Has the New York Times started a smear campaign to soften up John McCain for his Democratic opponent, or is there a serious ethical matter that the Times is just now getting around to reporting?
As you know by now, the Times has reported - using mostly anonymous sources, of course - that McCain had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist and perhaps showed favoritism to her client.
The example of the favortism, as described by the AP, is:
In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier.
So McCain asks for speedy review of an application that had been languishing in the federal bureaucracy for two years, does not promote approval of the application, and the Times suggests this is a big scandal?
And surely the Times - “all the news that’s fit to print” - gives its readers the full story, right? Well, not according to the McCain camp:
Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, said McCain’s staff provided the Times with “approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist’s clients and her public relations firm’s clients,” but none of the examples were included in the paper’s story.
I guess there must have been space limitations preventing the Times from telling the entire truth.
Being the balanced bastion of ethical journalism it has proven to be over recent years, we assume we will soon see The Gray Lady print stories on alleged ethical shortcomings of the Democratic candidates. If the intrepid Times reporters are having problems finding them, I invite them to our Open Comments section today, where our readers seem to be more on top of things than the Times reporters (some of whom have been known to make up the news from their apartments rather than waste time doing real reporting).
No doubt other liberal media will keep the McCain story alive as long as possible - lefty shills like Anderson Cooper and the deduled Keith Olberman are already on it. And, truth be told, there will be some smug satisfaction in the “I hate McCain” wing of the Republican Party, particularly among those who would rather see McCain destroyed than to keep a near-socialist Democrat and his dangerous policies out of the White House.
But in the meantime, consider this: An eight year old story, unsourced, with no proof of any wrongdoing, printed by a famously liberal, Democrat-adoring paper (with its own history of scandal and disgrace), attacking the soon-to-be Republican nominee, while omitting relevant details that show the Republican in a favorable light.
There may be more evidence to come, and we will report it here. At this point, however, does this appear to be an example of fair and honest reporting, or has the New York Times become the New York Slimes?
UPDATE:
McCain vigorously denies the Times’ story and said he was unaware of one of his aides meeting with the lobbyist to tell her to stay away from McCain:
“Since it was in The New York Times, I don’t take it at face value.”
One of McCain’s top advisers chimed in:
“It was something that you would see in the National Enquirer, not in The New York Times,” said Steve Schmidt, a former counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney who is now a top campaign adviser to Mr. McCain.
In its “news” article about McCain’s denial, the Times states:
Later in the day, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers leveled harsh criticism at The New York Times in what appeared to be a deliberate campaign strategy to wage a war with the newspaper. Mr. McCain is deeply distrusted by conservatives on a number of issues, not least because of his rapport with the news media, but he could find common ground with them in attacking a newspaper that many conservatives revile as a left-wing publication.
When I was in journalism school over 25 years ago, one of the first things we learned was that analysis and opinion had no place in a news story. Either the rules have changed, or they don’t apply to the New York Times, because that paragraph is chock full of both.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Old Yiddish probverb - A half truth is a whole lie.
Rather than those of the “I hate conservatives and America” wing of the republican party who would rather see America and the GOP destroyed and have a RINO who has been the biggest obstacle to conservative reforms as president, than anyone who doesn’t have an (R) after his name.
Tool.
Well now here’s a news flash - the New York Times has a liberal slant and disses Republican candidates. File that right in there alongside mean dog stories and you can pull it out and use it any time things are slow. Who cares what the NYT says about anything, except of course John McCain, who rode their coattails all the way to the nomination only to be surprised that they would turn on him. What a doofus if he didn’t know that was coming.
4. Swiftboat Chapter Two
Simple
So, Wino, like Big45 says, do you lop off your manhood because you have ED? Do you dump out a half-empty canteen because it isn’t full enough for you?
Listen, folks, I’d like a conservative candidate to run, too, but frankly, this is nuts. Would you have voted for Romney?
wino,
Here’s the deal - like it or not, John McCain is gonna be the GOP nominee. Is it fair? Probably not, life isn’t always fair. Were there better choices? Absolutely, but not any more. Is John McCain a liberal? Only an idiot would make that claim. He isn’t nearly as conservative as most of us would like, but he’s not a liberal.
So, now we have a choice - we can either support the GOP candidate - and I mean really support, with time effort and money; or we can watch the white house be occupied by someone who really IS liberal, who doesn’t have a clue about national defense, who isn’t pro life and is in fact a socialist. The mind boggles at the damage Clinton or Obama could do with a Democrat congress to the court system and our national infrastructure.
You may not like that choice, you can froth at the mouth, jump up and down and hold your breath until you turn purple, but after you finish you temper tantrum, make you decision about who you’re going to support, and be prepared to live with the consequences.
I’ll take my chances with a president who can, in theory, be “beaten into submission” by irate conservatives than a straight-up socialist like Obama, who, by the way speaks out of both sides of his mouth with the best of them…
#5 and #6
I’ve made my views and reasons quite clear. Click on my name and read some of my “election 2008″ posts.
No, I won’t be supporting McCain. He’s a crook, a slimeball, and the root cause of most of what is wrong with the GOP.
I’m tired of being treated like a doormat. We survived 4 years of Carter, 8 years of Clinton, and will make it through 4 or 8 years of BO or Hillary, as well.
When the GOP starts acting conservative again, come see me. Just quit trying to get my vote EVERY TIME by telling me about SCOTUS justices (blocked by McCain and his gang of 14), how bad the other side will be financially (gov’t spending went up with a GOP House, Senate, and Executive), or how corrupt the other side is (McCain was the only republican in the Keating 5).
Nope. You’ve played that song too many times for me not to recognize the tune.
When will you wake up and smell the coffee? Voting for a party hack with an R doesn’t get you anything different than voting for a party hack with a D.
But wait…according to “real conservatives” McCain was the “Mainstream media-anointed” candidate? How can this be?
#8 - I disagree. How fast do you want your vehicle on the road to hell to go? Sometimes you gotta take what you can get. Staunch the bleeding, so to speak. Believe it or not, the argument that there’s “no difference” between a McCain and an Obama is specious.
I’m not ready to let things completely fall apart and start over, like so many seem to be.
Does that make me a “tool”? I think not.
And I have no intention of voting McCain in the primary.
#9 hamous
Are you directing that at me? I don’t listen to “real conservatives” except one: ME. I draw my own conclusions, and decided against Weasel McCain in 1996 when he ran against Dole.
I won’t lower myself to voting for him, now, in November, or ever.
He’s worse for the GOP and the US than anyone else in the race.
You actually think that McCain is WORSE for the US than an HRC or Obama?
Wow.
#8 - I thought I was reading my post. Too many time the “lesser of two evils” argument has been made. If I vote for him and he wins, he’ll stand up and claim a mandate for his positions on everything which is false. No mas. And his wife’s a drug addict, and for those of you who don’t know about those things, he’s just a sick as she is for putting up with her (and all that money she has).
#10 jimb
I said that voting for a party hack from either side gets you the same results. Please, if you’re going to paraphrase or surmise what I say, use blockquotes or similar. Unless I’m free to put words in your mouth as well.
McCain won’t close the border. McCain won’t support the tax cuts. McCain won’t slow federal growth or spending.
With Obama or Hillary, the Dem Congress will be the biggest opponent. They’ll “work together” to get things started, but then they’ll become each other’s greatest enemies… fighting dirty to keep more power than the other… like they always do.
Or do you think that Bush and McCain’s expansions of federal government was a democratic trick?
Following the party line without independent thought is what makes you a tool.
Yes, I do. Rewarding him for undermining the GOP at every turn is worse for the GOP than anything else I can imagine. All politicians will then see that you can undermine the party platform and profit by it. Do you think there are many who won’t then continue or at least attempt to do the same, for their own benefit?
And the US in general will continue down its path for much longer with a GOP president and democrat Congress… they’ll have each other to blame.
A dem president and Congress shows where the blame lies… and will get action. I see 1994 all over again.
Hopefully, the GOP will have learned their lesson.
I remember most of these same arguments when Perry was running for Governor, and I was against him for much the same reason I’m against McCain; he’s a RINO.
And look how many people see the truth in that position now. Amazing that so many otherwise intelligent people cannot learn from the past.
8. Wino
Of course you can do anything you want with your vote. But you say things that are not supported factually.
McCain and Graham did not stop Bush’s SCOTUS appointments (maybe you missed the confirmations of Roberts and Alito).
As far as the Keating 5 case, please cite to sources showing what McCain was convicted of. In fact, please cite to sources showing that McCain was indicted or otherwise charged. Can you?
Continuing efforts by people to smear him by throwing around that term is like what the Times is doing.
God Bless ya wino.
When a parent sets no boundaries their children turn into monsters.
16.
Well, you can’t reason with someone who says with a straight face that McCain would be worse than HillObama. Wait, that would be a Democrat.
By the way Wino, do you think the NY Times’ treatment of this issue appears fair?
#17 RickG
Tool. I’ve said it before, and you prove it with your comment.
Quit “Clintoning” the facts. You sound like a Gambino Family stalwart saying, “Arrested 17 times, but never convicted” like that makes one innocent.
No. McCain was up to his ass in the Keating scandal, and anyone who was alive and reading about it when it happened knows it. Go read about it on Wiki, or do your own research. “Never indicted…” Yeah… A politician who never gets indicted must be innocent.
Roberts and Alito got appointed IN SPITE of McCain’s “reaching across the aisle.” I wanted the nuclear option to be implemented, to show the Dems that the GOP wasn’t afraid to wield its power the way they did. We didn’t get it, because of McCain, and a result of that was an emboldening of the Dems in their undermining of any conservative GOP initiative.
Tools like you are just going to allow them to keep going the way they have been.
Can’t anyone see the indirect consequences of McCain’s machinations? C’mon, folks… Let’s try a little independent thought once in a while.
Unless you enjoy being used like the tool you are.
Let’s think long game here. Four years of JC led to 8 years of Reagan. While all the damage of the JC years was not undone, I think most (at least here on this blog) would agree that we are better off today because of Reagan policies. If the country turns so far left as to elect McCain, it will probably continue to track that way for some time. However, if Mumbojumbo is elected and makes a sharp left turn, you can bet it will be ready to take a sharp right turn in 4 years.
#20 RickG
The NYT is the propaganda arm of the democratic party. I expected no less, and Rush Limbaugh even predicted this would happen when they endorsed McCain.
This hit piece was as inevitable as the Sun coming up in the morning.
Maybe moreso.
21. Wino0p
So you admit that McCain was not convicted, and wasn’t even charged. In fact, you also know that the ethics committee’s independent counsel recommended McCain even be dropped from the Senate ethics investigation because of lack of any proof of wrongdoing, don’t you? Instead, the committee said he used “poor judgment” and that was it.
It is nice to know there are people like you who know more than the folks who investigated and prosecuted the case.
Of course, by throwing in the Clintons and the mob, you prove my point that your purpose is to smear McCain by implying things that aren’t true.
Shame, shame Wino.
22. Rastus
Like with Bill Clinton?
Those of you who disagree with me, and want to vote for McCain, please answer one question:
When the GOP had both the House and Senate, and the Presidency, which of the three was most responsible for us not getting a conservative agenda passed?
Assuming you answered that the way I believe you did, then I have a follow-up:
What one person was most responsible for that unit not getting their side to play along?
Then come tell me again that I should support McCain because… I forget why. Oh, yeah. “Don’t vote for him. Vote against the other guy.”
Not much to say FOR him, that I’ve heard.
26. Wino
Not many of us “want” to vote for McCain. But given the alternatives, we’re not willing to send the country to hell in a handbasket by turning it over to the Dems (who will also have control of both houses of congress).
I don’t think McCain can be single-handedly blamed for the falure of whatever (unspecified) conservative agenda you are referring to. After all, the Bush tax cuts passed, Bush got everything he wanted in Iraq, his conservative Supreme Court and inferior court appointments got done, has prevailed on almost all of his Homeland Security agenda (whether one likes all of it or not). If there is someone to blame for not pushing other items of the conservative agenda, I would put Bush higher on that list than McCain.
By the way, I was unnecessarily snarky in earlier comments in response to yours, for which I apologize. But it seems you will go to almost any length to savage McCain, including accusing him of serious wrondoing for which he was never charged, let alone convicted.
#24 Toolman
I admitted no such thing. I made the analogy that not being convicted when all the evidence is to the contrary is akin to a mobster’s braggadocio when he gets away with crime after crime.
I find it funny that the Keating Scandal, where NO ONE was convicted or indicted (and amazingly, no one was convicted in the Clinton impeachment, either… same argument applies, I guess) - I find it funny that it was the impetus that got Campaign Finance reform to pass, which blocks the “everyman” from having a chance in an election.
You can do better.
#27 RickG
Just as you will fall on your sword to stand up for another RINO, because “the other guy is worse.”
I’m tired of playing that game. It’s like Tic-Tac-Toe. You never can win, so why keep playing?
28. Wino
You can do better than throw around moldy allegations about things you can’t prove. No matter how many times you say it, you can’t point to any criminal charges against McCain having anything to do with Keating. I know it eats you up, but in America, whispering campaigns and sleazy innuendo are no substitute for proof.
29., Wino
Well, it’s been my humble experience that sometimes life is all about keeping the worse from happening.
I don’t get everything I want. So I try to make the best of what I’ve got.
what if….the NYT story has legs forcing McClain to withdraw? Does Huck “win”?….will the dem super delegates then pick our candidate?…..will repubs pick a JCWatts/Condi ticket to counter Obamma/Edwards how does algore fit in all this?!?!……hahaha
32.
And would Mitt Romney then “unsuspend” his campaign?
I for one would much prefer to see that dagger coming straight toward me than to have is slipped in me from the back. I know what those two dims are selling - I can’t trust anything McCain is selling.
RickG,
Here… read this piece from Mark Levin (Landmark Legal Foundation), as published in NRO:
Keating Report on McCain
You sound just like the Clinton apologists, “It’s only about sex,” but your refrain is, “He wasn’t indicted or convicted.”
And it rings just as hollow.
Wino;
Then come tell me again that I should support McCain because… I forget why. Oh, yeah. “Don’t vote for him. Vote against the other guy.”
Yep, that’s exactly what I’m telling you politics is often about choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Don’t like it? Try another system.
BTW - if I’m a “tool” for the GOP - that makes you a “tool” for the Dems. I’m sure Hillary loves you, she’ll probably give you a kiss.
28. Wino
Oh, and by the way, I agree with you on McCain Feingold and on the amnesty bill. As do the vast majority of those here who are sucking it up to vote for McCain.
Clinton was far different from McCain. First he was impeached (charged) by the House, though acquitted by the Senate. Second he was suspended from the Arkansas bar for five years and fined $25,000. Third, he was suspended by the United States Supreme Court and subsequently resigned rather than be disbarred by that body. So your comparison does not hold water.
#31 RickG
Maybe you should take a longer view. Maybe losing this race will mean better, later.
That’s why I’m not supporting McCain (R is for “reptile” - Arizona). I think that supporting him in spite of his record is worse than an Obama presidency.
35.
Levin is a long-time McCain hater. The story is nothing new - ie, no charges, no conviction.
By the way, how much of our American justice system do you actually approve of? Obviously, you don’t like the “innocent until proven guilty” principle - at least when it comes to McCain.
if women were as picky as some conservatives they wouldn’t ever get married….maybe become an old maid or femenist….as my wife says sometimes you gotta settle.
38.
Well, we’re spinning our wheels, but I will leave you with this thought of my own. Obama has been judged the most liberal member of the Senate - further left than Hillary Clinton. I can’t stand aside and let THAT happen without a fight.
#36 fat albert
You don’t want to get me started. Moderate your tone, or I’ll give you more than you bargained for. I don’t respond well to snarky comments.
To answer your question, “Yes, it makes you a tool.”
“The lesser of two evils” is still evil. Short-sighted and refusing to learn from history, you’ll not end up with the results you think you’ll be getting.
42. Wino
Does that mean we didn’t learn from electing Jimmy Carter because Ford was the GOP and not Reagan? You remember Jimmuh - record interest rates, record inflation, lines at the gas pump.
You may be willing to settle for a four or eight year repeat of that, but others of us aren’t. But, hey, that’s America.
#43 RickG
And Carter gave us 8 years of Reagan. Just as Clinton gave us a GOP Congress.
Sometimes a short-term loss leads to bigger long-term gains.
#43 RickG
And thanks for making my point for me. It’s nice to see that you’re beginning to come around to my side.
After the November elections, the Mc Cain vote or not vote my be moot. That is if the DemocRATic Tidal wave flattens the Repukelicans less than enthusiastic turn out. It will take down a bunch of House/Senate Pub’s also. Then we’ll get to see if Wino is right. I thought long and hard about NOT voting, but I can’t bring myself to toss out two or three Judges. I could be wrong, buy I agree with Wino for the most part. Maybe the US needs a good enema.
My #46 The real Conservatives will stay home in droves.
#12 Wino - No, that wasn’t directed at you.
McCain = Dole, the sequal.
Jumping in here and calling people a “tool” is not snarky?
If conservatives stay home in November, the rest of us should have an automatic reserved right to backhand them across the mouth if they dare to complain about any Supreme Court decisions for the next 30 years.
I defined what “tool” means. See my #15:
#51 Big45Iron
OK, then those of you who support McCain get a smack from us real conservatives everytime an illegal immigrant kills, maims, robs, or rapes someone on US soil.
Deal?
come on Big, we have a right to vote, just like a right to free speech and to arm bears. That right means we get to choose for ourselves whether we will exercise it or not. Does it irk me that people are contemplating staying home or skipping the box on an important issue? Heck yeah, but it is their right to choose not to vote.
Wino, I understand your point, but if the Democrats win with a 2 to 1 majority in November, how do you think the Republican party is going to respond?
#54 duhmoose
Maybe they’ll start supporting their roots, rather than working against us?
Voting them IN to office didn’t get them going our way… quite the opposite. They did it right in 1994, and then went 12 years turning around.
Bigs
#51
Take your best shot at me now cause I may yet set out the top box. And no that does not mean I am voting for Hillobama it is just one less vote that McCainiac does not get.
It is the Republican candidates responsibility to get me to vote for them. It is not my responibility to just automatically jump in line and vote for them. It was not me that set this scenario, the elected Republicans did through their past actions.
YOUR job is to explain it to them because I am just not seein them reaching out to “conservatives”. In fact all I am seeing is folks that share your emotion of back handing me. OK that will convince me to harden my stance even more. Wino and I have made our case.
Oh and watch me biotch no matter what. There is nothing in the Constituion that says I give up my first amendment right of redress just because I refuse to validate a candidate with my vote.
Let me remind you that from 2000 to 2006 the Republicans had the majority in the House, Senate and the presidency tuh boot. Not to mention basically the same scenario on the state level. Yep I am unhappy and it is “their” responsibility to approach me. We have already given them a good faith shot.
Golly I am told all the time we need to hold our candidates feet to the fire. Well guess what
it is judgment day.
I voted today for HUNTER in (R) Primary–too many down ballot votes to vote HRC–PLUS up here they stamp your voter card as voting in the Primary (Rep or Dem) don’t know tha it makes a difference anywhere along the line.
Wino, doesn’t even begin to be a fair comparison. You are limited to two choices in November. That is the result of the choice by citizens expressing their wishes at the polls. You know darned well I supported Duncan Hunter. He didn’t make it. He chose to drop from the race because he knew he couldn’t make it.
We do not know for sure what kind of SCOTUS nominees we will get from McCain. We sure DO KNOW what we will get from either Hillary or Obama, and since they likely will have a Dem congress again, their appointments would be defacto.
We have to deal in the real world. What could have been is a moot point now. Do you concur?
I fear there is no amount of betrayal that will change some minds. I am just happy to see others share my view point.
In my delusional mind I see McCain as phase two of the destruction of the conservative movement and this Republic.
I am on my way to get more meds.
What luck for rulers that men hyperthink.
Squawk, so you continue to say if you get ED you’ll wack it off because it will only do half the things you want it to do? Makes as much sense as not voting.
I’m not limited to two choices in November.
I can vote Republican, Democrat, Green, Socialist (admitted socialists, anyway), Communist… the list is nearly endless.
Also, I can skip that section altogether. The GOP worked against their base, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Talk to them about winning my vote.
Don’t talk to me about supporting someone who actively worked against my interests. Ron Paul looks like a better choice than McCain, to me.
And, no, I’m not voting for him, either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html
Is there a conflict?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
Squawk, before you render Judgment Day, make sure you have a better candidate so you don’t have to cut your nose to spite your face. Just keep in mind the results you’ll get. For the next 2-4 years I want to hear you saying 24/7 “This is what I asked for”.
#63 JBB
I can’t get to the articles, because I don’t sign in for news. I am assuming it is their endorsement followed by their hit piece.
Everyone knew this was going to happen when they endorsed McCain. The NYT endorsing someone in the GOP is like when I “help” other people when playing Risk. Sure, I show them how it helps them, but I never point out that my interests are even more greatly served. Winning is everything, and “helping” your opponent is wise, when he is going your way.
Just don’t help him too much - like Hillary did with Obama.
#64 Big45Iron
Like you’ve been doing with Perry? So, it worked so well for governor, we should do it again for president?
What’s the definition of insanity, again?
21: Wino:
.
Damn good thing too–I was all for it until the DEMS won out the Senate last year–had the Nuke option been implemented–the seante would have succeded in non-funding the war; as well as about another 10 bills they wanted to push through including McCain/Kennedy/Bush
Guv Perry is an excellent point…can you imagine Guv Chris Bell?!?!?!…..oops.
#67 KB
Unless, of course, by running the country in a conservative way, the GOP could’ve prevented their 2006 shellacking.
But, we’ll never know, because McCain prevented any kind of conservative agenda from going forward.
begin sarcasm
Let’s punish McCain by voting him to higher office!
end sarcasm
Here Bigs
After you are done berating me, this is gaurenteed keep you busy.
Everyone knows where I stand, but for Wino (whom I haven’t seen in here before) I’m with Big, RickG, hamous and Duke–I’ll vote to stop the dems from getting the presidency–Becasue, in just 2 years with the Pres., Senate & congress they can change this country so far left that we’ll never get it back–we won’t survive 4 or 8 years–it’ll only take the first 2–they might even pull the Nuke trigger Option!
In 2 years they can and will replace at least 2 SCOTUS Justices–maybe 4 if the sitting justices are will–but they’ll definately get 2 (those can’t be changed for 30-40 years (that right there is enough for me to vote for McCain–I know damn good and well he’ll appoint Strict Constructionist jusdges)
They’ll roll back the Tax Cuts, increase the SS cutoff, re-instate and increase the Death Taxa dn any other tax they can think of
They’ll cut-n-run from Iraq
They will give amnesty to the illegals and leave the borders open
They’ll institute Nat’l health care
That’s what they can accomplish in just two years–I contend we can’t survive those two years of changes.
What more do I have to say?
Here’s a blockquote fer ya, Wino:
And assuming that I follow the party line without independent thought is what makes YOU a tool.
You are being supremely arrogant.
Squawk
Democrats ran the Senate in 2000 - 2001 when jumpin jim left and Coverdale died
And another blockquote:
I didn’t ask if it was good for the GOP, I asked if HRC or Obama was better for the US than McCain.
Also without 60 senate votes nothing gets done - nothing
(that right there is enough for me to vote for McCain–I know damn good and well he’ll appoint Strict Constructionist jusdges)
That crystal ball is working again?
McCain has teamed up with the liberal left wing of the democrat party. If he is elected he will claim to have a mandate.
#71 KB
That’s because you’re a Johnny-come-lately.
Same argument I heard about voting for Bush AND Perry (which didn’t make much sense to me, then, either). When we tried, we got “McCain’ed” and had our first few choices skewered.
The ones that McCain didn’t support?
Squawk - I think that you can make your point known to the Republican party by voting for the candidate of your choice, even if you write him/her in, on the primary ballot. That sends a message. However, I agree with others that we have to vote for the Republican nominee come November, because the Republican nominee will not be as liberal as the Democratic nominee. If for nothing than the Supremes and/or Abortion. By not voting, you are essentially giving a vote to the other party. If you vote Republican it takes the Democrats 2 votes to counteract that. Please reconsider what your actions in November will mean. I would rather have to contact my congressman fewer times to counteract anything that McCain wants to do than to be calling them 24/7 to counteract all the damage that Hillary/Obama want to do.
I left off War on Terror and Socialized Health Care off my list of things for which McCain is still on our side. That is four reasons to vote the Republican ticket in November.
DJ–Mandate–you and others say that and I say it’s BS–there’s going to be a Party Platform built (I keep bringing this up and nobody responds–I need the name from somewhere of the TX Delegate Chairman/Manager) at the Convention–HE WILL HAVE TO ABIDE that Platform–If our delegates and other COnservatives get enough push our more prominent desires and believes will be included–there will only be a mandate by the Platform, since there is no incumbent.
Okay, Time for my interview–BBL to continue.
Can we all reflect on what a good friend John McCain was to the MSM…… and how the NYT endorsed him as their candidate? If one good thing comes from this, maybe McCain will finally understand the MSM are not his friends. ( doubtful)…. I’m with Wino and Squawk………. let everybody have 4 years of the liberals. We will survive or they will try to destroy this country so much, we take up arms. I’m not supporting McCain.
#72 jimb
You’ve seen me post before, so I must ask:
What do you mean “…being?”
No matter what, “evil” will occur in the November election. That’s the reality. Here’s another reality: When the Dems win in a big way in November (which they’re very likely to do) the Republicans will NOT remember that they abandoned many conservatives and move back to the right.
They will see who voted, and who/what they voted for, and they will invariably move to the left.
So, Wino, there’s no good way out of this, no matter how you vote, and you are misguided if you think that you’re going to teach Republicans a lesson. The only think you’ll succeed in teaching them is that they should move further to the left. Calling people a “tool”, which, by the way has a far more negative connotation than your definition, is not going to win friends and influence people either.
So AW are you willing to have this country reduced to ruin or civil war in order to make a point?
Kent, wino is an old-timer that periodically goes on a sabbatical. He is “supremely arrogant”. Just ask him, he’ll tell you. But he’s a nice guy.
Voting for McCain does not make me a “tool”. I’ve given this about 10 months of serious thought. I did the same thing with Perry in 2006 and ended up skipping the box. I won’t be skipping the box this time. It has nothing to do with Republicans wanting me to toe the line and everything to do with Obama and Clinton.
wino
You say that we survive 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Clinton and we will survive which ever liberal socialist wins the democrat nomination.
Will We? What did Carter do that we can never fix? The panama canal is still given away, etc. What did Clinton do that we can never fix? Our missil technology is still in the habds of the Communist Chineese. How many Ultra Left Supreme Court Justices are we still dealing with? How many non constitutional decisions have been made that we now have to live with?
So I must ask, what is the price we will pay if Hillary or Obama is President for 4 to 8 years?
Dang, skippy.
#83 - You have a point…
#84 jimb
I don’t care if people like me. I’m waiting for them to see that voting for McCain will not get them the results they portend, you included.
If the republicans go any more left, then there will be either more conservative types running against them or there will be a third party. In either case, the conservatives come out stronger by not supporting McCain, a non-conservative on most important issues: immigration, global warming (carbon tax; ie, more taxes), tax cuts, federal spending, and a plethora of other items.
“Keep voting for the non-conservative, and we’ll get more conservatives” is what you’re telling me. I’ve tried it that way. It doesn’t work.
So, now I’m trying it a different way, which MIGHT work. Your way will continue not working.
Another entitlement program (”Universal health care”) that dwarfs all current ones and that we will never get rid of.
Yes, DC girl, I am willing to see what happens this next four years. I lived through Carter……. Clinton, LBJ, etc. Like I said, if they try to destroy this country, the country will take up arms. That would be both D’s and R’s fighting together. We have a house and senate. The R’s always do better as the underdogs….. they can get very crafty then. I’m not voting for a guy who has called me names, turned his back on my vote, and sucked up to the democrats to defeat conservative principles.
The point is moot. B.O. 48 states, McCain 2. I hate it, but that’s the future. We’re all dead no matter why the NY Slimes did it.
We’re all dead because the Senate is going to be 70-30, and the House will be more than 2/3rds socialist.
Buy guns.
#91 hamous
Like, oh, prescription drug coverage for seniors? Yeah, those Democrat presidents do terrible things.
#87 trl3, don’t forget the Department of Education, it didn’t exist before Carter, now it can never be destroyed. It’ll just continue to suck money out of the budget and destroy schools.
dcgirl
Kentbook
etal
I will refer you back to my previous statements over the last 3 or 4 years which I will enumerate here
1. It is the Republican candidates responsibility to get me to vote for them.
2. It is not my responibility to just automatically jump in line and vote for them.
3. YOUR job is to explain it to them that they are missing a huge block of voters
4. I do not react well to be told I loose my rights if I do not vote
5. I do not act on fear of the other guy
and finally if Hillobama wins by one vote feel free to blame me.
If I say I am voting third party, you ain’t happy, if I skip the vote you aint happy, if I skip the box you ain’t happy, I tell you of my concerns you ain’t happy. So I don’t worry cause my happiness is not based of gubment. There are millions just like me, so as I have said time and again, beating up on me is not going to accomplish diddly squat. So maybe y’all collectively oughta get together and contact the McCain camp and read them the riot act.
Wino,
The answer to your question posed in post #26 is the Senate. The person responsible in the Senate was Trent Lott and Bill Frist. They held all the cards and should have called the Democrats on their filibuster threats. They should have responded harshly to the idiotic ramblings of Daschle and Reid and et. al.
The problem is that the Republicans play “nice” and act like adults while the Dems are allowed to commit murder and behave childishly.
While it may desirable to think that and Obama or Clinton victory will bring about a tide of conservatism; the reality is that the damage they cause during a four or even eight year presidency could be permanent. As Judge Bork put it we are slouching towards Gormorrah. The question is do you want it to happen in the near future or further down the road? Elect Obama or Clinton and we get there quicker. Elect McCain and we can retard that slide.
I have been a conservative for a long time and I want a return to the days of Reagan as well. But not at the expense of another season of Carter or Clinton. I realize that if I want conservatives elected and conservative policies then I must be participating part at all levels. Yet I must realize that I am not going to get everything I want all the time, or even most of the time. Thus I have to work on it while staying engaged and keeping those who are liberal out of office. While McCain may not be perfect he is head and shoulders above the rest of the field.
But to say well if I do not get MY way then I am going home is childish. For far to long those who claim to be conservative have been making threats like this. Then fine! Go Home. Get out of the way and DO NOT COME BACK!
I am sick and tired of those who claim to be “Conservative” cry when they do not get their way and then shout RINO! Then they go rampaging blasting everyone and everything doing more damage than good. We have worked hard to build up the party and have made great strides since Reagan took office. There will be ups and downs with the candidates we choose. even then we have made some gains. But now to abandon those gains instead of continuing to get what we can is stupid. If you stay home in November, Fine, your choice.
Just don’t come back expecting to be welcomed with open arms.
Wino, your way won’t work either. I suspect it will actually backfire on us.
Bottom line? There are going to be 2 people in November with a shot at winning. My selection won’t be either one of them.
So all I have is the lesser of evils, no matter how I slice it. I can choose:
a) inaction, which is passively allowing evil to enter the White House in the form of a Liberal Democrat Socialist.
b) Vote for the best available candidate who has a shot at winning, even though they’re not that great, or
c) vote 3rd party, which is in many respects similar to a) except that it makes me feel better on a philosophical while I’m being bent over by a Liberal Democrat Socialist.
Those are the options as I see them. Philosphical purity is great, but I ain’t going to get it this time around, so I have to take what is available.
And that’s not a defeatist attitude, that’s reality. What it boils down to is that you can’t always get what you want, and all you’re left with is to suck it up and do damage control.
And I’m not willing to employ the “speed the trip to hell so people can pick up the pieces and start over” gambit…
Hamous one thing I have learned in my 58 years of life is never say never. If we don’t make a stand for what we believe in today….. tomarrow is not going to change. All plans each lib promises have to be funded…….. if they go after big companies…. the economy will spiral…. our of work folks get angry. If taxes rise much more……… voters will get very very angry. Angry people don’t rehire their politicians.
Wino, by the way: Do you really think that once universal health care is in place, that we’ll ever get rid of it, no matter how many elections conservatives win in the future?
I would think that is a bit naive.
So fear drives the conservative republican vote. I’m going to be fearless.
99 - How is passive-agressive behavior like taking your ball and going home when there’s not a “sufficiently conservative” candidate taking a stand?
#97 TT
LOL!!
So, since the GOP has gone way to the left since Reagan (Perry, Dewhurst, Craddick on the State Level - not to mention most of the Texas Senate; Bush, McCain, Lott, et al, on the national front), it’s my fault that I’m not still with them?
I’m not staying home in November. I’m just not voting for McCain. And if the GOP keeps going the way it has been, ever since Bush I broke his “no new taxes” pledge, then don’t expect me to “come back.”
But you’re welcome to join ME in the new third party that will take hold when there are more liberals in the GOP than in the Democrat party.
101 - not fear. Reality. Reality states that McCain is the guy who will be running and that he’s the only quasi-conservative who has a chance at winning.
It isn’t fear, it is pragmatism.
I agree with Wino once again. We will vote. We will vote our convictions. The very last time I held my nose and voted was for Rick Perry. NO mas.
103 - A viable 3rd party followed by the death of the GOP is fine with me…