SwiftVets.com

[Theresa Alwood]

dc

The fact that he voted not once but twice against the Bush tax cuts speaks volums over his actions. McCain can try to say what ever he likes after the fact to try to convince the base to vote for him but as my father always says actions speaks louder than words. McCain's actions has been always to thrwart President Bush every chance he could. I can overlook one issue, but McCain has issue after issue after issue went against the GOP and "reached across party lines". I am a firm believer in trying to reach a middle ground, but McCain seemed to just jump on the democratic side without ever sticking to any GOP principals. McCain is not the answer the GOP needs, but the other two options are even worse and as much as I really, really despise John Mccain I will pull the lever because the option is much more devesating for my country. I think it is sad that the ONLY option I have IS McCain.

November is a long way off so much can happen between now and then.

[dcornutt]

If you truly want to look at this then you would also look to those who McCain supposedly opposed to find your answers. Bush stated that as far as he was concerned, McCain was a solid conservative. That he was "very" fiscally conservative and that he and McCain locked horns over that many times. He respected McCains position and never felt he was "siding with the democrats" by opposing what he saw as excessive spending.

I would add, McCain wasn't the only RNC senator to oppose such excesses OR vote against RNC sponsored bills. And in doing so, they may have their "own" reasons as conservatives for doing so. The DNC has their "own" agenda and reasons for opposing or voting for any given bill. I would further add, it's not that hard to dig up that kind of dirt on "any" of the candidates. There's Huckabee right above you on tape, begging for a tax increase anyway they wanted to do it, so long as it brought in the 100 million dollars they needed. I'm sure there was a very good, conservative explanation for all that. But, it's easy enough to play those things for effect.

Personally, I don't want a president who just rubber stamps everything his party sends him because of political affiliation. Nor do I want a president so set in their ways..that when ship is heading for the rocks...they simply will refuse to listen or turn because that was the course decision they started with. We don't need another 4 or 8 years of partisan bickering either. People are tired of it.

I think, again, I would repeat that McCain is winning this nomination on his own terms. Whatever differences there were in that field have played out and those who lost, lost on the positions they ran on. There is a reason McCain has surfaced through that. And I think it would be a large mistake to hang an albatross of already defeated ideas around his neck, by forcing him to take up the mantle of lost causes that have already been tested and found lacking for whatever reasons. I think the RNC needs to recognize that McCain "is" the winner here. And see how they can support him in doing what he needs to do to win in Nov. Rather than shoving ultimatims and threats under his door to submarine him.

[shawa]

dcornutt said

[dcornutt]

sorry shawa, I wasn't talking about anybody in particular when I mentioned that. Just overall, that seems to be the tact...and a common political one at that during election time.

[coldwarvet]

[coldwarvet]

[DADESID]

[Anker-Klanker]

[coldwarvet]

[Anker-Klanker]

Sorry, CWV, but I believe strongly in Leadership. Leadership is not about punishment; it is about being (perceived to be, anyway) right, being principled, and being trusted (among other things).

What most conservatives fail to acknowledge is that so-called dedicated, or hard-core, conservatives represent only about 30% of the Republican party, i.e., they are nowhere near a majority within the Republican constituency. But in the last few decades they have exerted influence far beyond their numbers by advocating a message that made sense to the larger majority. We seem, somehow, someway, to have lost that leadership role, and I think it is partly, if not largely, because conservatives have evolved from from being perceived as persuasive leaders to that of punishers, enforcers, etc., i.e., we've let conservative ideology and dogma get in front of persuasion. Conservatives have, unfortunately, begun to think that their position of leadership is a right, instead of something that has to be constantly earned.

True leadership frequently requires compromise, not demands of adherrence to dogma. The trick is - over time - to lead people into recognizing that you are right and that you and your visions/ideals can be trusted, and that they want to join you. Or said another way, an army of followers have to be volunteers. A true leader persuades people to follow him; he doesn't alienate them.

I maintain that the conservative movement has no leadership.

Neither you nor I can fill that leadership role; we don't have sufficient stature.

By my definitions and standards, the conservative radio pundits, and the conservative blogs have been failures as leaders also - precisely because they are not leading; they are instead agents of constant gripping and punishment and conservative entitlement. Instead of facing up to their own failures as "leaders," they resort to finger-pointing to cast the blame elsewhere.

We've got to find one or more leaders to turn this thing around!

[Me#1You#10]

Well stated AK...and certainly food for thought.

I had always hoped that Newt would provide that leadership but, somewhat like Thompson, he never rose to the occasion and, instead, took to the sidelines as a senior "observer" (if you will) with a degree of his "conservative" credentials compromised apparently in search of some Don Quixote-esque "comity" or "bi-partisanship" approach.

Phooey. Just...phooey.

[coldwarvet]

[dcornutt]

Let me see if I can clear up those waters a bit:
Yes, the entire electorate is moving "left" with their voting at this point in time. They are doing so because they are rejecting RNC governance (Bush) and ideas put forth by far right candidates to such a degree that such candidates are not even remotely electable at this point. The far right, has destroyed the trust and mandate it had with the people and they must regroup and rebuild trust and respect with the American voters if they ever want to have a chance of controlling anything again.

Hows that for bringing the bottom into view?

If McCain wins it will be a win for the RNC that you can build on going forward. But if he looses, it "is" going to be a loss for the RNC and for conservatives going forward.

Obama/Hillary are not pro-life. Nor do they propose permanent tax cuts. Nor are they fiscally conservative seeking to limit pork and spending. Nor are they strong on the WOT and strategic and security interests of the US going foward. There IS something at stake in this election beyond just the name of the party who controls the WH. To continue to insist that there is not, is simply an emotional response that is not gounded in reality of the situation. I can assure you, the DNC would not consider a McCain win a triumph for "liberals" or the DNC. It would be a loss/setback for them and put some of their plans on hold.

By the same token, a McCain win would be a win for the RNC that they can build on. Retake congress, rebuild a mandate and trust with the American people. You don't have to take my word for any of this. The same thing is understood by some of the most conservative blocks in the RNC who recognize where they are right now and what is at stake. They are backing McCain and working to bring things around.

[dcornutt]

It was not a "strategy" to run a far left candidate. McCain was not appointed by the RNC. He rose up through the field (from the very bottom I might add) and is being elected/nominated by voters who will determine the outcome of these elections.

[coldwarvet]