What James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and the WPF Are M

[deacon blues]

Dr. James Dobson the founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, radio host, author and an outspoken leader of the conservative Christian evangelical movement has stated publicly that he would "not vote for John McCain under any circumstances." He carefully makes this statement, as he characterizes it, as a private citizen and not speaking for the non-profit organization that he is the head of. Dr. Dobson makes this declaration certainly suspecting that his statement will influence the millions of listeners of his radio broadcasts, the millions who purchase his books and the millions who regard him as a prominent evangelical leader and spokesman.

Dr. Dobson's influence has grown in Washington over the past two decades as once more dominant leaders of the Christian right's political movement have aged or passed away. The Moral Majority's Jerry Falwell died last year and Pat Robertson seems to have lost his gravitas as he has grown older. Since the Reagan years of the 80s and the Republican Revolution of 1994, the heyday of the Christian political right appears to be a fading memory.

Dr. Dobson has made several trips to Washington since the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 to warn Republican leaders that if the pro-abortion, anti-gay, and prayer and Bibles in the schools agenda was not embraced and promoted in a stronger fashion, he would lead a mass exodus of Christian voters from the GOP and abandon them. His "my way or the highway" approach, especially in this election cycle, seems to spell trouble for the Republicans.

Rush Limbaugh is also on an anti-McCain campaign. For years Rush has denounced McCain as a Senator for bi-partisan efforts with Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and once Democrat now Independent Joe Lieberman. He has been excoriated for his vote against the Bush tax cuts and for his criticisms of the Bush Administration over the past seven years. Rush has recently begun to promote Mitt Romney after stating that he doesn't do endorsements last year. There are millions who listen to Rush's show, the largest audience on the airwaves. He, too, takes a stance of "all or nothing" when it comes to McCain.

I understand principled decisions. I admire the attitude that embraces the notion that once you have fought to take a hill, be willing to die on that hill. I believe in convictions and staunchly and stubbornly clutching them, resisting any efforts to convince you to let go.

But is this the only principle involved here? Is conservatism as we know it the most important struggle of our day? Is it better to not vote because of McCain or vote for a third-party candidate as a matter of conscience than to vote for someone with McCain's credentials? I feel like Dr. Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and others are missing a bigger, far more important issue that is at stake in this election.

McCain has a 24 year Senate career. He came to Washington during the Reagan years and describes himself as a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution". He has voted thousands upon thousands of times over the years. His voting record is strongly conservative. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is an 82.3. Over 80% of McCain's Senate votes are rated as conservative. The votes he is being made famous for by his detractors are the ones on tax cuts, illegal immigration, and campaign finance reform.

Let's examine these votes. McCain voted against the tax cuts in the early Bush years not because he is opposed to tax cuts. He has voted overwhelmingly in favor of tax cuts in his carrer. His record bears this out. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not, unlike the Reagan tax cuts of his early Senate career, inclusive of cuts in spending. McCain foresaw the error of cutting taxes but not controlling spending and chose a principled stand, even against his own party. Had they listened to him, the Congress might still be in GOP hands. But in 2006 the American voters had had enough of the spend-happy Republicans and voted them out of office. Bush never vetoed one piece of legislation during the GOP-controlled Congress years. He should have listened to McCain.

The illegal immigration stand McCain took was a lesson learned, so he says. He says he learned through his plummeting popularity in the polls after the debacle that Americans want a secure border first before anything else is done. Whether he means that or not is a matter of judgment. Can you trust this man to say what means and mean what he says? More on this later.

The campaign finance reform legislation, "McCain-Feingold" as it is called, is seen by many as an affront to free-speech rights. I agree it is a poor piece of legislation. I don't defend McCain on this one per se. However, I will say this about McCain and his track record: the man consistently has opposed the corruption that pervades Washington, neither having received one dime of lobbyist money nor ever once earmarking a piece of legislation for pork barrel projects in his state. He has always been vocal against the corrupt practices in and around Washington and I believe this was part of his motivation for the ineffective legislation. He was trying to clean up the electoral process and remove the influence of special interests. Had the GOP heeded his warnings about corruption the Abramoff lobbyist scandal would not have happened and another reason for the anti-GOP sentiment that led to the 2006 electoral defeats could have been avoided.

Let's consider the alternatives. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Hillary is the Democratic opponent and conservatives stay home or vote third-party or do, as Ann Coulter has said, "vote for Hillary before I would vote for McCain", then rather than getting a President with an 82.3 score from the ACU, we will get one with a rating of 9. That's a voting record in six years as a Senator of 9% of the time agreeing with conservative values. Would you rather have a President who agrees with you 82% of the time or 9% of the time? That's what you and me and Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh and all of us who may decide to stay home as a matter of principle will get. The result if Obama is nominated by the Democrats is much the same.

So let me ask you, what is the missing principle here? Thanks for asking, I will tell you. In this world of Islamic fundamentalism, unstable governments pursuing nuclear weapons, terrorists avowing to kill American men, women, and children at all costs, and world leaders promising to "wipe Israel off of the map", we can't afford to "make a statement to the GOP" in 2008. If McCain is the only viable alternative to Hillary and Barak, then we must stand for the higher principle of swallowing our pride and personal agendas for the greater good.

Abortion is an important issue, gay rights is an important issue, prayer in the schools, illegal immigration, taxes, and all of the other planks of the Republican party and conservative platform are important. But the issue of the evil regimes and individuals in this world that wish to destroy us and our allies supercedes these. Why? Because many of these issues are only going to change when the spiritual condition of America changes, not with a change in the White House. A president has some influence on the social climate, but he wields his greatest authority over the foreign policy of our nation. Clinton and Obama have vowed to pull out of the Middle East. That will create a power vaccuum the consequences of which will be unthinkable. They will be more accomodating to the UN, relinquishing more of our national sovereignty. They will sign the Koyoto Protocol damaging further our national economy. They will embrace the World Court placing America under the authority of a mostly anti-American world legal system.

And as far as the domestic issues are concerned, we would have an 80% chance McCain will promote policies that we can agree with, and nominate strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court, and veto tax increases, and oppose gay-rights legislation, and conservatively govern. Hillary and Obama give us a snowballs chance in the lake of fire of doing so.

The wisdom of taking a risk and voting for McCain has a greater measure of merit than the wisdom of refusing to support his candidacy because of a handful of times he has broken from party ranks. Simple logic should compel a conservative to reasonably go to the voting booth in Novmeber and pull that lever for "Mac".

Which brings me to my final point. I see a similar parallel with the WPF men. I don't wish ill on them, I have prayed for their success. I have prayed the Lord be with them in their endeavors. But I feel they have taken a principled stand which is admirable, but is flawed. They are choosing to part ways with brethren (I know they say you can have dual memberships but we all know it is a matter of time before that will be impossible---they know this too) with which they are probably harmonious with on 80-90% of the issues. But they, like Dobson and Limbaugh, are not willing to continue supporting something unless they have their way on most if not all the issues. I am afraid that time will prove this attitude to be a mistaken one and the greater good will suffer as a result.

[deacon blues]

CONTINUED

Dobson and Limbaugh may possibly forever damage the measure of their influence in generations to come. Should McCain get elected without their support, the chances of they and their constituents having a voice in his administration would probably be very little if any. Pushing McCain further to the left could be a result and then we may get a President who will agree with us 40-50% of the time. I'll take my chances on 80%.

The Tulsa Six may never know what, in time, they could have accomplished by sticking the tv issue out with the UPC and either influencing the organization to change its mind once again back to the ban of the 70s or seeing that it actually had some merit and produced a positive result. By pulling out, the conservative vaccuum they leave may push the UPC further left and the greater good will have suffered as a result.

[Raven]

Wise words Deacon.
Raven

[rgcraig]

Very good.

[Apprehended]

Deacon Blues, you said:

Which brings me to my final point. I see a similar parallel with the WPF men. I don't wish ill on them, I have prayed for their success. I have prayed the Lord be with them in their endeavors. But I feel they have taken a principled stand which is admirable, but is flawed. They are choosing to part ways with brethren (I know they say you can have dual memberships but we all know it is a matter of time before that will be impossible---they know this too) with which they are probably harmonious with on 80-90% of the issues. But they, like Dobson and Limbaugh, are not willing to continue supporting something unless they have their way on most if not all the issues. I am afraid that time will prove this attitude to be a mistaken one and the greater good will suffer as a result.

I agree with your entire post which was well written and very wise.

The sentence bolden above, is very true but is a gross understatement also.

I'm not afraid to say that time will positively prove their attitude to be grossly mistaken, being a product of the deceiver from which nothing good can come from listening to Him.

There is a guiding spirit involved in their misguided action. History will prove that dividing up the body of Christ over such mundane, inconsequential issues will result in a far greater loss than any gain that can possibly be hoped for.

It is also true with Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh. Dividing up the conservative electorate with such inflamatory statements as, "I will not support or vote for John McCain under any circumstance" is doing far more harm to the conservative cause than any good that they hope to come out of it. It is ultimately destructive. Dobson needs to shut up. Limbaugh, I believe, hopefully will reconsider and finally get behind McCain if he should ultimately win the nomination.

[Praxeas]

How ironic it is for Republicans to get a Republican in office at ALL costs....even to the point of electing a democrat in Republican clothing

[Apprehended]

How ironic it is for Republicans to get a Republican in office at ALL costs....even to the point of electing a democrat in Republican clothing

I don't remember any OTHER Democrat promising to appoint only constructionist judges to the bench.

[TRFrance]

I don't remember any OTHER Democrat promising to appoint only constructionist judges to the bench.

Promises mean next-to-nothing in politics.
The best predictor of a man's future behavior is his past behavior.

I'm not sure I'd be as radical about this as Rush is, but I can see his frustration.

McCain has acted like a Democrat and compromised with them so many times before, why should we believe he'll act any different if he took office as President?

[deacon blues]

How ironic it is for Republicans to get a Republican in office at ALL costs....even to the point of electing a democrat in Republican clothing

A Democrat? Do you not comprehend 82.3% conservative voting record? How does that make one a Democrat? Do you not understand the gist of the post? It is not about electing a Republican. Its about preventing one of two very, very, very liberal Democrats that will wholesale turn our way of life on its head versus a man who a MAJORITY of the time votes conservatively but has voted in a MINORITY of the times liberal.

Its like saying that FDR is no different than Josef Stalin. Thay may agree on a couple of points but there is a VAST difference. The Democrat in disguise characterization is little on the dramatic side. No its not. Its really, really dramatic---a lot dramatic.

[Apprehended]

Promises mean next-to-nothing in politics.
The best predictor of a man's future behavior is his past behavior.

I'm not sure I'd be as radical about this as Rush is, but I can see his frustration.

McCain has acted like a Democrat and compromised with them so many times before, why should we believe he'll act any different if he took office as President?

In this case, it means an awful lot.

It would be political insanity to not follow through with his promise.

Betrayed confidence by an unkept promise of this magnitude would spell certain disaster to his legacy in far too many ways than he would want to even consider.

Betrayed political allies do not soon forget. They will exact their pound of flesh.

[Brett Prince]

In the immortal words of Wofford...


Dumb thread. McCain is a liberal democrat in republican sheep clothing. He is only turning right to get elected, and then will go back to his "centrist" and liberal ways.

So, Deacon, no dice here. McCain is a hothead who doesn't need a trigger.

[deacon blues]

Promises mean next-to-nothing in politics.
The best predictor of a man's future behavior is his past behavior.

I'm not sure I'd be as radical about this as Rush is, but I can see his frustration.

McCain has acted like a Democrat and compromised with them so many times before, why should we believe he'll act any different if he took office as President?

Well, we know for a FACT that Obama and Hillary are not only going to act like Democrats---THEY ARE! And the most liberal of the kind at that. McCain at worst is only agreeing with them 17.8% of the time! DO YOU GUYS NOT GET THESE PERCENTAGES?

In Las Vegas, someone gives you 80/20 odds, you would bet the farm practically. If the doctor said you have a very rare form of cancer and it is very dangerous but you had an 80% chance to live---you would rejoice. If you pastored a church of 20 and 80 people showed up---you would declare you were having a revival. If you got an 80% raise---you would click your heels all the way home.

But a President who agrees with you 80% of the time? NAH WE CANT HAVE THAT!:huh

[Apprehended]

In the immortal words of Wofford...


Dumb thread. McCain is a liberal democrat in republican sheep clothing. He is only turning right to get elected, and then will go back to his "centrist" and liberal ways.

So, Deacon, no dice here. McCain is a hothead who doesn't need a trigger.

OK...

Go ahead and elect the democrat candidate of your choice. Just who would you prefer, Hillary or Osama?

[deacon blues]

In the immortal words of Wofford...


Dumb thread. McCain is a liberal democrat in republican sheep clothing. He is only turning right to get elected, and then will go back to his "centrist" and liberal ways.

So, Deacon, no dice here. McCain is a hothead who doesn't need a trigger.

Sooooo, we would rather see Obama or Hillary get elected? I don't get it.

[Brett Prince]

Classic, rather than applaud for standing for his conviction, you would rather rationalize him as the opposite.

I am not voting for a president to vote against somebody else, which is the choice you are saying I should take. I am desiring to be able to vote FOR someone who I can find acceptable.

Choice A.... Fred Thompson. He drops out. So......

Choice B.... Mitt Romney. Yes. Kicking and screaming because he is a Mormon and not as conservative as I would like, and has changed his position (with good explanation, thankfully) on some things important to me, but..... With great angst, I would vote for him. If he gets out...............

Choice C... Vote third party if there is somebody worth voting for, knowing they don't have a chance to make it. If no Choice C, or choice C drops out............

Don't vote at all, because I cannot condone any of the other candidates with my vote, so I will just have to remain out of the voter's box and wait hopefully for the next go around.

[Brett Prince]

Sooooo, we would rather see Obama or Hillary get elected? I don't get it.

Sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.

[Apprehended]

In the immortal words of Wofford...


Dumb thread.



Dumb quote.

May his/her immortal words experience the same fate as scattered snow on a hot day.

This is a brilliant thread with many worthwhile observations...irrefutable observations worth careful contemplation.

[commonsense]

It's a tough call in my book. Not a McCain fan but it seems wrong to just allow the Dems to win because all the good conservatives boycott voting in Nov.
Not sure how I'll handle it but I've always felt my vote was my right as an American and not voting is a poor choice.

[Apprehended]

Classic, rather than applaud for standing for his conviction, you would rather rationalize him as the opposite.

I am not voting for a president to vote against somebody else, which is the choice you are saying I should take. I am desiring to be able to vote FOR someone who I can find acceptable.

Choice A.... Fred Thompson. He drops out. So......

Choice B.... Mitt Romney. Yes. Kicking and screaming because he is a Mormon and not as conservative as I would like, and has changed his position (with good explanation, thankfully) on some things important to me, but..... With great angst, I would vote for him. If he gets out...............

Choice C... Vote third party if there is somebody worth voting for, knowing they don't have a chance to make it. If no Choice C, or choice C drops out............

Don't vote at all, because I cannot condone any of the other candidates with my vote, so I will just have to remain out of the voter's box and wait hopefully for the next go around.

I can't believe this rationale nor can I understand it in the least. This attitude among conservatives is a vote for Obama or Hillary. I hope that there will be enough rational voters to prevent that horrible outcome.

This desperate time in our national life is no time for deserters to shirk when every man/woman is needed at their post of duty though they may disagree with them 17% of the time. To expect someone to be 100% to their approval is unrealistic.

[deacon blues]

Sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.

You don't get it.

We are at war. THAT is the issue here. Four to eight years of Obama/Hillary defunding the military, defunding the intelligence community, of pulling out of the Middle East, of abdicating our sovereignty to the UN. We can't afford to "sit it out" because our guy isn't a party line guy. That is stupid. You go ahead and wait four to eight years of the Dems running the show and tell me you were glad they were in the White House and not McCain. I'll bet lots of money you will admit you were wrong.

Sometimes it takes a child abduction to get Amber's Law? Ask Amber's parents.

Really flawed logic. Really, really flawed.

[TrmptPraise]

These McCain photos just in.

McCain celebrates last Tuesday
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/904/wolfleapdba4e0cnw7.jpg


Recent Press Photo

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2958/wolfsheepdb9ea41jj5.jpg

[Praxeas]

A Democrat? Do you not comprehend 82.3% conservative voting record? How does that make one a Democrat? Do you not understand the gist of the post? It is not about electing a Republican. Its about preventing one of two very, very, very liberal Democrats that will wholesale turn our way of life on its head versus a man who a MAJORITY of the time votes conservatively but has voted in a MINORITY of the times liberal.

Its like saying that FDR is no different than Josef Stalin. Thay may agree on a couple of points but there is a VAST difference. The Democrat in disguise characterization is little on the dramatic side. No its not. Its really, really dramatic---a lot dramatic.
Still a compromise....it's sad how politics is played out and it's no wonder so many are feeling disenfranchised with the whole thing and don't vote...Vote for McCain...not because it is the best candidate but because there are others far worse and he has the only chance of defeating them.

[Praxeas]

I can't believe this rationale nor can I understand it in the least. This attitude among conservatives is a vote for Obama or Hillary. I hope that there will be enough rational voters to prevent that horrible outcome.

This desperate time in our national life is no time for deserters to shirk when every man/woman is needed at their post of duty though they may disagree with them 17% of the time. To expect someone to be 100% to their approval is unrealistic.
I guess there just aren't enough conservatives to elect a president....so in reality they are courting the swing voters...the moderates and even the libs that aren't to thrilled with Billery and Obama

[ogatt]

if macain and conderliza rice would team up then it would be all over.

[TRFrance]

Promises mean next-to-nothing in politics.
The best predictor of a man's future behavior is his past behavior.

In this case, it means an awful lot.

It would be political insanity to not follow through with his promise.

Betrayed political allies do not soon forget. They will exact their pound of flesh.
I can recite a litany of unkept promises by elected officials.
How about one famous one: "Read my lips, no new taxes". Remember that?
Enough said.

Well, we know for a FACT that Obama and Hillary are not only going to act like Democrats---THEY ARE! And the most liberal of the kind at that. McCain at worst is only agreeing with them 17.8% of the time! DO YOU GUYS NOT GET THESE PERCENTAGES?

In Las Vegas, someone gives you 80/20 odds, you would bet the farm practically. If the doctor said you have a very rare form of cancer and it is very dangerous but you had an 80% chance to live---you would rejoice. If you pastored a church of 20 and 80 people showed up---you would declare you were having a revival. If you got an 80% raise---you would click your heels all the way home.

But a President who agrees with you 80% of the time? NAH WE CANT HAVE THAT!:huh
Yes, we get the "percentages". We're not stupid. Do you get the idea of a "protest vote" against a party? Or the idea of just "staying home", since a non-vote for the Republicans is almost like a vote for the other guys?

The idea of a protest vote can be effective, because the idea is to send a message to the party you're protesting against, letting them know you are unhappy with the direction they're taking. Obviously there is a possible short term loss, but theres also a possible greater gain in the the long run.

The fact is, the Republican party has lost its soul, and McCain is indicative and symbolic of that. His stated positions on a variety of of issues are already a matter of public record for all to see.

The fact is, both parties have shifted to the left. Republican are becoming Democrats, and Democrats are becoming socialists. This is not Reagan's conservative Republican party. Why should we just dutifully swallow whatever junk the Republican party ties to force down our throat?
Why should people vote for someone just because he's less liberal than the Democrat he's running against?

I don't necessarily support the idea of conservatives against McCain, but I can certainly understand the frustration of those who feel that way.If people choose not to support him, thats their choice. If you want to vote for him,fine. But not everyone is content to just hold their nose and vote for the "lesser of two evils".


Those of you who enjoy drinking the Republican kool-aid... enjoy; have another sip. :hypercoffee:koolaid

[DividedThigh]

very interesting perspective deacon blue, i sure hope you are right, cause it looks like we are gonna be stuck with him, lol,dt:tvhappy

[DividedThigh]

These McCain photos just in.

McCain celebrates last Tuesday
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/904/wolfleapdba4e0cnw7.jpg


Recent Press Photo

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2958/wolfsheepdb9ea41jj5.jpg

nice trumpet, lol,dt:happydance

[Apprehended]

I can recite a litany of unkept promises by elected officials.
How about one famous one: "Read my lips, no new taxes". Remember that?
Enough said.



Not quite enough said...

You left out the most important part. It is the part that I mentioned that you failed to address. The part of his failed legacy.

These politicians are more concerned about their legacy than anything else. So, what happened to the "Read my lips," promiser? What happened to his legacy? First of all, he almost instantly became a lame duck after he violated his promise. Secondly, he was defeated by a candidate who got less than 50% of the votes.

McCain is anything but an idiot. He is well aware of his loss of reputation should he violate such an inviolable promise. As I said before, the Republican party will exact their pound of flesh if he should violate that promise. He would be INSANE to do it. In my opinion, there is NO possibility that he would be so stupid.

In the next four years, there will be at least one, possibly two vacancies on the Supreme Bench. Do you want Obama or Hillary appointing Justices to that position? I beg not.

[rgcraig]

Classic, rather than applaud for standing for his conviction, you would rather rationalize him as the opposite.

I am not voting for a president to vote against somebody else, which is the choice you are saying I should take. I am desiring to be able to vote FOR someone who I can find acceptable.

Choice A.... Fred Thompson. He drops out. So......

Choice B.... Mitt Romney. Yes. Kicking and screaming because he is a Mormon and not as conservative as I would like, and has changed his position (with good explanation, thankfully) on some things important to me, but..... With great angst, I would vote for him. If he gets out...............

Choice C... Vote third party if there is somebody worth voting for, knowing they don't have a chance to make it. If no Choice C, or choice C drops out............

Don't vote at all, because I cannot condone any of the other candidates with my vote, so I will just have to remain out of the voter's box and wait hopefully for the next go around.

I really can't believe I'm reading this!

You do realize that your NO VOTE is a vote for the demoncrats!

I'm not a very political person, but even I understand this!

[rgcraig]

if macain and conderliza rice would team up then it would be all over.

He would be a very WISE man to have her as his running mate!

[DividedThigh]

I really can't believe I'm reading this!

You do realize that your NO VOTE is a vote for the demoncrats!

I'm not a very political person, but even I understand this!

that is true renda and i also agree with you on condaleeza rice, she is awesome, i wish she would be on the ticket, lol dt

[Pressing-On]

McCain has a 24 year Senate career. He came to Washington during the Reagan years and describes himself as a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution". He has voted thousands upon thousands of times over the years. His voting record is strongly conservative. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is an 82.3. Over 80% of McCain's Senate votes are rated as conservative. The votes he is being made famous for by his detractors are the ones on tax cuts, illegal immigration, and campaign finance reform.

Let's examine these votes. McCain voted against the tax cuts in the early Bush years not because he is opposed to tax cuts. He has voted overwhelmingly in favor of tax cuts in his carrer. His record bears this out. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not, unlike the Reagan tax cuts of his early Senate career, inclusive of cuts in spending. McCain foresaw the error of cutting taxes but not controlling spending and chose a principled stand, even against his own party. Had they listened to him, the Congress might still be in GOP hands. But in 2006 the American voters had had enough of the spend-happy Republicans and voted them out of office. Bush never vetoed one piece of legislation during the GOP-controlled Congress years. He should have listened to McCain.

The illegal immigration stand McCain took was a lesson learned, so he says. He says he learned through his plummeting popularity in the polls after the debacle that Americans want a secure border first before anything else is done. Whether he means that or not is a matter of judgment. Can you trust this man to say what means and mean what he says? More on this later.

The campaign finance reform legislation, "McCain-Feingold" as it is called, is seen by many as an affront to free-speech rights. I agree it is a poor piece of legislation. I don't defend McCain on this one per se. However, I will say this about McCain and his track record: the man consistently has opposed the corruption that pervades Washington, neither having received one dime of lobbyist money nor ever once earmarking a piece of legislation for pork barrel projects in his state. He has always been vocal against the corrupt practices in and around Washington and I believe this was part of his motivation for the ineffective legislation. He was trying to clean up the electoral process and remove the influence of special interests. Had the GOP heeded his warnings about corruption the Abramoff lobbyist scandal would not have happened and another reason for the anti-GOP sentiment that led to the 2006 electoral defeats could have been avoided.

Let's consider the alternatives. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Hillary is the Democratic opponent and conservatives stay home or vote third-party or do, as Ann Coulter has said, "vote for Hillary before I would vote for McCain", then rather than getting a President with an 82.3 score from the ACU, we will get one with a rating of 9. That's a voting record in six years as a Senator of 9% of the time agreeing with conservative values. Would you rather have a President who agrees with you 82% of the time or 9% of the time? That's what you and me and Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh and all of us who may decide to stay home as a matter of principle will get. The result if Obama is nominated by the Democrats is much the same.


A Democrat? Do you not comprehend 82.3% conservative voting record? How does that make one a Democrat? Do you not understand the gist of the post? It is not about electing a Republican. Its about preventing one of two very, very, very liberal Democrats that will wholesale turn our way of life on its head versus a man who a MAJORITY of the time votes conservatively but has voted in a MINORITY of the times liberal.

Its like saying that FDR is no different than Josef Stalin. Thay may agree on a couple of points but there is a VAST difference. The Democrat in disguise characterization is little on the dramatic side. No its not. Its really, really dramatic---a lot dramatic.
Good posts. The facts in your first quote are verifiable.

[rgcraig]

Just blows my mind that some would rather not vote and allow someone 100% demoncrat in the office than to vote for someone that only voted 17% democratic.

[Pressing-On]

"In any case, conservatives need not worry that the fact that they must choose between Romney and McCain demonstrates (as some hopeful liberals have begun arguing) that the GOP is in some way loosening its ties to the conservative movement. The strenuous efforts of both men to win the approval of that movement tells us all we need to know about its strength in the Republican party. If either of them shows the slightest tendency to backslide, he will suffer immediate vengeance at the polls." - William Rusher

[DividedThigh]

Just blows my mind that some would rather not vote and allow someone 100% demoncrat in the office than to vote for someone that only voted 17% democratic.

i agree, for the good of the country i believe it is my responsibility to at least vote, and express my opinion, hey i live in a lib state, in the only part that is mostly republican, our votes on state matters hardly count, but we keep voting, lol, dt:tvhappy

[deacon blues]

Still a compromise....it's sad how politics is played out and it's no wonder so many are feeling disenfranchised with the whole thing and don't vote...Vote for McCain...not because it is the best candidate but because there are others far worse and he has the only chance of defeating them.


Such is life. In 1976 Gerald Ford was a weak candidate against Jimmy Carter. Too bad they didn't nominate Ronald Reagan then, the four years that followed were a debacle and weakened our standing at home and abroad. Four years of Ford would've been a far cry better than the Carter years. I am telling you, if you don't get this simple fact that although having to "settle" for McCain the alternative will be a fate nearly worse than death.

Sometimes you have to be as Coonskinner says a "pragmatist" when it comes to politics. And that's coming from an ultra-con from Kansas! Hear ye the Word of the Cooskinner!!!!

[Apprehended]

Just blows my mind that some would rather not vote and allow someone 100% demoncrat in the office than to vote for someone that only voted 17% democratic.

It's incredible.

To say that you are not going to vote because you can't depend on McCain to appoint constructionist judges to the court because it is known that some politicians break promises is assinine. They do not seem to realize that there is no doubt what kind of justices that the Demons will appoint.

Further, there is no doubt that the deomons will give up the war on Terrorism in an effort to appease our enemies.

I am totally shocked and dismayed at the attitude of some because their man will not get the nomination.

[deacon blues]

Yes, we get the "percentages".

It's not very apparent.

We're not stupid. Do you get the idea of a "protest vote" against a party? Or the idea of just "staying home", since a non-vote for the Republicans is almost like a vote for the other guys?

The idea of a protest vote can be effective, because the idea is to send a message to the party you're protesting against, letting them know you are unhappy with the direction they're taking. Obviously there is a possible short term loss, but theres also a possible greater gain in the the long run.

I'm assuming you mean that after four to eight years of President Barak or Hillary, we could get Reagan reincarnated? Its a risky gamble for a very small chance of getting the candidate of your dreams.

Four years of Carter produced one very tragic reality. Fundamentalist Islamic Iran. Under the tepid Carter the Ayatollah Khomeni rose to power and sowed the seeds of the reality of today. Until then terrorism was basically limited to ineffective groups like the PLO. After Iran fell into the hands of the radicals, terrorism began to increase and continued to gain in momentum until it came into full fruition on 9/11/01.

One can argue that Reagan would have been president eventually one day in spite of Carter. We can't say for sure that Carter was the price that had to be paid to gain Reagan. We can say for sure that under Carter's dismal four-year presidency the price we are paying today was not worth his tenure in the Oval Office.

Four to eight years Obama or Hillary will be a disaster for our country. I am not advocating republican kool aid. I am advocating what is best for America with the choices we are given. Its not ideal, but tell me when was the last Reaganesque presidential candidate since Reagan? Bush 1? Dole? GW? The federal government is larger than ever with the Dept of Homeland Security. A new expensive entitlement came into existence for seniors in the prescription drug benefit. Spending under Bush 2 is out of control. The deficit is larger than ever. The GOP was corrupt to the core during the Abramoff scandal. We are in a recession. W said he was a conservative. He has been a moderate conservative at best.

If you supported W you should be able to handle Mac. The alternative for some fantasy "greater gain" maybe, hopefully, keep your fingers crossed is really short sighted. The future is now.

[OP_Carl]

You don't get it.

We are at war. THAT is the issue here. Four to eight years of Obama/Hillary defunding the military, defunding the intelligence community, of pulling out of the Middle East, of abdicating our sovereignty to the UN. We can't afford to "sit it out" because our guy isn't a party line guy. That is stupid. You go ahead and wait four to eight years of the Dems running the show and tell me you were glad they were in the White House and not McCain. I'll bet lots of money you will admit you were wrong.

Sometimes it takes a child abduction to get Amber's Law? Ask Amber's parents.

Really flawed logic. Really, really flawed.

Just as McCain will not in real life govern as a conservative, neither Hillary nor Obama in real life are going to reverse the war on terror. No matter WHAT they say to get elected by foaming-at-the-mouth MoveOn.org types.

Have you even listened to Rush make his case about HOW McCain will irrepairably damage the Republican party?

The suicide voters are sincere and have history on their side, regarding a conservative groundswell following a particularly unpleasant Democrat term.

i agree wholeheartedly (that's not copyrighted, is it?) with the person who said:

It's a tough call.

[TRFrance]

Well, what is clear to me is that some of you people put too much faith in politicians, and Republicans in particular.

If you feel that we should support a Republican because "at least they're not as bad as the democrats", then that underscores just why many disgusted voters will just be sitting this one out.

The idea is that the party should provide you a good candidate, not some one who's just "not as bad as the other guy". But that's what the Republican's have done. They give us a "moderate"/liberal Republican who's not even conservative, and some of you sheeple want to bash conservatives who refuse to support a liberal Republican.

He was not conservative on tax cuts, nor on free speech (remember the McCain-Feingold bill?), nor when he bashed the Christian right (remember his "agents of intolerance" comment, which he later refused to retract?), he opposed a federal gay-marriage ban, and is more liberal on immigration/amnesty than a lot of Democrats.

It's interesting that you people aren't even claiming he's a good candidate. All you're saying is he's not as bad as Hillary/Obama. Conservatives deserve a good conservative candidate, and with McCain, we don't have that.

And you people dare to insult conservatives who refuse to support him? Whatever.
Go vote for him if you want, but stop trashing and insulting the conservatives who refuse to vote for him.

[Monkeyman]

Dobson gets on my nerves, I hate (well, really dislike) the windbag Limbaugh, and WPF, they left me! So I really don't care what any of them think!

[Brett Prince]

You don't get it.

We are at war. THAT is the issue here. Four to eight years of Obama/Hillary defunding the military, defunding the intelligence community, of pulling out of the Middle East, of abdicating our sovereignty to the UN. We can't afford to "sit it out" because our guy isn't a party line guy. That is stupid. You go ahead and wait four to eight years of the Dems running the show and tell me you were glad they were in the White House and not McCain. I'll bet lots of money you will admit you were wrong.

Sometimes it takes a child abduction to get Amber's Law? Ask Amber's parents.

Really flawed logic. Really, really flawed.

Hillary is not going to be willing to lose the war. As soon as there is a democrat in the whitehouse, you will see a whole turn on the war. This has been political, looking for an advantage.

I will say, though, that once the war is won, Hillary would start dismantling the military behind the scenes so she could pay for her programs.

Fact is, I don't think it is going to matter.

McCain is soft on borders, torture, water boarding, Guantanamo, the economy, taxes. I'm looking at four candidates that can easily destroy years of gains in 4-8 years.

Remember, fighting a war takes an economy that is strong. McCain doesn't know a THING about how to run this economy, nor does Huckabee.

[stmatthew]

Hillary is not going to be willing to lose the war. As soon as there is a democrat in the whitehouse, you will see a whole turn on the war. This has been political, looking for an advantage.

I will say, though, that once the war is won, Hillary would start dismantling the military behind the scenes so she could pay for her programs.

Fact is, I don't think it is going to matter.

McCain is soft on borders, torture, water boarding, Guantanamo, the economy, taxes. I'm looking at four candidates that can easily destroy years of gains in 4-8 years.

Remember, fighting a war takes an economy that is strong. McCain doesn't know a THING about how to run this economy, nor does Huckabee.

I will not be voting this year.

But if I was, it would be for Huckabee, as he is the closest to the views I would want to support. And I disagree that he knows nothing about this economy. He may not be running over with experience, but he HAS run a state.

[deacon blues]

The idea is that the party should provide you a good candidate,

Do you think there is a Republican factory somewhere where they manufacture the candidates? The party should provide? How about a good conservative stepping up to the plate? How about the conservatives providing the party with one? Why won't Rush run or Sean or some other stellar conservative? There's plenty of them out there. But none stepped up, raised the money, Thompson acted like he could care less, Huckabee has done admirably, but he hasn't closed the deal.

Its an off year. The GOP is the best chance the conservative movement has. Moderate Republicans have supported our candidates. Why can't we tolerate one of them this time?

some of you sheeple want to bash conservatives who refuse to support a liberal Republican.

He has voted 82% of the time in agreement with conservatives over the past 24 years. How can you take his 18% liberal votes and call him a Liberal? Its baffling.

It's interesting that you people aren't even claiming he's a good candidate. All you're saying is he's not as bad as Hillary/Obama.

He is dead on right on the war. I see clear enough to see that this is the issue of the hour and that all other issues take a back seat. I am passionate about abortion, gay-rights, immigration, etc. But if we fail to stop the evil that is emerging on the horizon, all of these issues are immaterial. We HAVE to have a president who will fight this war and do it right. McCain will. the other two wil fail miserably to our own peril. In that regard he is a good choice.

On the other points he is right most of the time. I disagree with him on several other issues. But conservatives better understand that this strategy of "teach them a lesson" will have dire consequences if it results in an Obama or Hillary presidency.

And you people dare to insult conservatives who refuse to support him? Whatever. Go vote for him if you want, but stop trashing and insulting the conservatives who refuse to vote for him.

You still don't get it. This is not about getting our way, or winning, or us versus them, or who gets to call the shots in the GOP. This is about America and its future. America being safe from terrorism. America prevailing over evil. Wise up. Its no insult to tell you that your reasons for not voting for McCain are really and seriously wrong. Its the truth and you need to heed our warnings.

We're trying to convince you of a higher principle than conservative political values, or a political philosophy or movement. We are trying to get you to understand that America is in danger if Obama or Hillary wins. McCain will be a very good commander in chief. That's priority #1.

[deacon blues]

Just as McCain will not in real life govern as a conservative, neither Hillary nor Obama in real life are going to reverse the war on terror. No matter WHAT they say to get elected by foaming-at-the-mouth MoveOn.org types.

Really? You want to take that chance? So, they promise to pull out by 2009 while running for president. They don't. Their constituents cry foul and go berserk. I am sorry, but Obama and Hillary will govern liberally in their first term b/c they want reelection in 2012. They will make good on that promise. Otherwise they wont get another term. What did Bill do as soon as he took office in 1992? Tampered with the military. Lifted the ban on gays in the military. It was the beginning of eight years of undermining our military and its morale and its strength. The Clinton years set us up for 9/11 and all that has followed ever since.

Don't fool yourself, we will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2009 if either H or O get elected. And not a day later.

Have you even listened to Rush make his case about HOW McCain will irrepairably damage the Republican party?

And Rush is always right? I am differing with him on this one. I listen to him everyday, but I don't sit there nodding my head and agreeing with everything he says. The Republican party survived Nixon. It surely can handle McCain.

The suicide voters are sincere and have history on their side, regarding a conservative groundswell following a particularly unpleasant Democrat term.

Please read my post above about the Carter years. This is not about getting a conservative in the White House four to eight years from now. WE HAVE TO GET SOMEONE IN WHO IS NOT A HILLARY OR AN OBAMA! We can't afford the damage they will do to America! I am not worried about damage to the GOP I am am worried about America!

[deacon blues]

Remember, fighting a war takes an economy that is strong. McCain doesn't know a THING about how to run this economy, nor does Huckabee.

Presidents can't do much to the economy except cut or raise taxes, cut or raise government spending. The economy is controlled by the Federal Reserve Board and American and foreign investors and entrepeneurs who provide capital and resources and make choices that build companies and provide jobs.

Presidents are most effective militarily, otherwise they are at the mercy of Wall Street and Main Street.

[deacon blues]

I will not be voting this year.

But if I was, it would be for Huckabee, as he is the closest to the views I would want to support. And I disagree that he knows nothing about this economy. He may not be running over with experience, but he HAS run a state.


What if its McCain/Huckabee?

[Sister Alvear]

well, most laugh because I don't vote...but I could be right...if the early church were here today I still do not think they would be a part of this world's political system.

[OP_Carl]

Really? You want to take that chance? So, they promise to pull out by 2009 while running for president. They don't. Their constituents cry foul and go berserk. Just like George W. Bush, they will toss their constituency enough bones that they will hold their nose and give them a second term.

I am sorry, but Obama and Hillary will govern liberally in their first term b/c they want reelection in 2012. They will make good on that promise. Otherwise they wont get another term. Too bad it's such a well-kept secret that the surge is working. We may be ready to pull out of Iraq regardless of who is president next term.

What did Bill do as soon as he took office in 1992? Tampered with the military. Lifted the ban on gays in the military. It was the beginning of eight years of undermining our military and its morale and its strength. The Clinton years set us up for 9/11 and all that has followed ever since. And look at the groundswell of conservative support that arose in reaction. We had a Republican majority in both houses for six years of Bush 43. . . . not that they made much progress on the conservative agenda.

Don't fool yourself, we will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2009 if either H or O get elected. And not a day later.Are you at all capable of savoring the delicious irony of you, of all people, using fear tactics to persuade?

And Rush is always right? I am differing with him on this one. I listen to him everyday, but I don't sit there nodding my head and agreeing with everything he says. The Republican party survived Nixon. It surely can handle McCain. Rush is right about this: the ascendancy of McCain and his ilk will return the Republican party to its former glory of 45 years of sucking up to Democrats to throw them a bone, because they were always in a minority. Rush is right about this: bi-partisanship today means Republicans giving the Democrats what they want. It always points in just one direction. The media celebrates McCain as a maverick, but he's not a maverick to their leftist principles. They just like him because he angers conservatives. Now look at a true maverick: Joe Lieberman. Bucking the Democrat party gets a man thrown under the bus. They ran him out of the party and threw him in the ditch. The ascendency of McCain means a return to a congress filled with dominant Democrats and fearful, compromising Republicans. The Democrat agenda will hold forth, with small pockets of futile resistance alternately crushed, ridiculed, or scandalized. The Democrat agenda looks a lot like the communist party agenda of the 1960s, doesn't it?

Please read my post above about the Carter years. This is not about getting a conservative in the White House four to eight years from now. WE HAVE TO GET SOMEONE IN WHO IS NOT A HILLARY OR AN OBAMA! We can't afford the damage they will do to America! I am not worried about damage to the GOP I am am worried about America!

Your concern does you credit. A calm and rational analysis of the primary election results clearly shows that the states that are propelling McCain to the lead in the primaries are states that always go for the Democrat in the nationals. Kind of like the media. Their drool for McCain will evaporate like Krazy glue the moment the primaries are over. And then he will be tossed under the bus in favor of the TRUE leftist of the hour.

I agree that we have to get somebody who is not a Hillary or an Obama. I am also perceptive enough to see that it is too late for this election. McCain cannot win in the general election The media have calculated this; it is the reason for their favorable coverage of him.

God will get us through the tough times of insolvent social security, government-controlled medical care, and French-fried foreign policy.

[Sister Alvear]

America is headed for dark days if you ask me...too long she has forgotton her maker. While millions of christians suffer and die on foreign fields America is lukewarm as a whole...

[Fiyahstarter]

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ Edmund Burke

[deacon blues]

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ Edmund Burke

Excellent and timely quote.

John McCain on his most liberal day is 1,000 times more conservative than Hillary on her most conservative day.

Put that one in your quote book.:happydance

[stmatthew]

well, most laugh because I don't vote...but I could be right...if the early church were here today I still do not think they would be a part of this world's political system.

Honestly, I didn't vote last time, and likely will not this time. I think if the church would vote on her knees, we could see a great move of God here in the states. But alas, we are ever leaning on man to accomplish what only God can do.

[TRFrance]

You still don't get it. This is not about getting our way, or winning, or us versus them, or who gets to call the shots in the GOP. This is about America and its future. America being safe from terrorism. America prevailing over evil.
WE HAVE TO GET SOMEONE IN WHO IS NOT A HILLARY OR AN OBAMA! We can't afford the damage they will do to America! I am not worried about damage to the GOP I am am worried about America!
Deacon

First off, its unfortunate enough that you've displayed on this thread a somewhat condescending tone toward those who feel differently about this than you do. But beyond that...

Please. You sound like you're almost frothing at the mouth over this. Just stop, please. In the big picture, it's really not that serious. This is the reality of politics. Republicans take power. Then Democrats take power. Then Republicans again. It happens. They take turns.That's just the way it is.

You sound like you're going to have a stroke if the democrats take power again. But they will. If not this election cycle, then maybe the next,but it will happen. So just get used to that reality, and realize that spiritual matters are more important than political matters.

Personally I think you're taking this issue much too seriously, and place too much stock in politicians, their policies and ideological positions. The Bible says God raises up kingdoms, and brings them down also. If the Democrats eventually lead to the downfall of America's greatness, some of us (me included) will conclude that perhaps this may be part of God's long term plan for America. At the end of the day, God is in control, not politicians.

[deacon blues]

Deacon

First off, its unfortunate enough that you've displayed on this thread a somewhat condescending tone toward those who feel differently about this than you do. But beyond that...

Please.

Okay. Sorry about my perceived tone. I am passionate about the issue b/c of the unintended consequences that will result with these two Dems in the Oval Office. You may feel like its no big deal, but it is a big deal. God judges our nation based in large part on its leaders and the direction they will take our country. Yes we are the church, but we are also Americans, and if America gets judged, we will experience some of that judgment.

You sound like you're almost frothing at the mouth over this. Just stop, please. In the big picture, it's really not that serious. This is the reality of politics. Republicans take power. Then Democrats take power. Then Republicans again. It happens. They take turns.That's just the way it is.

You sound like you're going to have a stroke if the democrats take power again. But they will. If not this election cycle, then maybe the next,but it will happen. So just get used to that reality, and realize that spiritual matters are more important than political matters.

And you sound very complacent about the whole prospect. If I see a Mack truck about to splatter your guts all over the highway while you sip lemonade, sitting in a lounge chair listneing to your iPod, I am going to get a little motivated to get your attention. I might even produce a little mouth froth in the process. I don't think you are considering the lessons of history in all of this and I am afraid your Pollyanna attitude is unfortunate.

Personally I think you're taking this issue much too seriously, and place too much stock in politicians, their policies and ideological positions. The Bible says God raises up kingdoms, and brings them down also. If the Democrats eventually lead to the downfall of America's greatness, some of us (me included) will conclude that perhaps this may be part of God's long term plan for America. At the end of the day, God is in control, not politicians.

I want God to raise this nation up. I don't want Him to bring us down. McCain is not my ideal candidate, but the chances of dire consequences are less with him in office than the other two.

God is in control, no doubt, my confidence is in Him. But just because He is in control doesn't absolve us of wise choices and good decisions. Should I not buy insurance because He is in control? Do I get an education? Should I save money? Should I move to a better neighborhood? He is in control, yes, He will have His way. But along the way I am instructed to pray for a quiet and peaceable life. So your dismissive words ring hollow. I will hope and pray for America to be blessed and favored of the Lord.

You can keep sipping your lemonade if you want.

[TRFrance]

Deacon,
How about this.
Maybe on this issue, you should just stay over there in your lane, and let me stay in mine.

I'm frankly tired of discussing this.

[Brett Prince]

I will not be voting this year.

But if I was, it would be for Huckabee, as he is the closest to the views I would want to support. And I disagree that he knows nothing about this economy. He may not be running over with experience, but he HAS run a state.

Yes sir, and he raised taxes.

But, I did NOT say Huckabee in regards to economy. I said McCain.

Edit: Oops, yes I did. Point conceded. I don't like how he handles it, but he does know more than McCain about it.

[Brett Prince]

I can't hardly stomach this, but I'm afraid that I am going to have to concede that Deacon is right.

It is not that I can't stomach admitting Deacon is right, BTW, but that I can't hardly stomach having to step into a voting booth to vote for a liberal republican like McCain OR Huckabee.

[Jekyll]

The only saving grace is if Thompson rallies to become VP. This would be the ONLY way that McCain's candidacy would have any shred of legitimacy. Huckaby has succeeded in ruining the conservative vote from Romney.

Let me remind you that if you don't exercise your right to vote, you lose your moral right to speak against a candidate or election.

[Jekyll]

Is McCain the best evil of the three? Yes. But I'd much rather have him than Obamaman or Hitlary.

[Brett Prince]

I can't hardly stomach this, but I'm afraid that I am going to have to concede that Deacon is right.

It is not that I can't stomach admitting Deacon is right, BTW, but that I can't hardly stomach having to step into a voting booth to vote for a liberal republican like McCain OR Huckabee.

I can't believe Deacon didn't see this and at least howl that he had convinced me!

(He did, with the help of a talk show host or two.)