Redstate

I've gone through you're history, and it shows that you are not the kind of person I thought you were, however, I hope you take my advice on posting comments like these.

This article has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. I can understand saying something like, "Yet another reason why John McCain should not be the nominee in '08," but what you just did was an attempt to link an article on McCain's moderate ideology to Mitt Romney in hopes to inspire readers to support Romney '08. As a result, you're insulting our intelligence and adding garbage to an otherwise respectable website.

but what you just did was an attempt to link an article on McCain's moderate ideology to Mitt Romney in hopes to inspire readers to support Romney '08.

Not sure what this means... but if it is that he, as a Romney guy, wants to link Romney with McCain so people know how "moderate" Romney is, I think you are pretty far off base. Romney doesn't need any links with McCain. None of the prospective candidates do. The few people who like McCain will vote for McCain, not other potential candidates mentioned in posts about him. And none of it will matter because he won't win the nomination. Besides, aren't the McCainiacs busy trying to convince us that McCain is *really* a conservative?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

or Allen, or Condi, or Franz the Prince of Dogness.

Or anybody but McCain. Which is the point of the blog. OK?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

NOT another Bush, or Dole.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Our 13 year old Maltese. He's smarter than everyone. Cute. Fluffy. Fearless. And he bites. Perfect for negotiating with Democrats and dictators.

And he's not a Bush, a Dole or a McCain.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

ran in VA, I don't want to imagine how poorly he would do on the national scale.

HOnestly Newt is looking better and better to me right now-I ain't convinced he can win at this point, but I want somebody who knows what his principals are and has a vision on how to achieve them.

I was just tossing out names. Except for Franz.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

a certain General Custer would vie for the Worst Misreader Award.

But the RMSP is in the class photo with their take on this election, that's for sure.

Actually, that's not right. As I was just discussing with a libertarian friend, I think the majority of the country is indeed moderate. They aren't into politics, and so the bell curve takes over. Ever notice that there aren't many vocal moderates?

Anyway, the point is that while the electorate in aggregate is largely moderate, individual voters have views that are all over the map -- wacko left on some things, absurdly to the right on others. You can't run as a moderate and appeal to anybody very much. You have to run as yourself, and hope that you hit enough of their respective hot buttons just right. With luck, your areas of agreement with each individual voter are more pleasing, and your disagreements less displeasing, to them than your opponent's.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

> Could someone please explain to me how anyone beyond the MSM and dolts like these believe JM will be the nominee?

Because John McCain was a prisoner of war.

For some conservatives that overrules everything, and McCain's liberal views on the issues don't matter.

There is a defense mechanism too, that McCain and his followers use McCain's POW status to knock down any criticism of him.

Here's an article about McCain and his supporters using the tactic, against Alan Keyes among others:

The problem with McCain, however, is not just that the redemption from Clintonism he offers is empty and fraudulent. The problem with McCain is that he is advancing Clintonism by pursuing his own version of Clinton-style political correctness. His recent blast at religious conservatives exemplifies his tendency to treat any opposition to himself, especially if it comes from the right, as illegitimate.

One of the ways he has tried to do this is by placing himself on a pedestal above politics.

Just as the left made Hillary Clinton into a transcendent symbol of feminism, so that any questioning of her record was perceived as an "attack on women," McCain has used his POW experience to cast himself as the embodiment of honor, from which exalted station he regards any criticism of his politics as a personal affront.

Thus when Alan Keyes pointed out a logical contradiction in McCain's abortion stand, the war hero replied with barely suppressed anger: "I've seen enough killing in my life, a lot more than you have...and I will not listen to your lectures about how I should treat this very important issue."

McCain's grassroots supporters seemed to agree. Several of them called Rush Limbaugh to tell Rush that he was out of line in finding fault with McCain's positions since, as one of them put it, McCain is a "good man." Similarly, a letter writer to the New York Post offered the opinion that, given McCain's record as a POW, "it is impossible to think of anyone voting against McCain." As with women and blacks and other sacred cows of political correctness, there is an assumption in some quarters that McCain should be immune from the normal give and take of public discourse.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/5/121256

follow the first hotlink to their website if you doubt me.

But you're right, it is called the "Chafee Award." The RMSP even features a quote from McAmnesty on the homepage, praising the organization

"I believe the RMSP is a very important part of the Republican Party." -Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

This should help him win the primary.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

Just go to the link Streiff provided.

You'll also see their press release on how the Far Right Soley [sic] Responsible for Democrat Gains

a Strong Conservative? If this award was named after the father, wouldn't this be a honorable thing?

Not from Vermont, so I'll claim ignorance on this...

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

But he was 1000% better than his son.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Thanks for the clarification.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

Since he voted against them several times and actively worked to sabotage them, I don't think this belongs on the list of reasons to like McCain.

You also might want to mention the bit about him stating that he did not want to see Roe be overturned as part of your "opposes abortion in all cases" comment. I have never seen a statement retracting his support of abortion for rape, incest, or the "health" of the mother, either.

So he was for for the tax cuts after he was against them, and he was against abortion before he was for it before he was against it. With nuance like that, who needs Kerry?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

the tax cuts but on abortion he is definetly pro-life.

He voted for the partial birth ban, he supprted Bork, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito etc. He has said he supported the SD ban on abortion with the caveat that he would make exceptions for rape incest and LIFE of the mother.

In 1999 that he doesn't want to see Roe overturned. Of course he backtracked on that, but why say it in the first place? He has not been consistent. Clearly the issue is negotiable for him and his comments from 1999 were him floating a lead trial balloon to see if he that positioning would work to help differentiate himself in the Republican primary. He'll say whatever he thinks he has to at the moment on this issue. The stuff he is a true believer on are things like restrictions on political speech and the terrorist bill of rights. You can count on him 100% there.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

There are responses to this in the blog I linked to above. Some said that McCain is on record as saying that Roe should not be overturned. In a year 2000 column linked to in the blog, conservative columnist said:

His opposition to tax cuts and fuzziness on the abortion issue, positions taken against the wishes of key advisers, played into Bush's campaign.

This by conservative columnist Bob Novak, about the last time McCain ran for president

Loss reveals McCain's character

Chicago Sun-Times, Feb 21, 2000 by Robert Novak

COLUMBIA, S.C. As if his devastating loss to Gov. George W. Bush in South Carolina's primary were not enough, Sen. John McCain compounded the damage within hours after the verdict became known early Saturday evening. He demonstrated why only a handful of fellow Republican senators support him, and why many had come here to campaign against their colleague.

McCain's concession statement resembled his past statements on the Senate floor and in the Senate Republican conference: sanctimonious and self-righteous, unmistakable anger not concealed by his carefully modulated voice. Not since Robert Dole in the wake of his New Hampshire defeat had demanded George Bush Sr. "stop lying about me" had a defeated GOP primary candidate lashed out so intemperately.

McCain, in a scripted speech, labeled his victorious opponent as a candidate of "pretense" mouthing "an empty slogan of reform" and practicing "negative conservatism." That made a sham of McCain's claim of having sworn off negative campaigning.

His advisers were not happy with the impression he left. The haphazard American system of picking its presidential candidates through the ordeal of primary elections often reveals the truth about its aspirants. In this case, it unveiled the real McCain.

...

If McCain had begun this campaign as a fairly conventional conservative who occasionally went off the reservation, by the time South Carolinians voted, he had moved in the direction of his left- of-center supporters. His opposition to tax cuts and fuzziness on the abortion issue, positions taken against the wishes of key advisers, played into Bush's campaign.

...

The excitement by McCain backers that a true grass-roots insurgency was under way in the GOP found no basis of support in South Carolina. Contradicting claims of a massive youth movement for the senator, exit polls indicated the 18-to-28-year-olds were Bush's strongest age group in South Carolina. The extraordinary record turnout of 500,000 also contradicted the predictions that any vote total over 400,000 would guarantee a McCain victory. Republicans came out in force to back Bush.

It turns out that the McCain national insurgency stems mainly from the imagination of the senator's advisers and the mass media. There was a palpable sense of grief here Saturday among liberal journalists, who had improbably adopted McCain as their candidate for 1994.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000221/ai_n1385421...

"He's pushed through Bush's judicial nominees, including Alito and Roberts."

He also orchestrated the Gang of Fourteen which prevented several qualified nominees from getting their up-or-down vote, and, perhaps more importantly, protected the Democrats from being revealed as the sniveling, whining, obstructionists that they are when it comes to qualified, conservative federal judges. If you think this didn't cost us a ton of votes on Tuesday, particularly in competitive Senate races, you're gravely mistaken.

Generally speaking, it's a NOTHING list. Especially when you set aside global warming, CFR & stem cells. And you don't seem to care about his torture comments/amendment that tarred our military as torturers.

Opposition to abortion - maybe, but why does he support Roe? Would he appoint justices who would likely uphold Roe?

Support of judicial nominees - meaningless. Who would he nominate? Given his history with CFR the probability is that he would nominate a Souteresque candidate to protect his trashing of the first amendment.

Did not support FMA - this is a "he was for it before he was against it" speech. Meaningless.

Supported Munsil - Len was the Republican candidate for Governor in AZ. John must have helped him a lot, Len got 35% of the vote.

Fiscal restraint - talks a weak game. He's against 1% of the budget (earmarks), where is legislation with his name on it that proposes spending reductions in real programs? What program has he opposed, led a fight to eliminate?

Tax cuts - he opposed every one of Bushes tax cuts, he was for Harry Reids. Give me a break.

Hate crimes, flag burning, Partiot Act, assisted suicide, Star Wars - this is the stuff of everyday business in DC. Generally, it's meaningless.

Spoke out against Kerry - big deal. Let's see if he authors a censure motion (hint: he won't). He spoke out against the SwiftVets too.

Torture - see above. This is a really big deal to some of us. Especially me.

Bottom line, John McCain has no vision for the country beyond him sitting in the Oval Office. He is totally unqualified to be POTUS.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

I took a look at the old article that was posted. "Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill"

So, opposing changing senate traditions and compromises in the style of Daniel Webster aren't conservative values?

I don't know. The POW thing makes him untouchable in the moral sense, but as the above poster noted, it's hard to argue he's not conservative, he's just too cantakerous (one can chalk that to integrity or inflated ego, but that's a personal issue) to be a team player all the time. I think that's what's rubbing a lot of you the wrong way.

So, opposing changing senate traditions and compromises in the style of Daniel Webster aren't conservative values?

Because there's such a long and distinguished tradition of filibustering every judicial nominee that comes along that doesn't pass an entire battery of idealogical litmus tests.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

McCain only rebels against conservatives, to make things more liberal. He has never pushed the party to the right.

This is why the Gang of 14 was so bad, because it killed the nominations of conservative, pro-life lower court nominations:

Many people whose politics are more centrist/leftist seem to have a difficult time understanding what it is that McCain has done that has upset conservatives so. One problem we have with the Senator is that this isn’t the first time he’s sold out the Constitution for the sake of his own self-aggrandizement. The so-called “campaign finance reform” forced on us by McCain-Feingold has choked the ability of politicians to say what they want when they want during a campaign (which is a fundamental Constitutional freedom), and has opened loopholes to allow groups like MoveOn.org fill the airwaves with distortions and lies about the candidates they don’t like, knowing their opponents’ responses will be limited as the election date draws closer.

McCain’s bartering of a “deal” with the others in the Gang of 14 stopped the one simple request the President asked of the Senate: follow your “advise and consent” responsibilities and hold an up-or-down vote on these judicial nominees. The machinations and hang-wringing from the Democrats and the left about “reaching the abyss” and causing some kind of “Constitutional crisis” was nothing more than a bunch of bloviating Senators (including some in the GOP) spouting a pile of hyperbolic manure. If the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet the Democrats in the Senate would be doing all they can to run roughshod over the Republicans. History has demonstrated time and again that when the Democrats wield majority power, they use it to their advantage. Just because the Republicans are now trying to do the same thing doesn’t mean the Senate is going to shatter into a million pieces.

Here’s the big difference between the two parties: If the Democrats were the majority, they’d change whatever rule they liked and would basically ignore the Republicans if they dared to raise a fuss (and the media, for the most part, would criticize the Republicans for being “obstructionists”). On the other hand, as we’ve seen in recent days, if the Republicans tried to change a rule to their favor, the Democrats would threaten to bring the house down. And instead of just acting like the majority party, the Republican leadership would attempt to “compromise” with the Democrats (a term that, to the Democrats, means “you have to agree with us”). After multiple attempts, instead of just moving forward with a vote, a bunch of sniveling middle-of-the-road RINOs gather with the so-called middle-of-the-road Democrats behind closed doors and hammer out their own “deal.”

http://attaboy.tommydoc.net/?p=1417

Romney alot. But as a 1 term Governor he does not have strong conservative record of accomplishment to run on and he has no foriegn policy experience. I think he would make a better VP.

If it looks like someone has a big lead, other politicians won't run for president. It's too expensive and too painful.

But if opposition builds to McCain, his polls drop, and maybe he even drops out of the race, then lots of excellent conservatives could enter the race.

LOTS of excellent conservatives in the Republican Party anymore.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

And we wouldn't have had to throw nominees under the bus or compromise on our appointments. Roberts and Alito were fine appointments, but they weren't very many people's #1 and #2. It remains to be seen just how conservative Roberts in particular will be. There were more Thomas type choices out there but they would've probably triggered "exceptional circumstances."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

If the argument is that we vote for McCain even though he is a liberal just because we think we can win, then wouldn't it make more sense to just nominate Hillary when the Democrats do?

It won't work that way for me. I won't vote for liberal war heroes John Murtha or John McCain, and would never vote for any liberal like Hillary.

It is also impossible to say in advance that Romney or another conservative would lose. Everyone said Reagan would lose too.

It's interesting that you mention Rush. John McCain is ashamed to be interviewed by Rush, and refuses to.

Here is what Rush said about McCain just yesterday:

From his appearances last night on television into today, McCain's trying to set himself up as Mr. Conservative. The guy who gave us campaign finance reform, the guy who opposes tax cuts is now going to start talking as though he is Mr. Conservative. (That's going to be a hard sell to real conservatives.)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_rol...

He doesn't have a presidential sweepstakes left in him. He would be Bob Dole all over again. He gives the middle finger to the base on far too many occassions, which more than offsets the times when he panders to them. McCain would be a disaster as both a president and a presidential nominee. He's only useful for trying to shore up GOP candidates who are in trouble on terf that's not GOP-friendly. That, in and of itself, should tell you something.

Compromising on a candidate because you think they're electable isnt acceptable when it comes to the president of the united states as far as im concerned. If you live in a democratic state and support a RHINO over a democrat it's one thing but when we're talking about the president and leader of the party it's just not something i'm willing to do. McCain at the top of the ticket drags the whole party down since he would be the face of the republicans. Why cant Romney win a national election? Because he was only a governor? When was the last time the country elected a senator? Im not sure if ill support Romney yet it depends who runs. But if its between him Giuliani and McCain its not a very hard decision.

cant win because he was a 1 term Governor and has zero national security experience. I would love him if he had served 2 terms but 1 term with no national security experience is nto enough.

Senators have a horrible track record in POTUS runs for a reason.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

but if Hillary is the nominee as expected then it really doesnt matter. If you put 1 senator against another then its a wash. Either way a Senator would be the next president.

They put themselves at a tremendous disadvantage by nominating a Senator that a lot of people already hate and we need to match them so we don't have an unfair advantage? No Senator is an acceptable candidate for POTUS. And McCain is a lot worse than your average Senator.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

and I would listen to him with an open mind and will consider voting for him but a 1 term Governor with no national security credentials is going to have a hard time in a post 9-11 America. Is he better then MCcain? Maybe, but on credentials MCcain has him beat.

will never be President, because he will never be the nominee. He will blow it with some hardball gaffe or another, and has enough enemies who will pounce when he does.

I'm tired of trotting out the guy whose turn it is. It's time for some new blood.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

on credentials. He has no vision for the country. He has no legislative record other than crap like CFR. He has learned, in the course of his Senate career to be an appeaser to the likes of Kennedy and Kerry. And, he's never had executive responsibility.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

... I remember that President John F Kerry could not be reached for comment.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

I have long felt that small gov't guys need to DOMINATE the House and Senate in order to roll back much of the Nanny State, get Social Security reform, tax reform, and other fiscally conservative issues. Any judicial nominees have to go through them, so I think the Capital is almost as important as the Presidency (as it should be).

McCain will continue what GWB started in the GWOT, but will sell it more effectively, in my opinion. He will veto big spending bills if Dems hold the Legislative Branch. And he believes in Federalism, which I support. There is more, by why argue?

I say this as I can handle a McCain nomination, and (right now) would vote for him over anyone, but Gingrich. So that won't buy me points on RedState.com. McCain may have differences, but he IS on our side, guys and gals.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

but he has a few negatives as well, like overwheening ambition, a callous disregard for the voters, an even more callous disregard for the first amendment, a hideous temper, no party loyalty whatsoever, and A big need to be liked.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I'll vote third party or leave it blank. I'll encourage others to go third party.

As the blog above mentions, McCain is not pro life, and is against tax cuts. He really is not for any part of the conservative agenda, but is simply a Democratic POW in Republican clothing.

pro-life. He voted for the parital birth abortion ban, and supported every conservative judge. He has come out and said he supported teh SD abortion ban.

Would be very formidable, if not dominating, Republican tickets.
I highly doubt McCain would just blow off the hard core Red Staters. I'd prefer Newt, but I'm realistic.

Give him a fiscally conservative congress, and good things will happen, IMO.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

The Massachusetts Republican party is in worse shape now than it was four years ago. And Republican governors didn't do all that well and Romney was chair of the Republican Governor's Association.

What I see is a guy who can arguably win elections but has a terrible record of helping others get elected.

But still, he might be the best we can do in 2008.

... but you have to admit it's not like Mitt had a whole lot to work with up here. He inherited a disaster from Jane Swift (Paulie C's Lt. Gov) that he tried (and failed) to rebuild quickly. So now, we're back to 1986 up here - but the trip wasn't nearly as many miles as has fallen, for example, the NY GOP.

The MA GOP has to be built (note that I didn't say re-built) from the ground up - and I don't think Romney ever had the hankering to stick around more than 6-8 years on the outside in any case. You can fault him for that - I sure as heck do - but since our choice in 2002 was a woman (Shannon O'Brien) who had the uncanny ability to frighten children and small dogs every time she spoke, I was happy to have him for at least the last 3+.

It's going to take the better part of a generation to make the GOP competative in MA (and New England in general, I'm afraid) - but I don't for a minute believe it's going to be the RMSP who gets us there. It's going to take selling Reagan's (who carried MA in 1984, by the way) principles here - and that's going to also take time in a People's Republic like MA.

Just saying.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

He is young, bright, extremely well-spoken and articulate at communicating the conservative vision. Kinda like another guy known as the Great Communicator. He has a spotty track record on some social issues, but that truly can be chalked up to his running for office in an extremely liberal state, I believe. Also kind of like Reagan. I mean, unlike Reagan, he's a Mormon. And for whatever baggage that carries, a Republican Mormon is going to be exemplary on social issues and the judiciary when freed from the constraints that Massachusetts offered him.

He may have beaten a miserable candidate for governor, but he also almost beat Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts. That's got to tell you something about what an attractive candidate he is.

All reports are that he has wowed every audience that he has appeared before. I think he has the vision and the vigor to trump McCain in the presidential sweepstakes. McCain is ahead on name ID alone at this point. When it comes to campaigning, I think that Mitt Romney is going to shine much brighter than the rest of the field. Do I wish that Mitt Romney were a Southern Baptist instead of a Mormon? Yeah. But he's not. He's still the best candidate of the 3-candidate field of him, Giuliani, and McCain.

I hope that he will select Kenneth Blackwell as his veep when he secures the GOP nomination. :-)

Hopefully he'll be back to knock off Donnelly in 2008.

I want an overhaul. National Sales Tax replacing sales tax. But, I believe this will have to come from the bottom up. One person won't be able to ram that one through...

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

Unfortunately its clear the new Democratic majority will be trying a tax overhaul soon.

Unfortunate. We need a sales tax.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org