Phoenix gambler Gus Greenbaum.

In 1941 Greenbaum had set up the Transamerica Publishing and News Service, which operated a national wire for bookmakers. In 1946 Greenbaum turned over the day-to-day operations to Marley while Greenbaum focused on building up Lansky-run casinos in Las Vegas, commuting there from his home in Phoenix. Greenbaum, in fact, was so integral to the Lansky empire that he was the one who took command of Lansky’s Las Vegas interests in 1947 after Lansky ordered the execution of his own longtime friend, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, for skimming mob profits from the new Flamingo Casino.

Greenbaum and his wife were murdered in a mob “hit” in 1948, their throats cut. The murder set off a series of gangland wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered.

During this time Marley was building up a liquor distribution monopoly in Arizona. According to Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, it was the Bronfman family that set Marley up in the liquor business. In 1948, 52 of Marley’s employees (including Jim Hensley) went to jail for federal liquor violations—but not Marley.

The story in Arizona is that Hensley took the fall for Marley and, upon his release from prison, Marley paid back Hensley’s loyalty by setting him up in the beer distribution business. That beer company today, said to be worth $200 million, is what largely financed John McCain’s political career. The support from the Bronfman-Marley-Hensley network was integral to McCain’s rise to power.

The attorney who handled Hensley’s legal defense, forging the deal that set in motion Hensley’s windfall (that now benefits McCain), was William Rehnquist, who later became chief justice of the United States, later to be joined on the court by one of his own former girlfriends from Arizona, Sandra Day O’Connor. The one-vote margin on the Supreme Court that handed the presidency to George W. Bush following the 2000 election debacle might be considered a product of the “Bronfman bloc.”

McCain’s father-in-law had also dabbled in the dog racing business and he expanded his family fortune further by selling his dog racing track to an individual connected to the Emprise Corp., run by the Buffalo-based Jacobs family.

The Jacobs family was the leading distributor for Bronfman liquor smuggled into the United States during Prohibition and controlled the “spigot” of Bronfman liquor pouring into the casks of local gangs that were part of the Lansky syndicate. Expanding over the years, buying up horse and dog racing tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, the Jacobs family’s enterprises were once described as being “probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime’s money-laundering in the United States.”

While John McCain himself cannot be held personally responsible for the sins of his father-in-law, the fact is that this “reformer” owes his political and financial fortunes to the good graces of the biggest names in organized crime. Today, the Las Vegas gambling industry is among McCain’s primary financial benefactors. This brief overview is just the tip of the iceberg but it does say much about McCain and the political milieu that spawned him, particularly in light of McCain’s front-line position as one of Israel’s leading congressional water-carriers.

Doing Israel’s bidding is a McCain family tradition. Following Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, resulting in the murder of 34 Americans, McCain’s father, Adm. John McCain, was one of the key players inside the U.S. Navy helping cover up the deliberate nature of Israel’s savage attack. “Like father, like son” clearly means something when it comes to the McCains. 

I guess he deserves to be in jail. I think his CFR connections alone disqualify him from even running for public office in the USA. I personally wouldn't trust him to be my mailman.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,