Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

Ditto!  I couldn’t have said it better.

Author ID: 1906 | 2/7/2008 05:05 AM CST | #112069 |

No, Romney doesn’t hate us near as badly as McSpain. I was reading somewhere about he was responsible for making the Taxachusets gun laws not quite so bad. Yeah, he loosened it up as much as he could(or thought he practically could) while in the seat there. I forget which blog I read that on, but I do remember that it came from a reliable source. We just have to hold him to that. And the Mormon self sufficiency requirement stands to have him tending toward that direction. I’m not a Mormon, but I read the book to try to understand their viewpoint. I think he’d be one whole HELL of a lot better bet. He’s not who we WANTED, but he’s better than the current options.

Author ID: 6430 | 2/7/2008 05:11 AM CST | #112070 |

Mr. du Toit, I’m glad that I read this blog.  Finally, someone else that believes as I do.  I’ve been struggling with this too and trying to convince the conservatives in my area.

But, yet again, I am faced with the fact that McCain is a lying, liberal, fascistic, statist politician that has no respect for my values, ideas, or philosophy. And he has demonstrated that time and time again!

Romney, on the other hand, is merely a flip-flopping, ambitious, liberal politician.
But Bill’s comments at Rachel Lucas’ about the troops hits home.

While McCain has shown no respect for my ideals and has sponsored laws that have grown the government and restricted my rights, this is war. And as someone said before, you fight the war with the army you have. We tried to build the army that we wanted. We got the army that we have. We have NO good choices. But I have finally been convinced on the best thing to do on election day.

McCain was a battle. The war is against Clinton and Obama. They are the enemy.

While McCain may disagree with the conservatives, the Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, HATE US AND WANT OUR SIDE TO BE DEFEATED IN DETAIL!
They want the GOP gone.
I ask them, “Do you really want to pull that lever next to a (D)? I bow to NO ONE in my disdain of McCain. BUT, I’ll fight a war with officers I hate. And HAVE DONE SO. Are you going to let the bitch win? You know that SHE’ll never take a VP slot......”

I will support the candidate that fights that enemy. Even if he does it with his right arm tied behind his back.

And then I’m getting drunk.

Author ID: 6357 | 2/7/2008 05:22 AM CST | #112072 |

McCain doesn’t hate you; he just knows you’re something underfoot, and once he resolves the issue of whether you’re a stumbling block or a stepping stone, then he’ll hate you.
McCain - Lieberman?  If you were JL would you put up with that?
.

Author ID: 6570 | 2/7/2008 05:30 AM CST | #112073 |

I think we’ll all be getting drunk.

Author ID: 2 | 2/7/2008 05:31 AM CST | #112074 |

Elections indeed make people emotional

Author ID: 10545 | 2/7/2008 05:40 AM CST | #112075 |

They want the GOP gone.

gator guy, if the Republican Party can find no better embodiment of its principles than McCain, Romney, or Huckabee, and looks right through Thompson, and if it cannot even articulate its principles in a coherent fashion, then perhaps it already is gone.  What Whig Party, its time come round again...?

.

Author ID: 6570 | 2/7/2008 05:46 AM CST | #112076 |

The ugly truth is that there aren’t enough hard-core Conservatives in this country to make a difference (if there were Fred would be the R front runner).  Unlike other minority groups though, we havn’t managed to get preferential treatment from the majority, indeed the idea of abhorent to us.  We don’t want to be more equal.

Just imagine having people say “I’m voting for Fred because he’s Conservative even though I’m not, it would be nice to have a Conservative president”.  I’ve heard or read that comment (with appropriate group membership) dozens of times relating to both Obama and Hillary.

Jeff Cooper said that every hunting trip is a qualified success and every election is a qualified failure.  How far do we go to qualify the failure this year?  As Kim has said before, there’s noplace else to go.  All the things the Dems want to impose upon us are readily available in other nations, but America is the last best hope on earth for freedom.  If I may be allowed one more quote (from Martin Luther) “Here I stand, I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen”

(Hey Kim, how do you like being quoted alongside Cooper and Luther in one paragraph?)

Author ID: 5213 | 2/7/2008 05:55 AM CST | #112078 |

Cargosquid (#3), while there are people like you who hold the convictions that you do, with the ability to express your opinions as you do, there will never be a downtrodden and beaten America, whoever gets to be POTUS.

Well said, Sir.

Author ID: 940 | 2/7/2008 06:00 AM CST | #112079 |

I think by the time election time rolls around McLame will have been eviscerated by the MSM and I believe the sheeple will elect one from the Dark Side no matter what we on the right do. I’ll get out and vote for the conservative rep in my district, but l will not vote for Juan MexiCain. If we survive to see 2012 maybe we will have a real conservative candidate in the race.

They want the GOP gone.

I believe it is already gone, and it was destroyed from within. The GOP has had plenty of time to sort things out, but instead chose to act just like the Dems. I don’t think voting my conscience is abandoning the GOP, because the RNC has already sold me out.

Author ID: 10242 | 2/7/2008 06:04 AM CST | #112080 |

No, there are more conservatives than people think.

Let me explain what has happened this cycle.

A large part of the problem originates in the fact that the conservative movement didn’t HAVE a candidate this cycle.  Two years ago, the smart money would have been on George Allen...but he got taken out by 2,500 votes in the 2006 elections.  Jeb Bush?  Not with Shrub as a brother - Jeb’s keeping his powder dry for a 2012 or 2016 run.  Newt Gingrich?  He’d be fantastic...but carries almost as much baggage as the Clintons.

Which left us with Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.  The former didn’t really want the job, the latter just didn’t have the organizational base or resume to make a good bid.

On the other hand, McCain had his 2000 organization, Guliani had national name recognition, and Romney had his own personal fortune.  Huckabee was never more than a regional candidate.  And if you look at the history of the Republican Party, it helps a LOT to have run a campaign previously...it gives you a nationwide campaign apparatus.

Personally, I agree with Newt Gingrich.  Conservatism has fallen into the trap that Liberalism fell into.  Both espouse policies and use rhetoric that are about 40 years out of date.  The Left thinks it’s 1968...but the Right thinks it’s 1980.  The fundamental principles of Conservatism remain, for they are based on immutable facts...but the application of those principles to create policy needs to be updated to meet the needs of the second decade of the 21st Century.

Author ID: 200 | 2/7/2008 06:11 AM CST | #112081 |

If you hold your nose and vote against your conscience and/or better judgement, evil wins. Period.  In spite of all the high sounding arguments, the degree of it has little meaning, because the PROCESS of evil has triumphed.  It’s NOT OK to compromise, at this point, because the fundamental principles of this nation are not “the gift that keeps on giving”.  My friends, there is a finite amount of ‘stuff’ to give up.  Perhaps because of the scale and apparent limitlessness of our unprecedented propsperity over the last hundred or so years, we have failed to grasp this fundamental.  Failing to realize this has brought us to the edge of a cultural (and societal) precipice.  Sooner or later we have to lie down in the bed we (the total electorate) have made.  We are not going to avoid it.  I would get it done sooner rather than later, the sooner to get through it and prevail, as we surely shall.  This “nose holding” is the death of a thousand cuts, and conditions us to talk but not act.  In my opinion, it is un American to vote this way, even though I did it last time.  I will NOT do it again and vote for McCain.  I may get drunk, though....

Author ID: 7641 | 2/7/2008 06:12 AM CST | #112082 |

If we survive to see 2012 maybe we will have a real conservative candidate in the race.

DaToad,
We said that in 2000, and 2004 too.  In 2004 everyone hoped Dubya would ditch Cheney and pick a Conservative VP to groom for a 2008 run.

Maybe the Stupid Party isn’t so stupid after all.  Someone like McCain gets a portion of the Liberal vote, a big chunk of the moderate vote, and the Conservative vote because as bad as he is he’s still better than whatever the Dems drag out of the septic tank, rinse off, and nominate.

Author ID: 5213 | 2/7/2008 06:13 AM CST | #112083 |

Just can’t pull the lever for that guy. Sorry, maybe after 4 years of her the Conservatives will come marching back, just like with Carter/Reagan......

Author ID: 7087 | 2/7/2008 06:13 AM CST | #112084 |

I’ll add that the Propaganda Press will be in a cleft stick about McCain.  They have touted him for so long that their own credibility will go into the toilet if they try to cut McCain’s throat.  And while WE are well aware that the Propaganda Press is no more to be trusted than Pravda, the general public hasn’t fully come to understand it quite yet.

Author ID: 200 | 2/7/2008 06:14 AM CST | #112085 |

If you’re not on his personal bandwagon, you’re the enemy, regardless of who you are.

Since that’s undoubtedly true, I resolve to be a LOUD enemy. The country has proven twice now that the administration can be moved if enough people make enough noise. Problem is, if a Dem gets in office, there will be noise from the other side drowning us out. There will be noise from the other side anyway, but a Stupid Party administration, even as hostile as one headed up by McCain will be, will still be more likely to listen to us than an Evil Party administration.

Author ID: 209 | 2/7/2008 06:21 AM CST | #112086 |

Cold water time.

The Dems want the Repubs “gone” in the same style as the Stupids want the NeoFeudalists “gone”.  Neither one is going to go away unless it is voluntary.  So, what is going to happen?

No matter who is elected, I predict a one term session losing the Presidency to the other party.  Mid-term elections this time are going to be brutal, with the President’s party losing heavily.  As such, gridlock will result.  Which the best possible outcome, for me.

Author ID: 8077 | 2/7/2008 06:24 AM CST | #112087 |

What do you people think of McCain’s chances in the general election, anyway?  I see the D’s steamrolling the field, unfortunately. 

And they’ll do well in Congress, too.

The R’s have sold out too long ago to high-on-the-hog politics.  They have no more power over the Executive than a junkie over a dealer.  Many of our younger generation (which thankfully doesn’t vote often) has been brainwashed with nanny-state-ism.  It doesn’t look well without McCain.

With him, we at least stand a chance of winning a war—a real war, not a “war” over politics.  With him, we at least stand a chance of being around for the next election, which thankfully, due to his age, won’t likely include him.

Author ID: 10626 | 2/7/2008 06:26 AM CST | #112088 |

The manchurian candidate is no friend to the Bill of Rights.

Author ID: 8850 | 2/7/2008 06:32 AM CST | #112089 |

Geez Kim.  That’s exactly it.

Author ID: 8569 | 2/7/2008 06:39 AM CST | #112091 |

Kim, what you’re describing is a political version of double coyote ugly.  On the way down the street, you chew off your other arm, so the next morning McCain won’t find us when he goes looking for a one-armed man.

Author ID: 9123 | 2/7/2008 06:50 AM CST | #112092 |

Yeah, I held my nose and voted for Romney on Tuesday. Didn’t take the state but still I tried. I didn’t vote for McCain when he ran for re-election last time around I certainly wasn’t going to vote for him now. Man the election in November is going to really suck.

Author ID: 7019 | 2/7/2008 06:57 AM CST | #112094 |

No matter who is elected, I predict a one term session losing the Presidency to the other party.

Mundane:  I wouldn’t bet on it.  Here’s a statistic for you:  Since 1932, how many sitting presidents who sought a second term didn’t get it? 

Answer:  Two.  (Carter and Bush 41.) (I don’t count Ford because he wasn’t elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency.) But look at the others:  Roosevelt was reelected 3 times.  Truman, elected to VP in 44 was reelected in 48.  Ike was reelected in 56.  Johnson, elected to VP in 60 was reelected in 64 and didn’t seek another term in 68.  Nixon won a historic landslide in his reelection of 72.  Reagan in 84, Bubba in 96 and Bush in 04, all reelected. 

So you better figure that whoever gets elected this year, the chances are better than even that that person will be president for 8 years, not 4.

Author ID: 7544 | 2/7/2008 06:59 AM CST | #112095 |

We said that in 2000, and 2004 too.  In 2004 everyone hoped Dubya would ditch Cheney and pick a Conservative VP to groom for a 2008 run.

Mark D,
I agree. The GOP has had the time to consolidate its consrvative base and make the turn around it promised, but didn’t. Dubya is more than a disappointment and that the GOP squandered the opportunity is a disgrace.

But I don’t agree that McLame can pull it off. Perhaps he will get some of the liberal and moderate vote, but I don’t believe it will be much, let alone enough. The moderates and liberals that voted for GHWB are fed up with him and the GOP and I think will swing to the Dems. Add in the MSM, which will continue to demonize Bush, (even though he isn’t a candidate), and will back stab JM so many time he’ll look like like he was run through a meat tenderizer. I think this election will be like 1964.

As an aside, yes, I’m old enough to remember. Wasn’t old enough to vote yet, (had to wait till 68) but remeber my old man being just miserable that Goldwater lost. He wasn’t afraid Barry would push the button, he was afraid of what kind of tax increases “The Great Society” would bring.

Author ID: 10242 | 2/7/2008 07:02 AM CST | #112096 |

Here’s the thing: Clinton and Obama are objectively worse than McCain, in the short run. In the long run (which I put at 20 years +/- 10), I think they all lead us to the same place.

And, well, that’s all I think I want to say about that.

Author ID: 1448 | 2/7/2008 07:02 AM CST | #112097 |

What do you people think of McCain’s chances in the general election, anyway?  I see the D’s steamrolling the field, unfortunately.

Depends on who the D’s nominate.

Hillary is very, very beatable. Combine the baggage from ‘92 through ‘00 with her still being married to bill, the fundraising shenanigans he got up to (how many of his donors fled the country?), exactly who Bill’s been getting speaking fees from for the last seven years, and her having the political instincts of a rock (garnishing wages to pay for health insurance? WTF?), and the fact that running her will motivate most R’s and a lot of independents to show up specifically to vote against her… oh, believe me, Hillary can be stopped.

What I’m worried about is Obama. Yeah, he’s a ‘70s liberal in a shiny new box, and he never ever offers specifics of how he’s going to do all those wonderful things… but I kinda suspect that the press is going to give him a pass on the details (they’re boring, y’know...), and there are enough mushy-headed types out there to make him difficult to beat.

So what it comes down to is “how stupid are the D’s”?

Author ID: 353 | 2/7/2008 07:10 AM CST | #112099 |

It has been said that if we had not had to
suffer Jimmy Carter, we would never have
had Ronald Reagan-

Consider, if we do not have J McCain as
a nominee,at least,the conservatives may never
figure out that they(we) need someplace to
go - not the Republican party-who I believe
to be merely a bit less totalitarian and a
bit slower socialist than the Dems.

jem

Author ID: 8266 | 2/7/2008 07:11 AM CST | #112100 |

As Joe Farah recently wrote, the problem with the Republican party is that it can’t successfully define how it envisions how America should look. Instead, it spends its time resisting change (to “conserve"). Never do you hear Repub pols hammer home the double barrels of liberty vs big govt. And it’s unlikely you will, since repub pols are at heart pols who have a stake in govt.

As for voting for the lesser of two evils, no, I refuse to play that game. Choosing between two poisonous snakes still gets me bit, and it’s worse when one snake is your own. Repubs have two other options here: 1.) refuse to vote and let the dems win - then when people suffer under their umbrella it will be their fault (if the country suffers under McCain, the repubs will be blamed and the party will be damaged for many years to come) 2.) organize a write in campaign - stick it to McCain and show him he’s not the conservative candidate. If you lose, then read the par of option one.

Author ID: 8653 | 2/7/2008 07:13 AM CST | #112101 |

One other thing - As bad as the rift is with the republican party, I think the left has a bigger rift. No matter who squares the dem nomination, there is much damage in their party, more than the republicans, and it may be better to let them win so that that rift will continue to grow.

Go read comments from dems at any Obama/Clinton article that allows comments. You will see a tremendous rift growing. There are just as many or more dems who view Clinton unfavorably as repubs who view McCain, and the same is true of Obama.

If only I had deep pockets ala Bill Gates. I would use some of that money to advertise the people’s frustration from both sides and hopefully steer them to focus on the true fight; the state vs the people. We deserve better.

Author ID: 8653 | 2/7/2008 07:21 AM CST | #112105 |

I agree with Rosignol. A substantial portion of the electorate (our portion) loathes her. Obama deliberately positions himself as a “blank slate” for change, and allows the voters to project on him whatever they want to see.
All this vitriol directed at McCain amuses me in a sad way. Bush I and Bush II didn’t have to deal with all that conservative emnity, and yet they did everything, as to domestic policy, that conservatives fear McCain would do. On foreign policy, McCain would, in my opinion, be better than either of them, and on domestic policy, I predict that conservatives will be pleasantly surprised. A guy with an 83% conservative voting record per a half dozen conservative think tanks isn’t going to suddenly swing left.

Author ID: 7827 | 2/7/2008 07:26 AM CST | #112106 |

Ronald Reagan was not elected to office in 1980 because the nation was tired of Carter and his incompetence; almost half the electorate that actually voted, voted for someone with the same tired medicines that caused the “Malaise” of the ‘70’s.
Reagan was elected because Anderson ran as a leftist third party candidate.
We got Clinton in 1992 because Perot ran as a third party candidate. 
I’m praying that Obama collects enough money so that he can continue his struggle against Clinton clear through to November.

Author ID: 2303 | 2/7/2008 07:28 AM CST | #112108 |

Bluey,
Thank you.

I see voting for McCain as a delaying action.  We can vote for the Dems now, and lose COMPLETELY, or vote for McCain and delay.  We may still lose the war, but it won’t happen on THIS watch.  McCain will not go for another term.  Too old.  That’s why his VP candidate is so important. 

Besides, I don’t think McCain will win, anyway.  Too many people will vote for the Clinton/Obama ticket (which I predict they will form at their convention, because they not COMPLETELY stupid) just because voting for a woman and a black man will be HISTORIC.  Finally, all of the Dems can feel good about themselves and all of the guilt ridden republicans and independents can say: LOOK, I’m not a bigot!

I don’t want to vote for McCain.  But I’ve never gone down without a fight.  And voting for the evil party or not voting at all is surrender.

Author ID: 6357 | 2/7/2008 07:30 AM CST | #112109 |

How many shit sandwiches must we eat?  When viewing the possible choices for this November, all I see are choices between DemCong and DemCong Lite.

At least Romney had to trend Liberal because he was in Massachusetts.  Arizona is a Conservative state.  What’s McCain’s excuse?

I don’t even like much the Republican party candidates farther down the slate.  Most of them are merely enablers for the DemCong.

I think I’ll wear my Goldwater button and do a write-in this November.

Author ID: 8125 | 2/7/2008 07:31 AM CST | #112110 |

I resepectfully dissent.

I am not voting for the lesser of two evils.

The best way to perpetuate the Republican Party’s repudiation of our conservative principles is to keep rewarding it for running terrible candidates.

We won the Presidency in 1980 - 1988 by running a seemingly conservative candidate. We did the same in 2000, albeit a compassionate one.

We won the House in 1994 by running conservative candidates with a conservative agenda.

We lost the House and the Senate in 2006 by permitting terrible neocon and center-right people to effectively control the House and the Senate.

I am simply not convinced that, by holding my nose once again and grimacing about the lesser of two evils, the Republican Party will once again return to its conservative core beliefs.

No, under a McCain Administration, I see a bunch of other “maverick” RINOs and neocons “working with the President” to further sell out my values.

I really disagree with the way that Rachel Lucas and Bill Whittle distill the “lesser of two evils” approach.

I think that the proper assessment of a candidate, after a grueling primary season, is to decide whether there is any way that you conceivably vote for him or her.

That is my litmus test.

Author ID: 7253 | 2/7/2008 07:34 AM CST | #112111 |

If you can hold your nose and vote Republican, then do so - it may keep the Democraps out of the White House.  If you can’t, then either write someone else’s name in or just leave that part of the ballot blank.

The more important thing is to VOTE and elect some friendly Congress-critters, as well as state and local people who are right-thinking.  Bad things happen when EITHER party is in control of both the White House and the Congress.

Author ID: 9002 | 2/7/2008 07:35 AM CST | #112112 |

I don’t know where some come away believing that McCain is friendly to the Second Amendment, because, quite frankly, he is not.  Check out what GOA has to say about his record when it comes to the SA. 

http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

And then, of course, there’s this:
GOA Ratings For John McCain
2000:  C--
2002:  C--
2004:  F--
2006:  F--

Regardless of what you think of the GOA, these are all simply a matter of public record on McCain’s perpetual battle against gun owners.

There’s much more for those who bother to check out the links above.

The “lesser of two evils” is still evil.  There is nothing on the face of this planet that would result in my voting for McCain.  Absolutely nothing.  I’m sorry, but I don’t need to eat rat poison to know that it will hurt me.  If this means a Dem in the oval office again, so be it. 

It’s much better to know who your enemy is rather than find that he whom you believed to be your ally was not.

Author ID: 8088 | 2/7/2008 07:51 AM CST | #112116 |

What I posted yesterday bears repeating.

To paraphrase: “It’s the War on Terror, Stupid!”

I will not let the sacrifices of our brave warriors be wasted by a President who would abandon the mission before it is complete.  Either Democrat has flatly stated they would do just that.  Staying home or, worse yet, voting for a Dem would be a tremendous slap in the face to those who are serving in Iraq.

So, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Author ID: 20 | 2/7/2008 07:55 AM CST | #112117 |

I need eight more years to buy ammo.

I’ll be voting for McCain.

Author ID: 1358 | 2/7/2008 08:08 AM CST | #112118 |

1) As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want

2) As you know, you have to go to vote with the Candidate you have, not the Candidate you want

Why is 1) laudable and 2) despicable?

Mindset, people.  Just because we elect a certain bastard, does not mean that s/he rules us.  Until they pull all of the troops home, they do not have enough manpower to forcibly disarm us.  We should have a bit of warning.

So do we elect a known traitor to our Constitution or a known enemy of it?
The Devil you fear, or the Devil you know......

Author ID: 10669 | 2/7/2008 08:09 AM CST | #112119 |

Drummermanrick said:

As for voting for the lesser of two evils, no, I refuse to play that game. Choosing between two poisonous snakes still gets me bit, and it’s worse when one snake is your own.

Maj Mike said: 

How many shit sandwiches must we eat?  When viewing the possible choices for this November, all I see are choices between DemCong and DemCong Lite.

You both seem to be under the impression you can opt out of the effects of this election.  Unless you plan on leaving the country (to go where?) you can’t. 

Rick:  You’re going to get bit.  Period.  It can be a small bite or a big bite but you’re going to get bit.  Maj Mike:  You’re eating that shit sandwich.  Period. It can be a big shit sandwich or a small one, but you’re going to eat it. 

Not voting doesn’t keep you from getting bit it just ensures that you get bit by the nastiest snake out there.  Not voting doesn’t mean you don’t eat the shit sandwich, it just means you eat the one that is served by the democrat, not the republican. 

I wonder if some of you have forgotten just how bad things got under Bubba, especially for our 2nd amendment rights.  Remember the AWB?  The Brady Bill?  Remember gun owners being demonized every time there was a shooting somewhere?  Remember the IRS investigating the NRA?  Remember the ATF and the FBI running amok?  Do you think it will be any different just because it’s Hillary in the big chair instead of Bubba?  If anything it will be worse, because Bubba was a power hungry, approval craving creep.  Hillary is a lefty ideologue which means that where Bubba would “triangulate”, Hillary will maintain the hard line. 

I know there are a lot of conservatives and gun owners who have good reason to despise McCain but I think you are forgetting just how bad things can get with a Clinton in the white house.

Author ID: 7544 | 2/7/2008 08:37 AM CST | #112122 |

Speaking of the WoT, as RightIsRight did, I would like to add to the discussion, that with Hillary promising to get out of Iraq immediately, there are other candidates running on that same platform in other races. I heard one just this morning, for Steve Black in Ohio. Basically, the message was, “Universal Health Care, and out of Iraq, I’m backin’ Black”.

Author ID: 209 | 2/7/2008 08:41 AM CST | #112124 |

Oh, and don’t forget, the worse McCain loses, the more the Dems believe they have a “Mandate” to shove their shit sandwich down our throats.

Author ID: 209 | 2/7/2008 08:43 AM CST | #112126 |

Just my two cents, but I don’t think it’ll be Lieberman.  I think his VP pick is going to be Huckabee, or another Southerner—or, if he has sense, a popular figure from a typically blue state.  It’ll be a strategic pick.  But no, it won’t be a conservative.  I agree there.

Author ID: 7717 | 2/7/2008 08:55 AM CST | #112128 |

Staff Martin wrote:


Rick:  You’re going to get bit.  Period.  It can be a small bite or a big bite but you’re going to get bit.  Maj Mike:  You’re eating that shit sandwich.  Period. It can be a big shit sandwich or a small one, but you’re going to eat it.

I may get bit, but I refuse to pick which snake does the biting. That way the fault lies entirely with the snake. Same analogy with the shit sandwich; someone forcing it on me is not the same as being told to pick which shit sandwich I want and then me blindly following orders.

I agree with the poster that said if you vote for McCain to get the lesser of two evils, you will just perpetuate the republican slide into left territory.

I will vote for a libertarian or constitutionalist instead.

Author ID: 8653 | 2/7/2008 09:04 AM CST | #112130 |

I’d like to personally thank the Reverend Mike Huckabee and his equally retarded supporters for drawing conservative votes from Thompson and Romney and leaving us with McCain. Good job, fellas. I’m sure that abortion repeal is just around the corner. Jesus loves you not just for your righteousness, but your staggering political acumen.

Author ID: 1256 | 2/7/2008 09:06 AM CST | #112131 |

Just saw the news. Mitt is packing it in.

Author ID: 10242 | 2/7/2008 09:21 AM CST | #112132 |

Here’s what I wrote over at The Smallest Minority:

Now, many of you are calling for the same strategy again. The result will be to have all three branches of government (yes — especially the Judiciary) go hard left.

The problem as I see it, is that if we get John McCain, we are going hard left, including any judges McCain would nominate.

You know, I’ve never seen anyone who makes this argument examine the differences between McCain and Hillary.

As far as I can tell, there are exactly three:

McCain would not pull us out of Iraq, at least not right away. But his attack against the swift boat vets and his stated desire to close Gitmo make me think that he doesn’t have the balls to follow through to victory.

Hillary probably would not pull us out immediately either. Instead, she’ll do it in a way where she’s proclaiming victory even though we’ll actually be cutting and running.

That’s not much of a difference in my mind.

Hillary would push for universal health care.

McCain’s actions in the “Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act” indicate the same basic mindset as Hillary: Screw the big drug companies and provide socialized (even internationally socialized) medicines to the people. So if a Democrat congress tries to pass a version of universal health care, it seems that he might accept a “light” version.

Again, how much difference is there, really? Another hair’s breadth.

And on gun control, here’s what Gun Owners of America had to say about McCain:

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the ‘assault weapons’ ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.

Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.

So it seems that McCain would have us only turn in most of our guns, letting us keep the pea shooters “for now”.

It’s clear that Hillary would try to make us turn them all in.

Once again, McCain is better, this time by more than a hair’s breadth, but still, disarmed to a level where we would be unable to defend ourselves is still disarmed.

Could you honestly vote for a guy who is apparently no more conservative than Bill Clinton?

Author ID: 7909 | 2/7/2008 09:37 AM CST | #112134 |

There’s something about this that confuses me… people keep saying The Party did this or that party did that.

WE are the Party.

WE didn’t vote for the conservative candidates.  The Party as some separate entity other than us, didn’t do or not do anything.

WE didn’t send Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson money soon enough.  WE didn’t volunteer to work on their campaigns to give them the organization they needed.  We, just like the Democrats, expected some other dude to fund what WE wanted.

There is no “someone else” or some party aparachik pulling levers here.

There is no GOP that isn’t us.  WE failed.

Author ID: 2 | 2/7/2008 09:45 AM CST | #112136 |

WE didn’t send Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson money soon enough.  WE didn’t volunteer to work on their campaigns to give them the organization they needed.  We, just like the Democrats, expected some other dude to fund what WE wanted.

There is no “someone else” or some party aparachik pulling levers here.

There is no GOP that isn’t us.  WE failed.


The GOP leadership did, however, do a splendid job of ignoring the candidates they didn’t want.  I got emails regularly from the GOP saying “Who should be our next president, Guiliani or Romney.” If a candidate wasn’t on the favored list(Thompson, Hunter, McCain), they were excluded from GOP services that could have gotten them the publicity and money they needed.  The GOP leadership IS largely responsible for the conservative candidates no longer being candidates.

Yes, that means we need to throw them out on their asses, but it is the leadership that screwed Thompson more than the party proles.

Author ID: 6261 | 2/7/2008 09:59 AM CST | #112139 |

But you just proved the point, Prince.  If they were pimping Guiliani and Romney, their help didn’t help those two.  The Party literature is not enough.  We have to become more engaged and that doesn’t mean writing a blog post.  That means getting ACTIVELY involved by volunteering our time (lots of it) and whatever money we can spare.  We have to start NOW for the next election.

And it is confirmed.  Romney is pulling out of the race.

Author ID: 2 | 2/7/2008 10:06 AM CST | #112141 |

I’m sorry, Kim....  but Romney just quit also. :(

Author ID: 685 | 2/7/2008 10:16 AM CST | #112143 |

TS-

WE are the Party.

WE didn’t vote for the conservative candidates.  The Party as some separate entity other than us, didn’t do or not do anything.

Huh?

I am not the party, and I did vote conservative.

The Republican Party is an organization, and it is controlled by entrenched political powerbrokers (for whom fundamental philosophical compromise and misdirection is a routine way of life, unlike ourselves), lobbyists, industry consortia and rank and file voters.

The level of lobbying funds which drive the positions that the Republican Party and some of its candidates is staggering.

The best example is last summer’s Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, which came perilously close to passage, notwithstanding broad public outcry.

I felt betrayed by President Bush (I have voted for him and his father 5 times), by McCain and by many Republican Congressmen and Senators, and, like most of us, I was highly upset.

Mercifully, the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill did not become the Kennedy-McCain immigration act.

The Republican Party and way too many of its Congressmen and Senators didn’t care what we thought.

My two Senators and my Congressman voted against it.

Why didn’t the Republican Party, the President and so many Republican Congressmen and Senators not care about how we Republicans felt?

Take a wild guess.

You guessed right, it was money.

And all that money didn’t come from Republican grassroots constituents and party workers who wanted amnesty for 12 - 20 million illegal aliens.

No, it came from the largest lobby of them all, the US Chamber of Commerce.

The Republican Party had to choose between its members and the lobbyists, and it made its choice a lot more quickly (and, I am certain, more easily) than we are presently doing in deciding whether to vote for a candidate whom we find offensive to our values.

The Republican Party has lurched leftward and, in the process, it has left me.

And I am fortunate enough to have 2 conservative Senators, an exceedingly conservative Congressman, and a very Pro 2A Democrat Governor (whom I voted against twice in favor of conservative Republican candidates).

The issue now is the extent to which conservatives will continue to identify themselves with, and vote for, Republican candidates.

I will still vote for Republican candidates who are conservatives.

I fault no conservative who wishes to hold his or her nose, pick the lesser of two evils or whatever metaphor would apply for voting for McCain this year.

I know how they feel.

I have done similarly, hoping that the Republican Party would return to the days of President Reagan.

That never happened, and I am not interested in voting for someone whose beliefs are so antithetical to my own.

We shouldn’t fault each other for voting for or against McCain.

It’s a tough call when you have to decide between 2 or more awful choices.

And frankly, if McCain puts Fred on the ticket with him, I would have to reconsider my decision.

Author ID: 7253 | 2/7/2008 10:30 AM CST | #112145 |

Re: Leiberman as VP, has anyone else noticed that Lindsey Graham (S.C. Republican Senator) is also in the background at most of the photo ops?  (I’m assuming Fred Thompson will not be the VP candidate.)

Just to float another name/strategy, IMHO McSwine may be smart enough to pick Condoleeza Rice.  Woman, Black, better conservative credentials than either Leiberman or Graham.

Still holding my nose and waiting here...............

Author ID: 9002 | 2/7/2008 10:35 AM CST | #112148 |

If they were pimping Guiliani and Romney, their help didn’t help those two.

That was just an example.  I don’t think I got anything from the GOP with Thompson’s name on it.  Even when he was polling high.  McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and even, IIRC Huckabee.  There was definitely a list of candidates the GOP leadership was trying to ignore.

Author ID: 6261 | 2/7/2008 10:42 AM CST | #112149 |

You say the Chamber of Commerce like it is a bad thing.  They represent businesses… that pay our salaries and buy our goods/services.

Businesses are not at fault for wanting cheap labor, even if it is illegal.  Their other option is to offshore the production (if they can).  And they will, if the use of cheap labor is removed from the list of choices.

The end result is that businesses are having to operate on cost alone.  Quality isn’t something anyone cares about anymore (at least not in percentages large enough to matter).

People buy goods made in other places, in essence, circumventing the cost of our labor.  That’s Chinese labor or Indian or South American.

We either import the people to do the work here or we export the production to somewhere else.... Businesses will not remain in business if they can’t keep their prices competitive.

Notice that I didn’t say anything about them not being able to find Americans to do the work.  Certainly they could find Americans who would work for ten times the salaries they’re offering.... but then they’d have to roll that increase into their cost of goods and services, and no one will buy their products at that rate.

Do you look at where the orange was grown before you decide to purchase it?  Do you choose Florida or California oranges, over Chilean and African grown ones?

The truth is, people don’t.  They don’t care where the orange was grown.  They’ll buy the cheapest ones and leave the expensive American ones to rot.

And the cheapest ones will not be picked by legal labor or labor paid the salaries they’d accept to do the job.... they’ll be picked somewhere else and all the tax revenue will go somewhere else too, as well as our food production.

We bitch and moan about being dependent on foreign oil.  Want to know what being dependent on foreign food would do to us?

A lot more would have to be resolved before we can solve this, both from the economic impacts of illegal workers, and the issues with price.

Tariffs would be one way to solve it, but that doesn’t work either.

We want something done, but the majority of people don’t want to make the tough decisions that would be required. 

I’d believe Americans were serious about the realities of the immigration problem if Wal-Mart (as the King in the Chinese import business) was going out of business.  But they aren’t.  Americans want cheap and that means illegal labor or offshore w/American businesses OUT of business.

This is why the Chamber of Commerce wants a Republican who’ll consider a guest worker program… and given their interest and situation, I can’t blame them.

Author ID: 2 | 2/7/2008 10:46 AM CST | #112150 |

Can you visualize how ugly the campaign will be between Hillary and McCain?  Yikes!  Neither of them has the tiniest bit of restraint when it comes to politics, they both are happy to use their traditional base like doormats, and both will do and say anything to win...then claim a mandate.

Author ID: 7986 | 2/7/2008 10:57 AM CST | #112152 |

TS-

I don’t think the US Chamber of Commerce is a bad thing.

Most of my clients are business, and I am a small business co-owner.

Of course they should want Republicans, as opposed to wealth re-distributionists, in power.

But, I don’t respect its lobbying the parties, the Pres. candidates, or Congress to ignore our border security and immigraiton laws.

I am for a liberal immigration policy, but not an illegal one.

And BTW, who did the work before the onset of the last 10 - 12 year spate of our borders hemorhaging illegal aliens?

As I recall, the fruit still got picked and the hotels and buildings still got cleaned.

The issue is legal vs. illegal immigration.

Author ID: 7253 | 2/7/2008 11:00 AM CST | #112154 |

Illegals have been picking our crops for decades… but before that we had manufacturing and production here.  We made TVs and clothing on American soil.

The Chinese (and now Indian) weren’t competitive forces like they are now.  South America wasn’t competing for space in our grocery stores as they are now.

We also didn’t have the EU to compete with, and a global economy with internet and email, making it possible to do business with someone 8000 miles away, with an IP phone system that made customer service available that way.

Technology has made it possible to offshore service labor now and that wasn’t possible even 10 years ago.

What was true 20 years ago (even 10 years ago) isn’t true today.  People used to “buy American.” They didn’t have Wal-Marts in every town, destroying Main Street America, competing with a distribution entity that can bring in the goods from foreign markets the way that Wal-Mart can.  If you aren’t as competitive as someone in some other country, Wal-Mart won’t buy from you, and without Wal-Mart or one of the other mega chains, you can’t sell your products anymore.

The last of the independent store grocers that we knew sold out this year.  He managed to compete for 20 years against the giants.  He bought local and kept his prices competitive by working 18 hours a day.

The little guy cannot compete with the mega giants distribution channels.

It’s over.  That boat has sailed and our fruits and vegetables will no longer be grown here.

Author ID: 2 | 2/7/2008 11:09 AM CST | #112156 |

So what is your point?

Food production is a modest part (that I used for illustration purposes) of the jobs illegal aliens take.

Who did those jobs 10- 15 years ago?

You can’t outsource most of the jobs that I see illegals performing.

But, like I said, I don’t have a problem with a liberal and legal immigration policy.

I don’t like intentionally ignoring our immigration laws and our national borders, the resulting illegal border-crossings, and granting amnesty to law-breakers, all of which is want the US Chamber of Commerce and John McCain want.

I do not side with the John McCain and the US Chamber of Commerce on this issue.

Author ID: 7253 | 2/7/2008 11:53 AM CST | #112162 |

I think I will write in for Lisa Beamer and Zell Miller

Author ID: 8541 | 2/7/2008 11:53 AM CST | #112163 |

Being pretty intimately familiar with the U.S. Chamber’s immigration policy let me just state here for the record that their support of McCain and McCain Kennedy has nothing to do with securing a place for illegal immigrants in the U.S. 

The business sector wants to cooperate and would love to control immigration, but finds two truths to be rather striking:

First, there is no doubt that immigrants provide a source of low income labor.  However, these low income workers simply aren’t taking jobs away from Americans.  If the unemployment rate was higher, I’d say you could make that case (maybe) but right now you just can’t find people to do these jobs - at whatever price.

Second, and this is vital.  There is no way to confirm reliable if someone is an illegal immigrant.  As it stands right now, the system is broken and largely beyond repair.  An employer can check the document all they want, they can log into the INS system and verify the employees legality, but if that system isn’t reliable and your still going to be held liable (and have your image and reputation tarnished within your community for the crime of hiring illegals) what are you left to do?

Its clear that the votes simply don’t exist in Congress to kick everyone out of the country and make them reapply again (whether at the end of the line or not). Nor do the votes exist to simply fix the system by itself.  What the business community faces then (and McCain Kennedy tries to correct IN A MANNER THAT IS POLITICALLY AND PRACTICABLY FEASIBLE) is the perfect storm of not enough employees and no way to hire - without substantial risk - those that do exist and want to work.

Now, I understand that agreeing with Chappy Ted on any issue is anathema for most Conservatives.  But I’d suggest that the slash and burn ideological purity test simply doesn’t work for us when we face too many competing interests within our coalition.  My preferred approach (and one I think is politically feasible - in a vacuum), of course, is to have three separate bills: 

The first closes and seals the border (but of course, how do we do that. As you’ve seen in Texas, we can’t really build a fence right on the border, it needs to be set back a little effectively ceding some land back to the Mexicans and most Texans don’t seem willing to do that)

The second would put in place an orderly system to process those who want to come into the country.

The third would deal with the issue of what to do with those who are here already (and really, is it their fault that they see America as that shinning city on a hill worth giving up their previous life and scraping their way to - we should be flattered).  Thats the big debate, and one I suspect we will never get to the bottom of and which conservatives will never muster the votes to win.

So in light of all that, can you not understand why the U.S. Chamber would support a program that actually addressed the goals of its members??? And is that so bad???

Author ID: 30 | 2/7/2008 12:09 PM CST | #112166 |

Bart,

As far as I’m concerned, the GOA has lost any shred of credibility a long time ago (as if they had any to begin with).  You implore us to look at their meaningless rankings of John McCain?  Then lets do so.

John McCain’s Voting Record On Gun-Related Issues
109th Congress: Lock Up Your Safety
108th Congress: McCain Puts Gun Shows In Peril
107th Congress: Incumbent Protection Muzzles Gun Owners
106th Congress: Anti-gun Amendments Abound

109th Congress: Lock Up Your Safety


Trigger Lock Requirement. On July 28, 2005, the Senate passed legislation requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers’ protection act (S. 397).

So McCain voted, along with a huge majority of the Senate to require gun locks to be included with the sale of guns AS PART OF THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT (which, btw, the U.S. Chamber strongly supported and laid the ground work for its passage).  Note, this didn’t require gun locks to be used, but merely that they were included in the sale (something 90+% of gun manufacturers were already doing).  And remember, it was because of this meaningless compromise Amendment that the Senate was able to pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and defeated a filibuster which would have allowed all those urban city lawsuits to go forward. 

But the highly credible Gun Owners of America can call this an Anti Gun vote if they want.

108th Congress: McCain Puts Gun Shows In Peril

First, these are ALL AMENDMENTS ATTACHED TO THE LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT - which is designed to protect the firearms industry against lawsuits and which was heavily challenged by trial lawyers and Democrats (in addition to gun bigots like those at the GOA).

1. Ammunition Restriction Study. Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Bill Frist (R-TN) offered this amendment to S. 1805. Among other things, the language of this provision would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called “cop killer” ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06. The amendment passed the Senate 85-12 on March 2, 2004.

So, let me get this straight. We are facing significant pressure from Chappy Ted’s 30 Caliber Cap Killer Bullet ban and the Senate defeats that measure by offering up a study on the legitimacy of the “cop killer” bullet issue.  Seriously??  Something offered by Larry Craig - perhaps as pure a Gun Rights Advocate as your going to find anywhere (tapping foot irrelevant) that actually protects our rights by offering the opportunity to embarrass the other side and expose their lies??  Well, whatever.

2. McCain Gun Show Ban. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered a gun show amendment (to S. 1805) on March 2, 2004. His language would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows, unless the buyer agrees to submit to a background registration check. Also, it could effectively eliminate gun shows because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every “person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law].” Thus, if the person responsible for handing out “Brady pamphlets” took a break to go to the bathroom, everyone responsible for the event could be sent to prison. The McCain amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 53-47.


Before I launched into this little rant, this was the one thing I was concerned about.  But I got to tell you, after reading the clearly-over-the-top-designed-to-embarrass-and-misinform-GOA’s description of his gun show amendment, I just don’t find it THAT unreasonable.  So, he doesn’t want to ban private sales.  He just wants private sales at gun shows to go through the NICS (and he will set up a system to take care of that - largely by the promoter). Sure its anuisance, but frankly its a blip on his overwhelmingly pro gun record that is as fair as he could probably be to us and still win enough votes to largely remove the one complaint our opponents get any traction with these days. By their description of his amendment (I haven’t read the amendment in a few years) it sure seems to me that GOA is more concerned that someone is going to take a leak than that the background check is actually going to remove anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. 

Whatever.

3. Feinstein Semi-auto Ban. On March 2, 2004, the Senate voted 52-47 in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). This amendment would extend the ban that was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994—a ban which outlaws certain magazines and more than 180 semi-automatic firearms. Without this legislative extension, the ban would sunset in September 2004. The Feinstein amendment passed as an amendment to S. 1805.

Oh Lordy, you list the Assault Weapons ban here, but guess what MCCAIN ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AND WITH THE 2ND AMENDMENT (which, if you go to the bottom of the page GOA acknowledges - their veracity is striking)

4. Lock Up Your Safety Requirement .This amendment, offered by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) on February 26, 2004, passed the Senate 70-27. This amendment would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit “gun tax” by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms. Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense. The Kohl amendment passed as an amendment to S. 1805.

We already dealt with this fraud of a GOA issue.  Gun Tax?  Please.

GOA Vote Report For Sen. John McCain—107th Congress


1. McCain’s Incumbent Protection. By 59 to 41 (Vote No. 64), the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide so-called “campaign finance reform.” The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
2. Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance). This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill (H.R. 2356). The blatantly unconstitutional legislation squelches the voice of groups like Gun Owners of America in the final days before an election. By making it difficult, if not impossible, for groups to criticize the anti-gun actions of legislators prior to an election, incumbents are able to duck accountability for those actions. The filibuster was broken on a vote of 68-32. A vote against cloture (that is, to continue the filibuster) is rated as a “+”.

Well, this is another potential problem with McCain but two thoughts: 1) Its not a gun related issue (directly) and the bigger problem is with Congress and all politicians on this one.  Blaming McCain for this - in the context of guns - is ludicrous.  Blame the Supreme Court. Blame the Bush. Blame Congress. Blame the American People. But it strikes me as odd to single John McCain out for special blame (and to have a non gun issue count against his pro gun record - but of course is your a credible organization like GOA and you need to stir up the base and drive more donations into Larry Pratt’s wallet).

GOA Vote Report For Sen. John McCain—106th Congress


1. Ending the Smith filibuster. On July 28, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH)—a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. A vote against ending the filibuster is rated as a “+”.
2. Anti-gun juvenile crime bill. The Senate passed the gun control laden juvenile crime bill by a 73-25 vote on May 20, 1999. Besides the several provisions related to punishing juveniles who commit crimes, S. 254 contained several gun control amendments (see vote numbers 115, 116, 118, 122, 133 and 134 for details on these anti-gun provisions). [NOTE: On vote #118, all language pertaining to background registration checks at gun shows was superceded by the Lautenberg amendment in vote number 134.] A vote against S. 254 is rated as a “+”.
3. Banning private sales of firearms at gun shows. After a series of votes on provisions relating to gun shows, this amendment offered by Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey gained the ascendancy. This amendment would ban private sales at gun shows-- sales between two PRIVATE individuals-- unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. (Private firearms sales must be routed through a licensed dealer, and the purchase of more than one handgun by an individual will result in that information being sent to the BATF.) Even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-licensee (if it is displayed with a notice that it is for sale), will result in a two-year prison sentence-- five years for the second violation. This amendment would also impose a series of restrictions and requirements upon gun show promoters. Finally, this provision grants BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. On May 20, 1999, this amendment passed 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie. A vote against this amendment is rated as a “+”.
4. Background registration checks. On May 20, 1999, Republican Senators Gordon Smith (OR) and James Jeffords (VT) offered up more restrictions on the sale of firearms. Their amendment subjects pawn shop and repair shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers. A vote against the amendment, which passed 79-21, is rated as a “+”.
5. Hatch-Kohl. On May 18, 1999, the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Herb Kohl (D). This amendment forces gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold. A vote against the amendment is rated as a “+”.
6. Internet firearms sales. On May 14, 1999, the Senate tabled (or defeated) an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet. The Senate voted to kill the amendment 50-43. A vote to table the amendment is rated a “+”.
7. Hatch-Craig Gun Control. On May 14, 1999, the Senate passed the Hatch-Craig gun control amendment by a 48-47 vote. [NOTE: Many anti-gun Senators voted against this amendment because they favored more stringent gun controls which would later be offered by Sen. Lautenberg.] The Hatch-Craig amendment would impose several 2nd Amendment restrictions. It would ban ANY private sale at a gun show that does not first go through a background registration check. In addition, the Hatch-Craig amendment would assign one U.S. attorney in every district exclusively to harass gun owners. And of the $50,000,000 allocated towards this purpose, a full $40 million of it will go to increasing the presence of the BATF-- not to investigate murders, violent felonies, or crimes of violence, but to pursue “firearms” offenses (most of which will be recordkeeping and other innocuous errors by law-abiding Americans). The Hatch-Craig provision would also impose a lifetime gun ban for juveniles committing youthful indiscretions at a very young age; extend the arcane and confusing juvenile handgun ban to semi-autos; and increase penalties for violating the almost incomprehensible regulations governing the circumstances under which one may legally take one’ssss child hunting or target shooting with a handgun or semi-auto. A vote against the Hatch-Craig amendment is rated as a “+”.
8. Defeating Hatch-Craig Gun Control. On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-UT). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg. [For specifics of the amendment, see vote # 118.] The amendment survived 94-3. A vote to table (or kill) the amendment is rated as a “+”.
9. Defeating a medium-capacity magazine ban. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pushed an amendment through the Senate on May 13, 1999. The provision would ban the importation of any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds-- no matter when the magazine was manufactured. The Senate passed the amendment on a voice vote after Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) put forth a motion to table (or kill) the amendment. His attempt to stop the amendment failed by a vote of 59-39. A vote to support Sen. Smith in tabling (or killing) the amendment is rated as a “+”.
10. Young adult gun ban. This ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parent’sss “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The Senate passed this amendment, which was introduced by Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO), by a 96-2 vote on May 13, 1999. A vote against this provision is rated as a “+”.
11. Stopping the gun show ban. On May 12, 1999, the Senate tabled (defeated) an amendment introduced by anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on a vote of 51-47. The provision would have banned the private sales of firearms at gun shows unless buyers submitted to background registration checks. Draconian restrictions would have also been imposed on gun show promoters. A vote to defeat (table) the Lautenberg amendment is rated as a “+”. Praising Gun Control Moms On May 17, 2000 Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) offered a resolution praising the marchers at the so-called Million Mom March, and calling on Congress to pass the anti-gun juvenile crime bill by Memorial Day. The non-binding resolution narrowly passed 50-49. A vote against the amendment is rated as a “+”.
12. Non-binding Senate instructions. On Thursday, April 6, 2000, the Senate attached a non-binding gun amendment to the budget bill for 2001. The Senate voted 53-47 in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)-- a non-binding provision that asks the House-Senate conferees to get the juvenile anti-gun bill to the floor of each house by April 20. A vote against the amendment is rated as a “+”.
13. Non-binding Senate instructions. On March 1, 2000, Sen. Barbara Boxer failed in her attempt to instruct House-Senate conferees to finish its work on the anti-gun juvenile crime bill. After attacking Gun Owners of America for its refusal to compromise and for opposing firearms restrictions, Boxer saw her non-binding resolution fail on a 49-49 tie. A vote against the Boxer amendment (to S. 1134) is rated as a “+”.
14. Sink the gun makers. On February 2, 2000, Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered an anti-gun amendment to S. 625 in an effort to help the cities bringing frivolous suits against gun makers. Specifically, the Levin amendment prevents gun makers from declaring legitimate bankruptcy, and thus, discharging any enormous judgments that result from frivolous lawsuits. A vote against the amendment, which failed 68-29, is rated as a “+”.

Well, I simply don’t have time to go through all these votes (I do have to work for a living) and you can actually follow the link and read the votes your self. But permit me a couple of thoughts. One, you’ll see that over time he actually worked for drastically reducing the impact of gun show legislation and that he AGAIN VOTED AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.

Ya see, when you actually dig around over at GOA, you quickly discover that they really aren’t anything but a fraud. I often wonder if Larry Pratt is some counter agent for Rosie O’Donnell, his antics, actions, and lies seemingly designed to remove any credibility from the gun community.

Author ID: 30 | 2/7/2008 12:51 PM CST | #112171 |

And BTW, who did the work before the onset of the last 10 - 12 year spate of our borders hemorrhaging illegal aliens?

Illegals.  They’ve been doing that.  Before that time there were youngin’s in the workforce, but the population has flattened.  There aren’t enough high school kids to fill the jobs at McDonald’s anymore. 

As I recall, the fruit still got picked and the hotels and buildings still got cleaned.

By illegals and legal immigrants.  But there weren’t any laws that made it illegal to hire them so they were off the radar.

If the job wasn’t filled by illegals, then they were jobs that were performed by young people, who are not being replaced with enough young people who have moved up in their careers, and out of entry level jobs. 

By 1960 we had doubled our population.  We haven’t doubled it since then.  The gap in vacancies has been filled by illegals.

In 1910 there were 92 million people in the U.S. (>94% were under 65)
In 1960 there were 179 million.  195% more (88% under 65).
In 2010 there will be 309 million.  172% more (75% will be under 65).

The deficit in doubling and aging has come through legal/illegal immigration.  Our aging workforce (sans immigration) isn’t providing enough workers for entry level paying jobs.

Author ID: 2 | 2/7/2008 01:24 PM CST | #112174 |

Countertop: Thanks for your long and compelling analysis. So let’s see, McCain is top notch for fighting the WOT, voted against the AWB, and has voted the NRA line on gun control. The two Dems he’ll run against have pledged to surrender as to the WOT, and can’t wait to restore the AWB, as well as enact a plethora of other gun control measures. And yet many so called gun oriented conservatives want to sit out this election??!!

Author ID: 7827 | 2/7/2008 01:45 PM CST | #112176 |

TSJ

Don’t forget.  Barak Obama - who I see as the likely Democratic Candidate and much more of a threat to McCain’s campaign than Hillary not only wants to restore the AWB, BUT HE ACTUALLY SITS ON THE BOARD OF THE JOYCE FOUNDATION!!!!!!!

See what I mean about the GOA.  Its unreal.  At this point, they and their minions are in effect actively campaign to put the Joyce Foundation in charge of our guns.  Thats even worse than conspiring with Rosie or trying to elect that jerk from the Violence Policy Center

As I said at my blog

Bottom line, the Gun Owners of America (and by implication Larry Pratt) aren’t worth the paper I just used to wipe shit from ass.

Author ID: 30 | 2/7/2008 02:02 PM CST | #112179 |

So in light of all that, can you not understand why the U.S. Chamber would support a program that actually addressed the goals of its members??? And is that so bad???

Yes, CounterTop, it sure is.

I dropped out of the ABA 16 years ago when I realized how anti-Constitution it had become, which is nothing compared to how virulently anti-Constitution it has become since I exited.

I happily forfeit pretty valuable professional benefits (e.g. being a member of the practice areas in my particular fields) as a result of wanting no part of the deplorable organization.

TS-

We have vastly different views about the magnitude of illegal aliens who have crossed our borders over the last 10 - 15 years and whether to vote for a candidate who is in favor of amnesty.

From my perspective, it sure looks like a lot more than it used to be, but maybe I am wrong about those numbers.

As the first line of my first post says, I respectfully dissent.

I mean no offense, quite obviously.

That is my final word on the matter.

Author ID: 7253 | 2/7/2008 02:48 PM CST | #112185 |

Kim;

Come Texas Primary Day, go to the poll, enter the booth, hold your nose, pull a R lever, and go to the range.
You’re gonna HATE it no matter WHOSE lever you pull, but AT LEAST PULL ONE!!
DON’T give the Bitch or the Twitch the satisfaction of chasing you out of the booth! Because if you DON’T vote, primary day and EVERY DAY YOU CAN, then they WIN - whether the person who gets elected is a Democrat, a Republican, a Liberal, a Conservative, a dingaling, a radical, an idiot, or a Luddite - or any OTHER political dritter you can think of!
ALWAYS VOTE - EVERY TIME.
Or DON’T COMPLAIN about the results - don’t DARE!
Because YOUR VOTE might have made the difference.

Author ID: 8889 | 2/7/2008 05:26 PM CST | #112204 |

Let’s have a look at McCain’s VP selection first. He may pick Zell Miller or Newt Gingrich. I know, I know, wet dreamin again but let’s see who it is!

I say that because McCain isn’t a young man, he had the shit kicked out of him in VN, this campaign isn’t doin him any good and, from the looks of her, he’s got some pretty strenuous duty waiting before he rests his head at night.

I’m not wishin for anything but hey, shit happens!

Author ID: 9349 | 2/8/2008 07:53 AM CST | #112265 |

Wait a minute… you actually thought anyone other than obsessive-compulsive anarchists (aka. radical libertarians) and hippies was going to vote for Ron Paul?

And you call us deluded. It is to laugh.

Author ID: 1 | 2/8/2008 11:27 AM CST | #112308 |

Thanks Hardrain. 

Just love it when the loons make my point.

Author ID: 30 | 2/8/2008 11:33 AM CST | #112310 |

My primary is this Tuesday. I’m writing in Romney. I can’t vote for McLame. At least not at this time.  Maybe I’ll change my mind in the general election. It might depend on who he picks as a running mate, or other developments. A lot can happen between now and November.  Just DO NOT stay home in November. We still have congressweasels to vote for, and we need to get more Republicans (hopefully not RiNOs) in office. With a Democrat majority in the House and Senate right now, even a conservative POTUS wouldn’t have a whole lot of power.

Author ID: 1876 | 2/8/2008 07:43 PM CST | #112353 |

Mok

I can certainly understand someone not liking McCain or not wanting to vote for him because they don’t think he is conservative enough (as long as they base this opinion on something other than the dishonest Gun Owners of American).

But for the life of me, I don’t think I’ll ever understand how in the hell you would think Mitt Romney is a suitable protest vote (or even as conservative as McCain - let alone this dillusion the Bushies are pushing that somehow he is MORE conservative)?

Could someone explain what their thinking is in this regard, cause its really one of life’s mysteries that the Republican party would ever find a left wing governor of Taxachusetts’s to be conservative.

Author ID: 30 | 2/8/2008 09:49 PM CST | #112357 |

Lesser Of Two Evils

February 7, 2008
5:00 AM CST

“If you’re having to choose between the lesser of two evils, the point is not how evil the lesser one is—the point is how horribly evil the greater one is.”—Some smart guy.

Over at Rachel’s place, there’s been this fabulous squabble, with Rachel and Bill Whittle basically making the above argument.

And it’s a good one. Seen from 100,000 feet, no matter how bad the eventual Stupid Party nominee is, he’s orders-of-magnitude less bad than either of the Evil Party’s choices.

Here, incidentally, was the reason for my RCOB yesterday, in case no one figured it out. If McCain wins the Stupid Party nomination, we almost have to vote for him, because the Evil Party are so evil.

What got the RCOB going was that after we’ve voted him into power, he’s going to screw us conservatives, over and over and over again, any chance he can get. You want to know how we conservatives see McCain? To paraphrase Larry Correia’s wonderful line about HK:

McCain. Because you suck, and I hate you.

The problem is that, in gunny terms, we’re stuck with voting for McCain, because his opposition is either Sarah Brady or that prick from the Violence Policy Center.

And he’s still going to hate us, even after we help him get elected, because that’s who John McCain is. If you’re not on his personal bandwagon, you’re the enemy, regardless of who you are. And one last thing: if it’s a choice between compromising with Democrats and compromising with conservatives, McCain will always choose the Democrats, because then TIME magazine and the New York Times will say nice things about him.

And for those fools who think that McCain is going to “reach out” to conservatives if/when he becomes the Republican nominee: you haven’t been paying attention to who’s been standing behind him on the campaign trail. McCain’s VP is going to be Joe Lieberman. That way, he can stick it to conservatives, while making nice with Democrat “moderates” and capturing the center—and marginalizing conservatives—all in one go.

That’s the reason for the RCOB. If McCain’s the eventual nominee, I’ll have to vote for him—even though I hate him and he hates me—because otherwise I’ll be handing the election to Hillary Rodham Antichrist, and her loathsome husband, Mr. Antichrist.

By the way, I’ll be holding my nose and pulling the lever for Romney in the Texas primary. Because I don’t think Romney hates me as much as McCain does.

----------------------

Update: Never mind. Romney’s quitting. So come primary day, I’ll just head off to the range.