Watching my favorite no-spin, fair and balanced news commentary show tonight, The O’Reilly Factor, I enjoyed O’Reilly’s guests discussing why conservatives are spewing sour grapes and insults towards McCain. But one of his more interesting guests, Monica Crowley (conservative radio talk show host), observed that though he has "failed" on the items in the list below over the past 7 years, his previous record is very conservative.
So what issues to conservatives harp on when criticizing McCain?
- Illegal Immigration
- Bush tax cuts
- Anti torture legislation
- Campaign finance reform
- Gang of 14 (trying to avoid needless philibusters, and actually using the lost art of compromise)
On O’Reilly, Monica Crowley aptly said:
For 30 years before that, John McCain has had a long extensive
conservative record of backing tax cuts, and cutting federal spending,
being a deficit hawk, being a national security hawk, and has been
consistently pro-life.
Interestingly, Crowley mentioned that his softer stand on immigration is the most salient sticking point for conservatives, and on this point, I think that conservatives are most lacking.
Just looking at these few items and calling him non-conservative is
a result of believing right wing loudmouths who want someone to match
them issue for issue, else they reject them as "not conservative."
I know that these issues, esp. taxes, are important to conservatives, but smart conservatives know when to raise taxes, and also, let’s remember that the real important issues to conservatives are abortion and the family. Right?
Let’s also not forget that the American Conservative Union has given McCain a lifetime score of 82%
(though only 65% in 2006) while by comparison, ultraconservative Rick
Santorum has an 88% lifetime rating (96% in 2006), while Hillary
is a 9%. See the picture? McCain not so bad, Hillary and Obama (8%), real bad.
In the end, most conservatives will vote for McCain rather than have a
liberal in the Oval Office. And those who decide to sit it out because
McCain is not conservative enough are the extremists trying to make a
statement. IMHO.
SPOILERS
Interestingly, Huckabee, darling of the evangelical voters, has no chance, but is probably stealing votes from Romney. If so, this will probably prove to be a spoiler for Romney, who will lose on Super Tuesday because of the voters that get siphoned off to Huck.
On the left, looks like Nader is getting back in. He’s another spoiler. He might pull the many(?) Democrats who are tired of the Clintons, sick of politics as usual, and don’t think that Obama has enough experience. But perhaps they’ve already learned their lesson on Nader being a spoiler. We’ll see.
i think the real issue at hand is protection of the Constitution and the promise it holds out for all citizens. for all citizens i say. whether you be an embryo in your mom’s uterus, or a small business person, or an older person. all of these conservative topics of concern mentioned in the preamble above can be satisfied with keeping to what the Constitution tells us. no more than that. its not a big secret. as the only real conservative that posts here(i think, but there has only been 10 or so different names used)based on posted thoughts, that is really all that is necessary for conservatives to fall in line … but that is no mean thing. the Constitution to us is everything. its nonsense and dangerous to all to compromise on any of these issues.
seeker opines(o’reilly pander here):
“Let’s also not forget that the American Conservative Union has given McCain a lifetime score of 82% (though only 65% in 2006) while by comparison, ultraconservative Rick Santorum has an 88% lifetime rating (96% in 2006), while Hillary is a 9%. See the picture? McCain not so bad, Hillary and Obama (8%), real bad.” ——-
hmm. 65% pre ’06. but since a glimmer of hope to be pres post ’06, a rise in scoring … i am shocked, shocked !! the tactic we all know … drift away from your base a bit, either left or right, giving the impression statesmanship, to gather votes.
“In the end, most conservatives will vote for McCain rather than have a liberal in the Oval Office. And those who decide to sit it out because McCain is not conservative enough are the extremists trying to make a statement. IMHO.” ——-
I do not think so. conservatives, i think, will hold back in droves. this paragraph states what i see as the republican problem when talking about conservatives : conservatives see Mcnasty and HRC in the same light. Mcnasty, in our eyes, is liberal, no matter what he has said or done in the past 1 1/2 years. he has a compromising record on issues that are important to us. to us, very little diff in HRC and Mccrookedtalk. McGoofy will betray us.
and i think its important to be aware that it was extremists who kicked off this thing we call America in 1775 with the revolutionaries seizing control from our “lording over” king. they made a great statement then with their “vote”. but they had to bleed, they had to sacrifice, but never gave up on what they knew was right and God given, the very things enumerated in the Constitution. so,using the word extremists to describe conservatives is a grand badge of honor.
McLib not so bad? i as a Conservative will not settle for second rate just to say a person with an R behind their name sits in the WH.
It’s a revealing measure of just how extreme people like you are that you think McCain is a liberal.
thank you louis. get used to it.
at least i do not try to hide my views with lies and smoke and mirrors like McSnake.
what is also revealing is how lefty loons and libs all find McConman lovable in the MSM … this tells us all we need to know.
louis … what moves you(a lib?)to defend Mc? I find this VERY(sorry, got carried away)interesting.
Ben, I have to say, you’ve made Louis’ point impeccably with all of your snide misnomers.
post please …
let me try again. my post last night was not posted.
i was not snide. and since this is a place for opinion that is what i lay down, my opine. if some one does not like it, too bad. i will not surrender what i know is correct no matter how many snide remarks are made toward me, such as: nazi(my opinion compared to nazi propaganda),trouser monkey(hmm.interesting.)a$$h0Le(nice …)pharisee(i dont mind that one).i may have missed some. so seeker, if you are really worried about chiding someone, just because i rock our little boat here, look elsewhere. wrong tree, hound dog.
as far as my descriptive names for McMoron, well, its big time politics. deal with it.
lefty loons = whacked out libs, extremists..like militant gays, code stink, Juan Hernandez … you know the usual suspects.
lib – people of liberal thought.
if any of these things sting a bit, then you fellas are way too sensitive. that boat is rockin’.
again, i ask, any lib loony or otherwise may answer, why is Juan McCain so protected and loved? this is veeeerrryyyyyy interesting to me.
You’ve proven my point. I propose we shun this nutjob. I, for one, will.
finis…
louis, you did not answer my question, only entered into a name calling rant. you have proven my point. you never tried entering into a conversation with me, just name called. a grand lib strategy.
i guess the by-line of this forum of “perspectives, worldviews, and politics” isn’t really what is of interest here, of some posters anyway.
Hi Ben:
I am going to have to apologize to you if I was snide; I have tried to avoid any snideness at all. I am specifically referring to what you wrote when you said:
…i will not surrender what i know is correct no matter how many snide remarks are made toward me, such as: nazi(my opinion compared to nazi propaganda),…
I was not saying anything about your opinion, although I disagree with it strongly. I was talking about the sources you were citing and the claimed statistics that came from them. IMO I have shown that they are completely inaccurate, and I noted that neo-nazi propaganda makes exactly those same inaccurate claims. I stand by that observation, but I thought I was being plenty respectful of you personally when I disagreed with you.
again, i ask, any lib loony or otherwise may answer, why is Juan McCain so protected and loved? this is veeeerrryyyyyy interesting to me.
Can I tell you I think the premise of your question is silly? Liberals who pay attention don't have any political love for McCain–the man is a Bush clone, a right winger all the way. As a Christian I pray that I a,m able to to love everyone, the way our Father does, but that's a different thing altogether.
your friend
Keith
keith,
i hold nothing against anyone here and only bring up the "names" thrown around because i was singled out for being snide. i personally do not care if someone calls me something or whatever, because i know certain thoughts and ways of life and religion and upbringing all contribute to the way we are. i am ok with that.
but, i have never called anyone anything. i have only discussed my point of view. which seems to be very diff from the "best known" posters here. i liked that. but it seems my strong opinions are too much for some. so be it. if i am "extreme", good! you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
i have definitely seen a slant from the left toward a "liking" for McCain, on the MSM and from libs i work with. Cincinnati is a very liberal place, has been under dem control for 3 decades straight and is becoming another Detroit. the inmates run the asylum. Many lib news types say they have an affinity towards McDisaster … the reasons they give are silly, like he is a war hero, blah blah blah. i would just like to hear the actual reasoning behind their smoke.
Ben,
The reason I call you “snide” is because of your derisive and patronizing namecalling regarding McCain. I mean, what if every time I referred to you, I called you things like Bonehead, Benjerkman, and such? Would that be respectful and lead to intelligent conversation? No way.
Also, though some of your names like Juan McCain do have an element of meaningful satire, I think that such remarks weaken your arguments unless they are within the context of real satire, rather than used as epithets within a normal argument.
Try making your arguments without derision of making fun of people’s names. And if you’d like to try your hand here at satire, you are welcome to it. Please check out our Satire section.
all,
if names like Obamessiah, Hitlery, McAngry, BillyBob, Ronulans, Huckabeen, etc. is derision i am at a loss.
guys, this is a once every four year event, and even at that this election is special. not because of the lack of incumbents, or because of a black man, or a woman, or anything else other than this … they all suck. i think the names all fit so i use them.
seeker, i could see your point if i had called you a name, in that if you called me Benjerkman that would be a personal shot(i kind of like that one, but nazi pharisee is way cooler, but louis can feel free to use whatever name he likes, nutjob or whatever)but i called no one a name, except a semi-mythical media driven old man running for prez, one who would not give a hoot that i am typing on this forum. and one who seems to enjoy working against everything good i have known. so unless he is your dad, i do not understand defense of him(Mac)or the failure to see that we are posting on the “politics” part of the forum-title-by-line, right?
those names may be mean in nature to some, but to me mirror what i have seen either reflected in their platforms or personality or both.
so, what do you guys think of McAmnesty’s chances?
Look Ben, if you can't see how your cute name-calling approach is boorish, arrogant, derisive, and juvenile, then I can't help you. But perhaps I could answer your last question in the style you are accustomed to.
McCain's chances at this point are excellent – luckily, the hyperconservative Reguripublicans, and evilgelicals who parrot Rude Loudmouth have not been successful in getting Mike Hicklikemee or any other backwards thinking religionist into position for president.
So, does that sound like I am the kind of person you would want to discuss politics with? I could tag on "I'm not being mean, just giving my opinion." But that would merely be justification for lowbrow communication.
“So, does that sound like I am the kind of person you would want to discuss politics with? I could tag on “I’m not being mean, just giving my opinion.” But that would merely be justification for lowbrow communication.” ——-
yes, indeed you do, if what you are saying and how you say it is really how you feel or how you see it.
if the descriptions above are your true perceptions of reality, then i have learned a HELL(that was a raised voice hell)of a lot more about you and your feelings on pubs, rush, the evils, calling people who do not care for so called moderates(pre-k socialists) hyperconservatives, than i have in 3(?) weeks of my postings here. you see, sometimes you have to get into the trenches and get your hands dirty, many who post here want to lay back and snipe. is what i post lowbrow? i guess it depends on how far back ones head is as they look down their nose at me when i make my “boorish” comments. its all relative.
is what is written in your post how you feel really? if not then it was a waste of time to read. what i have posted is truly my feelings. see, in this short period of time, in prob 12 or so posts, i have been transparent in my views, or really tried to be. if i am anything at all, i strive to be honest.
sometimes it seems that it comes down to louis challenging a post, getting his feelings hurt and calling out slurs, then you retort, and then keith comes in and tries to smooth things over … or some form of the above. which is fine. kinda like what new age multi culturalist psych doctors refer to as a dysfunctional family. but, that is the way things have developed, so be it.
also, are you, keith, and louis all from the same area of the country? i glean keith is a transplanted kentuckian living in kalleefornya(who just shot down communized medicine thank god), but you two, i do not know. i hope that is not too personal, just of interest to me and may explain your views on things since many times values and how they have been shaped to fit are regional.
“McCain’s chances at this point are excellent – luckily…….” ——-
sorry, i forgot to comment on my last thought, i just know you’all are waiting with baited breath. heeheehee.
ok, seeker, i do not know how you lean politically if at all … but BigMac(i know that is a sandwich, but excuse the juvenile linkage for now)is a figment painted by MSM. he was chosen to run for prez by manipulation of the voters. i just did see a poll showing him beating Obamessiah(name chosen for his preacha man style and his early promise for a “kingdom of God on earth”((God, i love that one. libs think that mans gov has the ability to rule as God would, and what is more, actually believe they have that right .. this is too good!)) built by socialist elites. sorry O’Bama, you fine Irish lad, thats been tried before, all failures)and beating the “Pant Suite I am Not a Lesian”(how bout bi?)chick(?) candidate. what total blather and utter facade. No Pub candidate will win the presidency without the conservative vote, seeker, believe it. MacDaddy is being propped up by MSM and if nominated, it will strand him just as fast to die politically, like the ill tempered white shark on the beach that he will resemble.
hope i was not too obtuse …
is what is written in your post how you feel really? if not then it was a waste of time to read.
No, I don’t feel like that at all. I was trying to pillory some of the things you might find precious to show you how it feels to communicate with someone in that manner.
Yes, it was a waste of time to read, but not because it failed to reflect my true positions, but because parsing that level of dialogue is like trying to find a diamond in the manure.
ok……………..
Latest Rasmussen Poll, Republican National Nomination: McCain 33, Romney 30, Huckabee 22, Paul 5.
The surge is working! America has looked into McCain’s eyes and sees 3 letters; L I B