Redstate

....and it isn't going to change.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

If you want to avoid the fallacy of comparing apples to oranges, you have to wait till a month or two has elapsed after either Hillary or Obama has clinched the nomination, to see whether those Democrats who supported the other candidate are returning to the Democratic fold, or if they're still receptive to voting for the GOP instead.

Because right now, you've got about 11% of Republicans who still won't support McCain even though we've known he's the nominee for two months. How many Democrats will support their nominee after he or she has had two whole months to smooth ruffled feathers and heal any wounds?

...thus breaking the South's electoral votes in two and handing the election to Nixon?

Show of hands: who here's ready to repeat that scenario, only this time in the Northeast?

Moe

PS: In answer to your later point, the problem for the eventual Democratic nominee is that she's going to have to do one other thing besides (and at the same time as) making nice with recalcitrant Democrats. She's also got to run in the general election - and if she thinks that she can coast on doing that, well.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"more hopeful" on Iraq?

What exactly does this mean? I think most Americans understand that no candidate, no matter what they promise, is going to have the power to simply make the Iraq issue disappear.

Mccain is not promising to "keep fighting" as you suggest, but rather "to achieve victory". Our choices are not to pull troops out, or hand over control to local powers or whatever you have in mind -- the choices are defeat or victory.

You may think that the Democrats are being "hopeful" in their promise to the voters that we can and should simply walk away from Iraq. This is either disingenuous or naive on their part -- in Obama's case it's both.

I dont read the times, so you may be right to repeat the Times' analysis that Republicans opposed to McCain are opposed to the war. My impression, having read sites like this and listened to talk radio, etc, is that republicans opposed to McCain are opposed to his percieved moeration and lack of true conservative credentials.

My impression, having read sites like this and listened to talk radio, etc, is that republicans opposed to McCain are opposed to his percieved moeration and lack of true conservative credentials.

Those Republicans wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama anyway. They will tell you they may either sit out the election or vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates.

The Times article dealt with Republicans who are seriously thinking of voting Democratic this year. They aren't going to do that if they think McCain isn't conservative enough--the Dems are even less conservative. The reason they're voting Democratic is that they have shifted to the left. Mostly on the war, but also on economic uncertainty.

What McCain can do about Iraq to appeal to concerned voters, is lay out a specific set of goals that the U.S. armed forces are capable of reaching on their own, define that as "victory," and promise the American people that we will withdraw from Iraq once those goals are met.

What that does, is it gets us out of the current pickle of depending on political progress by the Iraqi people as our "victory". We have to be able to say something like:

"Once our troops have decimated the al-Qaeda forces [or other such clearly defined goal], we will withdraw from Iraq no matter how close to 'democracy' the Iraqi people are, or how far away they are from it."

What Bush has stuck us with, is this nebulous goal of "building a stable democracy in Iraq," which is NOT a military objective our troops can achieve. The Iraqi people might take 3 more years to create a stable democracy, or 5 years, or 10 years, or 100 years. Our concept of "victory" cannot depend on what THEY do, or on THEIR rate of cultural and social progress. It can only depend on what WE can do for ourselves.

to quote Sen George Aiken re Vietnam War.

That is unfortunately not an option, because the *end* of conflict involving our forces in Iraq, on whatever terms, is not the end of the war in which we are involved.

The end of fighting in Iraq, Im afraid, is merely the beginning of fighting somewhere else. And thats true whether we achieve defeat *or* victory. The latter, however, would put us in a better position to wage the next fight.

On the topic of antiwar Republicans, I dont discount them -- Ron Paul supporters for example are antiwar -- Im just not sure they amount to a significant group. I'm not sure how reliably republican they are, either (that is, how likely that they would vote for Mccain absent the war - I tend to think not very). I also think the size and importance of the antiwar vote has been exaggerated.

To most conservatives the desire to 'get out of Iraq' is at the top of their list of priorities for this election cycle. Controlling spending and securing the borders will likely be ahead of that. But "the economy" is now the top concern. Even though the POTUS doesn't direct the economy. But McAmnesty could help if he would veto any bill containing an earmark.

I heard it on the X......

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

never having a seat at the table. We conservatives have to realize that this type of close minded approach to politics (which is very different from our positions) will never yield a majority opinion.

You don't have a 'seat at the table' if you fail to express your voice at the ballot box. If you disagree with Juan Pablo McAmnesty to a degree you cannot vote for him, yet do vote for another candidate (Libertarian, Constitution Party, etc.) you have expressed your voice. A minority voice, most likely, but a voice nonetheless.

I heard it on the X......

then why expect the party to listen to you?

And knock off the "Juan Pablo" crap. It is uncalled for [and counter to decency on this site]

Around here, we frown on using hispanic names as slurs. If you don't understand this or are unable to comply, just mosey on along. If it happens again, it will be your last comment here at RedState.

kthx.

Mgmt.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Apparently thought adding "Pablo" made it different.

streiff informs me that you are correct. Looks like another one added to The Pile™.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

n/t

wholesale lawlessness
he'll throw us a smelly bone
democrat white house

Nice work on MrSy. I love the smell of burning troll in the morning.

"I am a staunch conservative / even if it means a democrat will take the white house. "

Doesnt sound very good.

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

If Christ is risen, nothing else matters; and if Christ is not risen, nothing else matters. — Jaroslav Pelikan

Haven't we heard this before

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

Whose "principles" include Democrat-appointed Supreme Court nominees, pro-partial birth abortion President, and abandoning our troops' mission in Iraq.

I can only guess what "values" those are.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I don't listen to him that often, but he has definitely switched his attack mode onto the Ds

I'm afraid his one-sided portrayal of Sen. McCain has left an impression on some like moijea here. That's why it was so frustrating when Rush harped on two or three things that he disliked about McCain but didn't (and still hasn't to my knowledge) talked about the places conservatives can make gains.

We could actually stand up to earmarks. Rs have probably the only viable pro-Iraq war candidate in the country. Conservatives have the first "pro-life moderate" in recent history. Since being pro-life has meant the MSM couldn't possibly call you a moderate. Now pro-life can be smack in the middle of the spectrum.

One of the few Rs to stand up the Bush's Medicare Drug Bribe got the nomination. And it's one of the few who opposed the Transportation Pork bill and the Energy Pork bill.

But Rush doesn't want to mention that, so people think all McCain does all day is plot with Sen. Kennedy on how to piss off Rush Limbaugh.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I find it very interesting that many of my fellow conservatives feel that someone who is 80% in agreement with them is worse that someone who is in 20% agreement.

P.S. It's nice to know that we both have the same lack of sleeping habits.

Yes I think that was your longest comment today...to Moijea no less...Got Time?

Thats alot of work before bed..

"he'll throw us a smelly bone, and the results will be no different than if a democrat were in the white house. NO different."

how about those Cards. 2-3 ain't so shabby. Now, about that leader board...where we find the Cards 1 1/2 games ahead of the Cubs for first...pretty nice for a team that was supposed to suck with a capital "S" this year.
Yeehaw!
BTW-What is up with Izzy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

His performance this year hasn't been any different than any of the past years. He still is near the top in saves. He has always seemed to throw a few away now and then and this year is going to be no different when the offense starts to struggle.

I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I am not a fan of Fox News either.

n/t

wholesale lawlessness
he'll throw us a smelly bone
democrat white house

That line reeks of arrogance. Everyone votes values. I mean their might be one or two whack-jobs who literally walk into the precinct polling station and flip a quarter, but other than that, we all vote values.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

n/t

n/t

The McCain approach is to make these illegal immigrants pay their debt to society. Like any other criminals. After which their debt is paid off. They will have to pay heavy fines. They will have to learn English. They will have to go to the back of the line and wait their turn for citizenship, after the legal immigrants.

What's wrong with that? With any other criminals, we make them pay a debt to society and then we allow them to be reintegrated into society. We have many citizens who made a mistake once in their lives, went to jail or paid a heavy fine, and then started their lives anew. Some of them had committed much worse crimes than some poor Mexican sneaking across our border.

Why do you insist on treating these illegal immigrants, not as criminals to pay off their debt to society, but as some kind of invaders to be expelled? They're not coming here to subvert us. They're not jihadists. They're coming here to find work.

Isn't there any kind of punishment you can think of for them, after which you will consider their debt to our society to be paid, at which point they can stay here and earn citizenship?

We're gonna make them learn English. . . oh sure, . . just like they have to be able to read and write English before they are granted citizenship . . . r-i-g-h-t.

A friend of my daughter gained citizenship the LEGAL way the past year. . . and when she went to the ceremony to be sworn in, she was SHOCKED at how many of those there to do the same HAD INTERPRETERS!!!

Yeah, . . so much for following the rules. Sorry, the politicians have NO credibility on any part of this issue. I don't trust any of them, McCain included.

No, there is not ANY punishment I can think of, in which I would consider their debt to society to be paid. . . you seem to be confusing American society with a global society?? Or are one of those believers in "we are the world?"

They are not American, they don't belong here, . . the debt they can pay is to leave this country, and quit stealing our social and educational services.

They are not just invaders, they are thieves.

n/t

please use the reply to this link found at the bottom of each comment. Your comments will follow the conversation better.

How is voting for John McCain a slight against God?

When you deal with politics you are given a set of options. In this election we have two viable options: Senator McCain and Senator Obama or Clinton. [Yes, there will be others on the ballot in some states, but unless hell freezes over a third party candidate will not even meet the threshold for federal matching funds.] Are you principals so sacred that you really would rather have a President Obama or Clinton?

Let's examine this:

With Obama/Clinton you have a President that is openly pro-abortion. Does that jive with your morals. Senator McCain on the other hand is pro-life.

With Obama/Clinton you have a President that will continue to seek ACLU appointments to the SCOTUS. Senator McCain has been very solid on judges. [And before you bring up the inevitable Gang of 14, Senator McCain made a political calculation that getting the SCOTUS nominees a hearing was better in the long run than the lower courts]

With Obama/Clinton you will have a President that will ignore genocide (just like was occuring in Iraq) so as not to upset anyone. With Senator McCain you have a President that understands that there are worse things that war.

With Obama/Clinton you will have an expansion of nanny-statism in regards to increased taxes, government spending, entitlement programs, etc. Senator McCain fights for decreases in taxes, lower spending, reforming entitlement programs, etc.

With Obama/Clinton you will get an amnesty first immigration policy. Senator McCain has said on multiple occasions that he has heard the message that the American people want enforcement first. Given Senator McCain's history, is there anything that tells you that he goes against his word?

So tell me, how does your sanctimonious rant make our country better?

"he'll throw us a smelly bone, and the results will be no different than if a democrat were in the white house. NO different."

Please find the "reply to this" button to reply to a comment.

Second, how are you going to account to God for voting for the pro-partial birth abortion candidate? Or are you only going to have to account for your one-half of a vote for a pro-partial birth abortion candidate (i.e. voting 3rd party)?

But hey, it's your vote. If you want to elect Sen. Obama with your vote, that's fine. But there are other sites working on that effort. Here, we're working on getting Sen. McCain elected. If that bothers you, go back whence you came.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

to God for the vote I CAST, not who gets elected. I am accountable to God to vote for a candidate, NOT a strategy.

So you are saying that you would have a clean conscience if your vote leads to a Barack Obama/ Hillary Clinton Presidency that dramatically expands the availability of abortion?

I'll say it again: Thanks for the sanctimonious rant.

Since you're soooooo concerned about the sovereignty of the country, I'd like to point out that neither Obama or Clinton are better than McCain on the issue. In fact, they are worse.

How does putting them into office jive with your stance on this all-important issue?

Would you care to cite situations that lead you to this?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

But I like it better when he writes a blog..then we can go visit without messing stuff up...Come on Wright...

wholesale lawlessness
he'll throw us a smelly bone
democrat white house

I'm still wound up from the idiot last night

...in one short paragraph.

A dead giveaway.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

n/t

Or be labeled a "wrecker".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

n/t

Solzhenitsyn used it a lot in The Gulag Archipelago.

If there was someone you wanted thrown into a camp, he was probably a wrecker.

A train engineer, perhaps. Is he loading up the railroad carts too full? Perhaps he is trying to wreck the train system by wearing out the train tracks. He he not loading up the railroad carts fully enough? He is wasting fuel. Is he filling up the railroad carts *JUST* full enough? What is he hiding?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

(nt)