For true conservatives disenchanted with the GOP

[JS80]

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, I've read the article, and yes, I at one time believed the same things about Obama: although I disgreed with him on the issues, I thought he was an intelligent, pragmatic man who could maybe bring some common sense back to Washington.

Then, as I learned more about Obama the more I realized he was yet another bead in a long chain of well-packaged but totally contrived politicians--his words sound great, but they ring hollow.

I have long disliked John McCain for many of his policy stands, but I have no doubts that he actually believes what he says and is more likely to be able to accomplish it than Obama.

The only premise of a true conservative accepting an Obama presidency is if you believe the "it took 4 years of Jimmy Carter to bring us Ronald Reagan" philsophy.

Yup, I call that a suicide voter yelling Reagan Akbar. I was a suicide voter when McCain beat out Romney. Then came to undecided, now leaning towards voting for McCain with the Palin pick.

But a conservative picking Obama because he believes he's a "pragmatist" and because he won't "taunt Russia" is a total :roll: for me.

 

[Moonbeam]

The brain dead aren't going to change their opinion even if their own dead brain tells them to.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: quest55720
That was a waste of my time. I don't like the direction of either party both are to far away from center. McCain is a hell of a lot closer to the center than rubber stamp obama. If elected Obama would just be a yes man to Pelosi and the crazy leftists of the democratic party. No matter how crazy and shitty the bills Pelosi gets passed Obama will rubber stamp them over and over. A vote for Obama is really a vote for Pelosi to run this country. Obama does not have the stones to ever stand up to his own party.

speculation and guilt by association.

Pelosi's approval numbers are horrible as is congress (and deservedly so) but you can't spend all day tying Pelosi to Obama and make a rational argument to not vote for Obama.

Obama got the nod from the dem side, not Pelosi.

When has Obama stood up to Pelosi and called her out? He had yet another chance this week with the bullshit Pelosi energy bill. Obama had a chance to call the bill for what it is and introduce his own. Instead he is endorsing her bill with his silence on the issue. Peliso will have a super majority and will be able to pass almost anything. The only thing standing in the way is a president that will veto some of her bullshit.

You will never have a potential Pres candiate "call out" congressional leaders, especially if they are on the same side of the isle. Sorry but thats the way it is.

The rest is again speculation and fear mongering. I am not saying you can't vote on that basis alone, but I am saying there are better ways to judge a candidate.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: quest55720
That was a waste of my time. I don't like the direction of either party both are to far away from center. McCain is a hell of a lot closer to the center than rubber stamp obama. If elected Obama would just be a yes man to Pelosi and the crazy leftists of the democratic party. No matter how crazy and shitty the bills Pelosi gets passed Obama will rubber stamp them over and over. A vote for Obama is really a vote for Pelosi to run this country. Obama does not have the stones to ever stand up to his own party.

speculation and guilt by association.

Pelosi's approval numbers are horrible as is congress (and deservedly so) but you can't spend all day tying Pelosi to Obama and make a rational argument to not vote for Obama.

Obama got the nod from the dem side, not Pelosi.

When has Obama stood up to Pelosi and called her out? He had yet another chance this week with the bullshit Pelosi energy bill. Obama had a chance to call the bill for what it is and introduce his own. Instead he is endorsing her bill with his silence on the issue. Peliso will have a super majority and will be able to pass almost anything. The only thing standing in the way is a president that will veto some of her bullshit.

You will never have a potential Pres candiate "call out" congressional leaders, especially if they are on the same side of the isle. Sorry but thats the way it is.

The rest is again speculation and fear mongering. I am not saying you can't vote on that basis alone, but I am saying there are better ways to judge a candidate.

McCain called out his entire party during his acceptance speech. McCain has taken on his party many times in the past.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

Another pathetic attempt to criticize and marginalize a TRUE conservative as a "fake" conservative because he sees the damage that another republican president will bring. He doesn't "embrace" obama, but he certainly finds him the lesser evil of the two choices. He sees that McCain wants to continue the failed "conservative" principles of other "conservatives" in power, sees that he will antagonize the rest of the world, sees that he picked perhaps the most unqualified VP candidate in history during a time of war and financial upheaval, sees that his economic policy which promises bigger government, bigger spending, yet somehow promises even larger tax cuts isn't just fuzzy math or Voodoo economis, but a complete abdication of fiscal responsibility.

Buckley most certainly is spinning in his grave, but it's at what the "conservative" movement has become, not at real conservatives finally declaring that they've had enough.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: quest55720

McCain called out his entire party during his acceptance speech. McCain has taken on his party many times in the past.

if you can't tell the difference between McCains acceptance speech at the RNC convention.

And you wanting Obama to call out Pelosi on specific matters of legislation in the middle of an election race.

then I can't help you

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, I've read the article, and yes, I at one time believed the same things about Obama: although I disgreed with him on the issues, I thought he was an intelligent, pragmatic man who could maybe bring some common sense back to Washington.

Then, as I learned more about Obama the more I realized he was yet another bead in a long chain of well-packaged but totally contrived politicians--his words sound great, but they ring hollow.

I have long disliked John McCain for many of his policy stands, but I have no doubts that he actually believes what he says and is more likely to be able to accomplish it than Obama.

The only premise of a true conservative accepting an Obama presidency is if you believe the "it took 4 years of Jimmy Carter to bring us Ronald Reagan" philsophy.

Yup, I call that a suicide voter yelling Reagan Akbar. I was a suicide voter when McCain beat out Romney. Then came to undecided, now leaning towards voting for McCain with the Palin pick.

But a conservative picking Obama because he believes he's a "pragmatist" and because he won't "taunt Russia" is a total :roll: for me.

True. We should be taunting Russia into a nuclear exchange. That is the ballsy thing to do.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

The GOP was never a "true consevative party" IMO. It's been the more Conservative party.

I'm not suggesting people should vote for McCain(because I'm not) but if it's Conservative they strive for, BHO is a stupid choice. The best choice is to vote RP or Barr to have your protest vote counted.

 

[Vic]

Excellent article that in many ways mirrors how I came to my own decision to support Obama.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

The GOP was never a "true consevative party" IMO. It's been the more Conservative party.

I'm not suggesting people should vote for McCain(because I'm not) but if it's Conservative they strive for, BHO is a stupid choice. The best choice is to vote RP or Barr to have your protest vote counted.

The GOP isn't even the more conservative party anymore.

I don't know how you define conservative, but radically ideological isn't how I define it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

The GOP was never a "true consevative party" IMO. It's been the more Conservative party.

I'm not suggesting people should vote for McCain(because I'm not) but if it's Conservative they strive for, BHO is a stupid choice. The best choice is to vote RP or Barr to have your protest vote counted.

The GOP isn't even the more conservative party anymore.

I don't know how you define conservative, but radically ideological isn't how I define it.

:roll: There is no contest as to which of the two current parties is more Conservative. You can say that the current President isn't Conservative and some in the GOP aren't Conservative but there is NO current democrat who is more conservative and the party as an entity most certainly isn't. Sheesh.. talk about f'n blind...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

The GOP was never a "true consevative party" IMO. It's been the more Conservative party.

I'm not suggesting people should vote for McCain(because I'm not) but if it's Conservative they strive for, BHO is a stupid choice. The best choice is to vote RP or Barr to have your protest vote counted.

The GOP isn't even the more conservative party anymore.

I don't know how you define conservative, but radically ideological isn't how I define it.

:roll: There is no contest as to which of the two current parties is more Conservative. You can say that the current President isn't Conservative and some in the GOP aren't Conservative but there is NO current democrat who is more conservative and the party as an entity most certainly isn't. Sheesh.. talk about f'n blind...

I guess that depends on how you define conservative, now doesn't it?

Pete Seeger has a quote on this I've always liked. He said, "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other."
Now if you know who Seeger is, then you know how ironic that comment is.

But if conservatism to you is upholding "traditional Christian values," like laws against gays and abortion, and teaching creationism in schools, then no question, the Republicans are more conservative.
If conservatism to you is maintaining an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, always fighting wars across the globe with huge defense budgets, then no question, the Republicans are more conservative.
But if conservatism to you is about fiscal responsibility, reigning in government and having it work for the common people instead of handouts to a few elite, balancing the budget, and maintaining liberty and freedom, then no, the Republicans are not more conservative.

To me, however, conservative is exactly what that article described. It is a skepticism. "Won't get fooled again." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A stance of being pragmatic rather than ideological. Of dealing with things the way they are rather than the way you want them to be. In which case, the Republicans currently FAIL at being more conservative.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The article, for those of you too brain dead to comprehend what you read or too lazy to actually do so, made a case for Obama based on a character assessment by the author that Obama is deeply pragmatic by nature. The author feels it is critical at the juncture in our history, despite political differences he has with Obama, that Obama be elected over the deeply impractical McSame.

Instead of intelligent reactions, all we get is Bot Spew from the imbecilic Knee-Jerks.

Possibly a less intelligent reaction would be to preemptively insult anyone who might disagree.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The article, for those of you too brain dead to comprehend what you read or too lazy to actually do so, made a case for Obama based on a character assessment by the author that Obama is deeply pragmatic by nature. The author feels it is critical at the juncture in our history, despite political differences he has with Obama, that Obama be elected over the deeply impractical McSame.

Instead of intelligent reactions, all we get is Bot Spew from the imbecilic Knee-Jerks.

Possibly a less intelligent reaction would be to preemptively insult anyone who might disagree.

That's because you misunderstand Moonie's subtle touch at intensely biting sarcasm.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

Another pathetic attempt to criticize and marginalize a TRUE conservative as a "fake" conservative because he sees the damage that another republican president will bring. He doesn't "embrace" obama, but he certainly finds him the lesser evil of the two choices. He sees that McCain wants to continue the failed "conservative" principles of other "conservatives" in power, sees that he will antagonize the rest of the world, sees that he picked perhaps the most unqualified VP candidate in history during a time of war and financial upheaval, sees that his economic policy which promises bigger government, bigger spending, yet somehow promises even larger tax cuts isn't just fuzzy math or Voodoo economis, but a complete abdication of fiscal responsibility.

Buckley most certainly is spinning in his grave, but it's at what the "conservative" movement has become, not at real conservatives finally declaring that they've had enough.

Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

I don't see them as being failed principles. In a world where unreasoning hatred of our country is growing, it makes no difference whether we antagonize them or not. They're hatred is not based on a reasonable look at the facts. The VP candidate's experience is hardly as attention-worthy as that of the Presidential candidate. What about McCain's economic policy "promises" bigger government and spending?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

The GOP was never a "true consevative party" IMO. It's been the more Conservative party.

I'm not suggesting people should vote for McCain(because I'm not) but if it's Conservative they strive for, BHO is a stupid choice. The best choice is to vote RP or Barr to have your protest vote counted.

The GOP isn't even the more conservative party anymore.

I don't know how you define conservative, but radically ideological isn't how I define it.

:roll: There is no contest as to which of the two current parties is more Conservative. You can say that the current President isn't Conservative and some in the GOP aren't Conservative but there is NO current democrat who is more conservative and the party as an entity most certainly isn't. Sheesh.. talk about f'n blind...

I guess that depends on how you define conservative, now doesn't it?

Pete Seeger has a quote on this I've always liked. He said, "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other."
Now if you know who Seeger is, then you know how ironic that comment is.

But if conservatism to you is upholding "traditional Christian values," like laws against gays and abortion, and teaching creationism in schools, then no question, the Republicans are more conservative.
If conservatism to you is maintaining an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, always fighting wars across the globe with huge defense budgets, then no question, the Republicans are more conservative.
But if conservatism to you is about fiscal responsibility, reigning in government and having it work for the common people instead of handouts to a few elite, balancing the budget, and maintaining liberty and freedom, then no, the Republicans are not more conservative.

To me, however, conservative is exactly what that article described. It is a skepticism. "Won't get fooled again." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A stance of being pragmatic rather than ideological. Of dealing with things the way they are rather than the way you want them to be. In which case, the Republicans currently FAIL at being more conservative.

Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

Smaller government.
Respect for private lives and private property.
Fiscal responsibility and reserved spending.
Judicious and prudent use of international military force.
Strict adherence to the Constitution and law.


You know, those things recent conservatives have promised to get into power, then forgotten once elected. At least liberals tell you they are going to make government bigger and more expensive.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

I think you forgot to read the article, because a founding member of that type of conservatism just said that he was.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

Smaller government.
Respect for private lives and private property.
Fiscal responsibility and reserved spending.
Judicious and prudent use of international military force.
Strict adherence to the Constitution and law.


You know, those things recent conservatives have promised to get into power, then forgotten once elected. At least liberals tell you they are going to make government bigger and more expensive.

I admit the following, for the time being, is evasive, but I wanted to take note of it before I forgot.

These don't sound so much like conservative principles so much as good principles. Shouldn't liberals abide by the same principles?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

Smaller government.
Respect for private lives and private property.
Fiscal responsibility and reserved spending.
Judicious and prudent use of international military force.
Strict adherence to the Constitution and law.


You know, those things recent conservatives have promised to get into power, then forgotten once elected. At least liberals tell you they are going to make government bigger and more expensive.

I admit the following, for the time being, is evasive, but I wanted to take note of it before I forgot.

These don't sound so much like conservative principles so much as good principles. Shouldn't liberals abide by the same principles?

Liberal Principles:
Bigger govt
No private property
Govt is better decider of spending money
Isolationism
Constitution is a "living" document, and up for very loose interpretation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

Smaller government.
Respect for private lives and private property.
Fiscal responsibility and reserved spending.
Judicious and prudent use of international military force.
Strict adherence to the Constitution and law.


You know, those things recent conservatives have promised to get into power, then forgotten once elected. At least liberals tell you they are going to make government bigger and more expensive.

I admit the following, for the time being, is evasive, but I wanted to take note of it before I forgot.

These don't sound so much like conservative principles so much as good principles. Shouldn't liberals abide by the same principles?

And in most regards, they do. These are principles that almost all of us hold in common, conservative or liberal, left or right. And why so many people are upset at the hypocrisy of the Republicans during the Bush admin, because they promised us that they would hold these principles even more dear than the other guys do, and then shit all over them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

Smaller government.
Respect for private lives and private property.
Fiscal responsibility and reserved spending.
Judicious and prudent use of international military force.
Strict adherence to the Constitution and law.


You know, those things recent conservatives have promised to get into power, then forgotten once elected. At least liberals tell you they are going to make government bigger and more expensive.

I admit the following, for the time being, is evasive, but I wanted to take note of it before I forgot.

These don't sound so much like conservative principles so much as good principles. Shouldn't liberals abide by the same principles?

Liberal Principles:
Bigger govt
No private property
Govt is better decider of spending money
Isolationism
Constitution is a "living" document, and up for very loose interpretation.

Except none of that is liberalism. Some on the far left believe that, no doubt, but you don't see me knocking mainstream conservatism for what the KKK or the Neo-Nazis might do if given the chance, do you?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Specifically to what "conservative" principles do you refer?

Smaller government.
Respect for private lives and private property.
Fiscal responsibility and reserved spending.
Judicious and prudent use of international military force.
Strict adherence to the Constitution and law.


You know, those things recent conservatives have promised to get into power, then forgotten once elected. At least liberals tell you they are going to make government bigger and more expensive.

I admit the following, for the time being, is evasive, but I wanted to take note of it before I forgot.

These don't sound so much like conservative principles so much as good principles. Shouldn't liberals abide by the same principles?

Well "conservatism" lists are all over the internet, so I admit I left out the ones about God and Family and Values, which are typically a part of conservatism that the party in power has adhered to at the expense of the ones above which I would argue are the more important ones to everyone else, but anyway.

No, I don't agree that those principles are objectively "good." Of course, I don't think that liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites on each and every point. But there are real differences of opinion.

Liberals believe in expanding government where necessary to help people or oversee private markets. They believe in taxing those who can more afford to pay to help those with less to give whereas conservatism is more focused on individuals helping themselves. Liberals believe in military intervention to prevent genocide and illegal occupations even where the direct threat to the US is not evident; true conservatives shudder at this use of "national defense" and are far more inclined towards, if not isolationism, then ultimate restraint. Note the author in the OP, a true conservative, is frightened by McCain's promise to "fight evil" since that authorizes military force just about anywhere.

And finally, strict adherence (Strict Construction) to the constitution is NOT a liberal principle. Interpretation of the Constitution to fit with progress and modernity is generally what liberals believe in.

I doubt there's a person who believes in adherence to the absolute liberal or conservative ideal viewpoints, as one must be willing to compromise or vary positions when reality intrudes. The degree to which the principles are waived is usually the issue of dispute. This admin has pretty much thrown all of them out.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

I think you forgot to read the article, because a founding member of that type of conservatism just said that he was.

And?

I disagree with this author because a Buckley, Goldwater, etc Conservative would not support BHO. It seems like this author has a problem with McCain and Bush - not that he wants to support BHO(except for his kool-aid like fawning). However, this author is talking as if there are only two options which is not true. If this guy wants a Conservative then he should vote for Barr or RP to protest the GOP for their waywardness. It makes ZERO sense to "reward" the liberal ideology because you got your nose bent out of shape.