| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
Reckless abandonment
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post asking readers of this blog what they would do if Senator John McCain ended up being the nominee for the party in the presidential race. The responses in the comments section were both passionate and divided. John McCain brings that out in conservatives, because so many conservatives despise McCain, while a not-so-insignificant amount of conservatives like the Arizona Senator.
Here is what I wrote in response to those who indicated they would sit out this election in protest, in an effort to teach the Republican party a lesson:
I, for one, am not going to chance Iraq turning into another Vietnam in order to attempt to teach this country any sort of lesson. If this were in peacetime, it’d be different, but it’s not.
Furthermore, the people doing the most “enduring” would be our troops and their families, both of whom have sacrificed so much for a goal that is achieveable if only we are able to set aside our differences with whoever the Republican nominee is in order to make sure what we set out in Iraq to do from the get go has a chance at succeeding. If we don’t, our troops and their families won’t be the only ones “enduring” another Vietnam. The Iraqi people will be enduring it, too – and in a way no innocent person should have to suffer, especially not when the US has promised to stick around until they’re reasonably sure that Iraqi law enforcement will be able to prevent that from happening.
Our troops have sacrificed a lot more than most of us have for this war. I don’t think it’s asking too much to sacrifice our pride and vote for the person who will work hard to make sure that those same troops will have a Commander in Chief who will work to make sure that the goal is achieved in Iraq, then allowing our troops to return home from the mission with honor.
Should John McCain become the nominee, I’ll be writing about the importance of him being elected Commander in Chief from the time he gets the nomination to the election, using the rationale I posted above. I think it is imperative for Republicans to think beyond their dislike of McCain and look at what would happen in Iraq – and in the overall war on terror – should we have a President Hillary or Obama.
ST reader Sev slammed that point home in a comment within that same thread:
It’s highly probable that whoever the Republican nominee will be it’ll be someone I dislike and distrust. That’s just the way it’s looking now. In any other time, I’d sit the election out and just sulk, and figure that if we get a Democrat it’d just make the conservative position stronger in 4 or 6 years due to the bad governance we’d get, ala Carter.
But, as ST has said, we are in the middle of a larger war against Islamic Fascism, that is just too important to back track and take a 4 year break from. As Patton said, he didn’t believe in falling back and regrouping, didn’t want to pay for the same real estate twice. He was dead on right, and we cannot afford, after the advances we’ve made, after the butt kicking Al Queda has received from us, after the smack down they’re getting in Iraq, to back up and give them a victory and chance to regroup. That will most likely lead to a mushroom cloud over a US city, and that’s a price I will not willingly pay, so I’ll hold my nose and vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, even if it’s McCain, as no Democrat has their head on straight with respect to the war and defense.
I’m bringing all this up again because it’s being discussed in the conservative blogosphere that Rush Limbaugh has indicated recently that this election may be one where he doesn’t endorse the Republican candidate – assuming, of course, that that candidate is John McCain. This baffles me, because Rush warned strongly against Republicans sitting out the elections in 2006, because he knew our troops in harms way in Iraq deserved better than what has passed for “leadership” in Congress since the anti-war Dems took over. I find it saddening that he apparently no longer holds this view.
Contrary to what the mainstream mediots would like people to believe, Republicans don’t need anyone – whether it be Rush or any other prominent conservative – to tell them how to vote. We’re smart enough to make up our own minds. Yeah, conservative icons like Rush can be an influence, but in the end, we factor in what we’ve read, heard, and seen about the candidate and the impressions he/she gives us and decide who we’re going to vote for in the primaries and later in the general.
I certainly didn’t start this blog to tell anyone how to vote, but if I’m passionate about a candidate and./or a cause I will post my reasons why I think that candidate deserves to be elected and/or why that cause/candidate deserves to be championed. I realize that what I have written about McCain in the last few weeks may cause me to lose a few readers who disagree with me, but people come here to read my opinions on hot topics, and I have never been one to hold back on my opinion simply because I know a significant amount of my readers will disagree with me (see the illegal immigration issue and the UAE port deal for examples). Disagreeing is ok, of course, because in general conservatives have the same goals in mind – we just don’t always agree on how to achieve those goals.
As I noted earlier, the Iraq issue (as part of the overall global war on terror) is the most important reason to vote for John McCain, but there are other reasons that should be taken into consideration – something Michael Medved writes about here in a piece titled “Six Big Lies About John McCain.” In the piece, he tackles some misconceptions about McCain, including the one regarding the Gang of 14 and McCain’s supposed “support” for higher taxes.
Medved took it even further this evening in a scathing piece he wrote on his blog that I think was directed squarely at Limbaugh. He’s a lot more harsh in using a tone that I wouldn’t on discussing the issue, but I sense that his frustration about the party split mirrors a lot of people’s – including mine – going into this fall’s elections. Here are some key points he made:
From a conservative perspective, it’s easy to come up with, say, twenty-five issues areas in which McCain would be preferable to Barack/Clinton. How about the war on terror, taxes, socialized medicine, school choice, cutting government, gays in the military, tort reform, curbing abortion, second amendment rights, nuclear power, pork barrel spending, support for Israel, confronting Iran, affirmative action, appointing strict constructionist judges, and many, many more.
Above all, the question that should dominate this election cycle was well-formulated by Roger Simon: In the not unlikely event that Islamists come to power in Pakistan, placing a pro-terror regime in charge of at least 60 nuclear weapons, who would you like to see sitting at a desk in the oval office?
That thought is enough to keep me awake at night. And for those who argue that Medved is utilizing a “scare tactic” in an effort to get people to see the logic in supporting a McCain nomination, it’s no more a scare tactic than when Bush, Cheney, and their allies – including many in the punditocracy and the blogosphere – argued in 2004 that having a Democrat in charge of the WH would lead to disaster in the war on terror. That assertion is just as true now as it was then.
I understand that support for McCain from many people would not be enthusiastic, but then again, none of the nominees that we have right now really inspires the kind of enthusiasm we would have if we had a strong candidate out there in the mold of a Ronald Reagan who, as Charles Krauthammer reminded us in this Oct 2007 piece, also supported “amnesty”:
This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the last quarter-century.
That piece is a good one to read, or re-read at a time when conservatives are so busy tearing down the Republican field (and yes, I’ve been guilty of that myself) that they fail to see what good qualities those candidates bring to the table. Krauthammer went on to say:
The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today’s discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.
So why all the angst? If you’d like to share just a bit of my serenity, have a look at last Sunday’s Republican debate in Orlando. It was a feisty affair, the candidates lustily bashing each other’s ideological deficiencies — Mike Huckabee called it a “demolition derby” — and yet strangely enough, the entire field did well.
McCain won the night by acclamation with a brilliant attack on Hillary that not so subtly highlighted his own unique qualification for the presidency. Citing his record on controlling spending, he ridiculed Hillary’s proposed $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. He didn’t make it to Woodstock, McCain explained. He was “tied up at the time.”
How do you beat that? McCain’s message is plain: Sure, I’m old, worn and broke. But we’re at war. Who has more experience in, fewer illusions about, and greater understanding of war — and an unyielding commitment to win the one we are fighting right now?
Giuliani was his usual energetic, tough-guy self. He fended off attacks on his social liberalism with a few good volleys of his own — at Thompson, for example, for being a tort-loving accessory to the trial lawyers — and by making the fair point that he delivers a conservatism of results. His message? I drove the varmints out of New York City — with their pornography, their crime and their hookers (well, a fair number, at least). Turn me loose on the world.
Romney’s debate performance was as steady and solid and stolid as ever, becoming particularly enthusiastic when talking about the things he’s done — build a business, rescue the Winter Olympics, govern the most liberal state in the Union. He got especially animated talking about his Massachusetts health care reform, achieved by working with an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature. His message? I’m a doer, a problem solver, a uniter.
The point I’m trying to make is that no candidate is perfect, and that I know that McCain is considered the “least” perfect of them all. But in the end, we’ve got to look beyond our differences with whoever the Republican candidate eventually is and do head to head match ups with them to see who they would compare with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on war on terror related issues. Medved’s question bears repeating: Who would you rather be at the helm of the ship in the middle of the war on terror? The guy who has been unwaveringly supportive on the issue of winning in Iraq and who understands that it is critical to the future success of the war on terror that we are victorious there, or the guy or gal who would let all the progress that has been made in Iraq go to waste, and allow our troops sacrifices be in vain by pulling the US out of Iraq before the mission has been completed? If we support the troops, doesn’t it stand to reason that we would support the candidate who understands what the cost of losing in Iraq would be, and who understands that our troops have fought so strongly, so bravely, and so proudly, and deserve to come home with honor and a sense of accomplishment?
There are so many other issues to consider beyond the Iraq issue but to me, that is the defining issue of this campaign. Even though McCain may irk conservatives on issues like immigration and campaign finance laws, his stance on Iraq as part of the overall global war on terror is solid. I think choosing this election to abandon support of the Republican party is reckless and dangerous. In the end, it is up to each of us to determine what is more important: deciding to sit out the election in order to “force” the party to run more “electable” conservative candidates in the future or going to the polls to vote in an effort to keep the successes in Iraq happening, in order for our troops to eventually be able to come home with dignity and honor, with the fruits of their labor in Iraq visible for the world to see for years – and decades – to come. For conservatives who believe we have no real conservative in the election, remember this: There will be other elections here, and other opportunities to push for that “real conservative” candidate; on the other hand, the opportunities for success in Iraq – and via extension the overall worldwide effort on terror – can’t and shouldn’t be put “on hold” just because the Republican candidate may not be the most idealistic choice.
Several months ago I was saying that if Rudy was the nominee I couldn’t see myself voting for him because of his stance on abortion. But I’ve come to conclusion that even Rudy is much better than the alternatives: A Socialista whose disdain for the military is well-chronicled, or a well-spoken but politically inexperienced liberal Democrat, whose dream of bringing “both parties together” underscores his real goal: getting a solidly liberal agenda passed with the help of Independents and moderate Republicans. And let’s not forget: Neither one of these candidates are concerned about the real possiblity of genocide taking place in Iraq should the US prematurely withdraw.
Yes, McCain is not the nominee, but in the event that he is chosen to be the nominee, I hope people will consider the arguments I’ve made at this blog about his candidacy, rather than focusing only on reasons to dislike McCain. The guy isn’t the anti-Christ, and, IMO, we shouldn’t treat him as such.
We could do worse, much worse. I hope it doesn’t come to that. This country doesn’t deserve it, and our troops certainly don’t. Most of us who supported the war in Iraq from the start are still committed today to wanting to see the US succeed there. Now is simply not the time to abandon that commitment. In fact, such commitments should never be abandoned.
Related: Will my prediction about Florida coming down to McCain and Romney come true? A new poll suggests that it might.
Update: CNN reported earlier today that Stormin’ Norman endorsed McCain, who lives in Florida, where the next Republican primary is set to take place on the 29th.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
44 Responses to “Reckless abandonment”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Here was Reagan on the ‘86 immigration bill:
Sounds a lot like McCain, doesn’t it?
Yes it does Dear. But tragically we didn’t learn from our mistake. Which has been my biggest problem with John McCain.
Congress lied to us then, and they are lying now. Enough is enough. Fund the 2006 law give us secure borders and then allow the American people to be compassionate to those who are still here. But if amnesty is the new goal for these up to 20 million people, then in 20 years expect to give amnesty to 80 million, maybe 100 million. Hell, I got an idea, why not just make it a holiday, every 20 years we give amnesty to every illegal that is in country, no matter who, no matter what. If he is still alive and kicking bin Laden could then be an American citizen. – Lorica
All those sitting out better take a look in the mirror. If you are a Republican, you are a Repub in sunshine or in shadow. No democrats are going to sit it out, besides you sitters taught the party a lesson in 2006 and look what we’ve got. Even a dork would be better than Hilbillery or the empty suit.
Maybe we should learn a lesson from the Egyptians?? – Lorica
Indeed, that is the difference between us. I view the Iraq war as key to Americas future, if not, survival. The wrong candidate will make everything we have done over in Iraq completely moot.
The lives of over 4,000 Americans who have died fighting in that war is the most important thing to me. Failing in Iraq will have far reaching consequences to the United States. It will become an issue that will directly affect our security, not to mention our reputation.
Actively voting for a candidate who does that doesn’t seem to make much sense for someone who is so concerned about America. Making us less safe, which could possibly lead to the deaths of more innocents, just to prove a point seems a little selfish.
Nobody is trying to change your mind. You’re an intelligent adult and know what’s at stake. It’s already been pointed out the consequences of sitting home during the 2006 elections. If you want more of the same, nothing we say will change that.
I’ve taken a few days to ponder my response here, given that I was one of those who stated on the previous thread that I’m reluctant to vote for McCain.
Most of the comments here have argued the pros or cons of a specific issue or two, but one post in particular focused on principles. And I notice that this post is one that no one has attempted to refute:
And in that comment – except for the fact that the principles are conservative,, not Republican – I think Bithead went directly and brilliantly to the crux of the matter.
Most of us here will agree that national policies grounded in conservative principles will be far better for America than socialist policies. Most of us here will agree that more freedom is better for America than less. And I’m not just speaking about the short term. These policies, for good or ill, can affect generations of Americans yet unborn. Millions of our citizens who were not alive in 1988 are reaping the benefits of Reagan’s firm stand toward the Soviets, not to mention hundreds of millions of Poles, Czechs, Romanians, and others.
So what about McCain? Sanity states:
Very true. So what are those views and ideology?
First, I’m more than willing to stipulate that McCain has been stalwart in the military phase of the WOT and the war in Iraq. He stayed firm 18 months or so ago when many Republicans in Congress lost their nerve as the 2006 mid-term elections approached. For that stand, he deserves full credit.
But then, let’s not forget he wants lawyers for the AQ terrorists we capture and is on record as opposing tactics like waterboarding that have already saved Americans lives. So while I do not question his commitment to the military aspect of the WOT, I do believe he’s not as firm once you leave the actual battlefield.
As for the rest of his record, it’s fairly clear, and as sanity says, consistent.
Want amnesty for illegal aliens, with the added bonus of giving them Social Security credits? McCain’s your guy.
Want to prevent any further oil drilling in ANWR because you’re worried about the environmental impact? Want huge new taxes on carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming? So does McCain.
Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? There’s a seat for you on the “Straight Talk Express”.
ST provides a link to a Michael Medved piece pumping up McCain. I’d refer you, in response, to Deroy Murdock.
And now the MSM’s favorite Republican is basking in the glow of getting the endorsement of the New York Times and a fawning cover story from Time. None of that makes me want to rush to make sure I’m the first one to vote for McCain in our NJ primary on February 5.
I could go down the entire list, issue by issue, but you get my point. The principles that Bithead speaks of aren’t there. So let’s ask the question – what, in the long term, would be best for America, or to put it another way, would best make the nation turn to the right?
If neither McCain nor the Democratic nominee will follow conservative principles – a fairly safe conclusion – then what election outcome will best lead to a conservative renaissance? If McCain wins, do you think you’ll see a strong grass-roots move to the right among Democrats? Sure – right after I become an international sex symbol with three supermodels on each arm. But if either Clinton or Obama win, will resurgent conservatives find a strong voice and become dominant in the GOP? Almost certainly.
I’m unconvinced by the arguments that we should accept a substantial national diet of left-wing policies because the alternative far-left policies will be so much worse. I spent my formative political years in an area of central NJ where the Democrats were – and still are – overwhelmingly dominant and the GOP leadership usually provided – and still does – a meek “me-too” approach. And let’s not forget that the GOP stayed in the minority in Congress for 40 years, until in 1994 when they stood up and embraced conservatism. And they lost the House two years ago when they started to act like liberals.
The idea of taking half a loaf as better than nothing doesn’t appeal to me. And with McCain, it’s more like we’re getting only a slice or two. That leads to permanent marginalization. Does anyone honestly think that we would have ever had Ronald Reagan if Gerald Ford had won in 1976? It took an incompetent like Jimmy Carter to shock that generation of voters into making the right choice in 1980. If we get a President McCain in 2008, when do you think we’ll next get a true conservative in the Oval Office?
Permit me to quote our greatest 20th century president talking about his switch from the Democrats:
In short, we can’t abandon principles just to hold power.
There’s only one caveat to all of this. If we think, seriously, that four years of Hildebeest or Empty Suit will destroy America – if by 2012 we are a de facto or de jure part of the caliphate and our freedoms permanently lost all because we failed to confront islamofascism during that time – then McCain is the right choice. Even in that case, even if I am convinced to pull the lever for him in November, I’m sure as hell not going to donate a nickel or work for him for a minute.
So go ahead and accuse me of “reckless abandonment”. Call me whatever names you will. I’m not ready to support McCain yet and do not apologize for that stand.
Sorry, forgot the LINK to the last quote in the post above.
GWR wrote:
There was no reason in attempting to refute what Bithhead said and here’s why: Your argument makes the assumption that anyone making the case in favor of voting for McCain should he become the nominee isn’t concerned about Republican principles. On the contrary, I have in mind conservative principles, like the spread of freedom and democracy which in turn aids in our own safety and security, the commitment to finish what we started, and to honor our troops and their families, both of which have made so many sacrifices in the Iraq war. These are principles we all hold dear, no matter which side of the fence we sit on regarding whether or not to vote for McCain.
I’d read the Murdock response to Medved earlier today. There’s no question that McCain’s record is mixed, but he is far from the flaming liberal he’s been made out to be. In fact, some could argue that some of Reagan’s positions, too, could be considered liberal, but in the end the sum total of his ideas solidify his conservative creds. I think an argument could be made along those same lines for McCain, for those who are interested in vigorously defending him on his bonafides, like Medved.
I’m not suggesting anyone vote for McCain in the primaries. I won’t be in mine (not that it’ll make a difference, since NC’s primary is in May). He may not even be the nominee. All I’m saying is that I hope people consider voting for him in the general, for reasons I stated in my post.
This was discussed in the other recent thread on McCain, too, and here was my response.
As I noted earlier, no one’s advocating an abandoning of principles. Every election cycle we choose the candidate who comes the closest to lining up with our ideals, and without fail that candidate comes up short to varying degrees on some core issues. A vote for McCain is no more abandoning principles than a vote for GWB was in 2004.
At that time, as we all know there was a growing discontent with GWB on a number of issues, including his stance on illegal immigration, his failure to control Congress’ out of control spending, his “deal” with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, the Farm Bill, and many other issues. Yet conservatives all agreed that year that it was worth looking beyond those differences they had with him because GWB understood what was on the line in Iraq and what would happen if we cut and run, which would have happened under a Kerry presidency. It was all about recognizing the Iraq was *the* core issue, and that if we lost there by leaving before the job was done, we would violate the princples I mentioned earlier. That is the same thing I am arguing now.
I am certainly not suggesting that conservatives plant a wet sloppy kiss on him if he gets the nomination, just that they consider that he understands what it means to finish the job in Iraq, something the opposition could care less about. I have never suggested that McCain is the cat’s meow, just that this election season if he were the nominee, he’s got his head on straight on the issue of Iraq where Hillary and Obama do not.
As I said earlier, the same arguments I am making now I would have made back in 2004 had masses of conservatives advocated sitting out that election. But they didn’t – for the reasons I discussed above, reasons which I believe still hold true today.
Since you quoted Reagan, who was indeed our greatest 20th century president, here’s something else he said:
(Via The Anchoress)
BTW – I think by “radical” he meant “staunch” – not “radical” in the way we use the term towards the far left.
I have a great deal of respect for the commenters of this blog, especially you, GWR, for a lot of reasons – among them, how you made the case against the illegal immigration bill rationally without resorting to the gutter tactics many others did. In fact, I probably learn a lot more from my commenters than they do from me, because they’ve been arguing in favor of conservatism longer than I have.
I remember back when I was a liberal how it used to irk me how people would try to shove conservative ideas down my throat without giving any thought to how I felt about the issues, so I in no way am attempting to shove my opinion on this issue down anyone’s throat. All I am asking is that any conservative who is considering sitting out this race should McCain become the nom please think carefully about what would happen in Iraq – and the overall GWOT – if Hillary or Obama take the helm of CIC.
Agreed, he’s no Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. The question is, how much “left” is in fact in that mix. I tend to think it’s a little higher percentage than you.
Yes, that was clear in your original post. Your focus on this question has always been on November. But the NYT is beating the drums for him NOW. McCain is the Republican they’d most love to see on the ballot in November. Of course, they’ll endorse the Democrat for the general election, no matter who that turns out to be, but ask yourself why they’d want McCain as the opponent. To me, the answer’s obvious – no matter who wins, they’d still stand to get a good portion of their agenda realized.
That response focused almost entirely on Iraq, and I agree with your points there. I’m looking at the question from a different angle. My concern is that we’d become inoculated to accepting a “mixed” track record, in your words at the top, as the norm: no more talk of tax cuts, more global warming regulations, maybe more McCain-Feingold type restrictions on speech. Look at how many wasteful or pointless leftist ideas are now Federal programs that are accepted as part of the landscape – in many cases due to Republican presidents compromising away a principle for some temporary gain. Iraq is clearly critically important, but my concern goes beyond Iraq. It’s that the erosion of conservative goals may accelerate.
Also true…and you’re right that it’s a matter of degree. And there’s the rub. GWB has disappointed me in some areas, as you know, but I find much more common ground with him than with McCain. At what point does a candidate’s misalignment with our principles make him unsuitable? 50% agreement? 25%? As little as 10%? I know McCain’s seriously out of alignment for me…if he’s nominated, the question for me will be to decide if he’s too far out of alignment.
From your Reagan quote:
If I thought I’d get 75-80% from McCain, I’d have no reservations about voting for him. Would you feel as confident if you knew the left was going to get 75-80% and you’d get 20-25%?
You keep coming back to Iraq in your justifications for a McCain vote in November. As well you should. That’s the single most potent issue that may still bring me around. It’s no secret that no issue is more important than national security to me, and McCain is undeniably strong there. But I’m having a difficult time reconciling the idea of fighting hard for freedom and democracy in Iraq while simultaneously backing the ACLU on lawyers for captured AQ and tying the hands of our military interrogators. I’d be much more comfortable with McCain if that apparent contradiction were to be explained.
Nor have you on any issue. You’ve always spoken your mind and let the rest of us do likewise, with great results as the commentary on this and so many other threads can attest.
I do think that characterizing those of us who are still on the fence about a McCain vote in November as “reckless” was a tad strong. Some of us have put quite a bit of thought into our positions.
Indeed, exactly what I was attempting to express. My approach though, compared to yours like brain surgery with an aluminum baseball bat.
No, we can not. When I was called judgemental for a similar comment, I simply chuckled.
I applaud you. To stand and not waiver in defense of those principals is admiral.
I wish to that you for so eloquently expressing my similar view.
Ted, there are some substantial differences between us, despite some similar reasoning.
First, nothing short of a frontal lobotomy will induce me to vote for Hillary this November. You’ve already endorsed her regardless of who the GOP nominates.
Second, while I’m leaning toward bypassing the presidential line on the ballot if McCain’s there, my mind is still open. To me, the critical factor will be the state of the WOT when November rolls around. If I’m convinced that a Democrat in the White House is likely to lead to a mushroom cloud over an American city, I’ll vote McCain even with his abyssmal track record on domestic policy. Four years of stunted economic growth, punitive taxation, and silly GW regulations that can be rolled back – yeah, I’ll accept that from a Clinton or Obama administration if it’s likely to reawaken America to the need for conservative policies. A nuclear terrorist attack from AQ or some other islamofascist group – that’s too high a price to pay.
Sorry to keep beating this dead horse, but….
Drudge has the full story. Now here is my real problem. Does anyone here believe the NYT endorsement and now this story on CNN, will actually help John McCain?? The way I figure it, since at least 1998, if the MSM gives it’s opinion about a conservative, then the opposite is usually true. – Lorica