McCain seals GOP nomination as Romney suspends campaign

[shagdrum]

Deficit spending does hurt the economy. It takes money out of the private sector which would ordinarily be used to grow and benefit the economy.

True.

I think the distinction needs to be made between what the deficit actually does in and of itself to the economy, and what the governments actions surrounding the deficit does to the economy.

Most of the problems of the deficit are through taxes and an obligations to pay.

With social security, i could see this distinction becoming important. When the baby boomers are all retired, and my generation is paying over 50 cents on the dollar to pay the baby boomers social security, the option of not paying that obligation (in part, or in whole) may start looking more appealing to the generation in charge.

 

[04SCTLS]

from the cartoonists.
I think Rush needs to take another OxyContin
for the pain of becoming irrelevant.

 

[shagdrum]

from the cartoonists.
I think Rush needs to take another OxyContin
for the pain of becoming irrelevant.

Those are some funny cartoons.

Rush hasn't become irrelevant. The people saying he is irrelevant were making the same calim when Clinton defeated Father Bush. Wasn't accurate then and it isn't accurate now. Just wishful thinking on the media's part.

 

[shagdrum]

You're giving people too much credit here. Ever seen Jay Leno's man on the street interviews? Don't discount our pathetic education system that produces an idiocracy more easily fooled by the likes of Hillary, Obama, and McCain.

What is it Rush says? "the most expensive thing we pay for in this country is ignorance."

 

[04SCTLS]

I'm now waiting for Ann Coulter to make good on campaigning for Hillary LOL!
But then again, she gutlessly bailed out on appearing on Larry King Live after Romney left so I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Seeing her and Hillary together on the same stage would be a surreal experience unless they were maybe jello wrestling, or on Bill Maher's show.

 

[shagdrum]

I'm now waiting for Ann Coulter to make good on campaigning for Hillary LOL!
But then again, she gutlessly bailed out on appearing on Larry King Live after Romney left so I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Seeing her and Hillary together on the same stage would be a surreal experience unless they were maybe jello wrestling, or on Bill Maher's show.

Supposedly Bill Maher dated Ann Coulter.

Even if Coulter did "campaign" for Hillary, I doubt it would be with Hillary. She would be "unofficially" campaigning.

 

[04SCTLS]

Coulter will never campaign for Hillary.
She bailed on coming on Larry King Live because Romney had just folded and she didn't want to be called on her frustrato statement. Better to wimp out than be seen saying she was just kidding and grabbing a cheap headline.
I think after a while her and Rush El Al will quietly grudgingly fall behind McCain saying he's reached out to them and changed his tune, but we all know they're only looking after their own self interest, especially if Obama keeps surging and gets the Democratic nomination which is looking more likely every week.
Since Obama has a more liberal record than Hillary it will be the perfect face saving excuse for backing McCain, if only tepidly.

 

[Calabrio]

If Obama wins the nomination, something that is becoming increasingly likely as the Cult of Obama spreads through the ranks of liberals, then there's no way to campaign for Hillary against McCain, making it a non-issue.

I certainly didn't campaign for McCain in the primary, but all is not lost. While we may have failed to elect the 'best' candidate, the Democrats do not present any alternative. To say that there's no difference between McCain or Hillary or Obama is absurd and ignorant. While I usually like Ann Coulter and Rush, they've made some very poor statements these past few weeks.

McCain is in favor of conservative judges... and EVEN if he said Alito was too conservative, I'd rather see six more Roberts on the court instead of a half dozen ACLU attorneys.

Fact of the matter is that right now, the damage a true liberal President, with the Democrat controlled congress, can do in just ONE TERM is too great. You simply CAN NOT roll back the government programs fast enough. Not to mention the global treaties they'll sign. Or the wave of vote buying social programs the Democrats will pass to ensure their support for the 21st century as they had in the 20th. And to presume that the public will reject the congress, without some tragedy befalling the country, is overly optimistic.

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Politics IS NOT pure, nor has it ever been. If you go back to the founding of this country, you'll find that more often than not, it's the result of compromise. The constitution itself was the cause of HUGE debates and fighting between the Federalist and the poorly named "Anti-federalist" who lost but so often were so right. (they were more federalist then the federalists who claimed the name first)....

McCain isn't a pacifist. He doesn't believe in huge deficits. He does have some core conservative values. And ultimately, these things have to outweighs his failings. And it's undeniable he's preferable to the Democrat option, as most Americans will likely realize (so long as they aren't put under a spell by Obama.)

 

[shagdrum]

If Obama wins the nomination, something that is becoming increasingly likely as the Cult of Obama spreads through the ranks of liberals, then there's no way to campaign for Hillary against McCain, making it a non-issue.

I certainly didn't campaign for McCain in the primary, but all is not lost. While we may have failed to elect the 'best' candidate, the Democrats do not present any alternative. To say that there's no difference between McCain or Hillary or Obama is absurd and ignorant. While I usually like Ann Coulter and Rush, they've made some very poor statements these past few weeks.

McCain is in favor of conservative judges... and EVEN if he said Alito was too conservative, I'd rather see six more Roberts on the court instead of a half dozen ACLU attorneys.

Fact of the matter is that right now, the damage a true liberal President, with the Democrat controlled congress, can do in just ONE TERM is too great. You simply CAN NOT roll back the government programs fast enough. Not to mention the global treaties they'll sign. Or the wave of vote buying social programs the Democrats will pass to ensure their support for the 21st century as they had in the 20th. And to presume that the public will reject the congress, without some tragedy befalling the country, is overly optimistic.

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Politics IS NOT pure, nor has it ever been. If you go back to the founding of this country, you'll find that more often than not, it's the result of compromise. The constitution itself was the cause of HUGE debates and fighting between the Federalist and the poorly named "Anti-federalist" who lost but so often were so right. (they were more federalist then the federalists who claimed the name first)....

McCain isn't a pacifist. He doesn't believe in huge deficits. He does have some core conservative values. And ultimately, these things have to outweighs his failings. And it's undeniable he's preferable to the Democrat option, as most Americans will likely realize (so long as they aren't put under a spell by Obama.)

:iconcur: ...gotta go with the guy with the Steve McQueen avatar! :I

 

[fossten]

The argument that McCain is preferable because he's not as bad as Hillary is specious. The bigger picture is that American politics has fallen into deep corruption, and is run by the Big Media, which now includes Fox News. This is undeniable. Further, politics has become more of a spectator sport where everybody takes a side and only cares if their side wins, rather than debating actual issues. Case in point, the horse race between Romney and McCain got center stage at the last few debates, rather than the ideas being presented, including those ideas presented by Ron Paul which EVERYBODY here admits are good ideas and should be "out there," but which ideas EVERYBODY here MUST ADMIT were mocked, squashed, censored, and filibustered out of existence.

Face it folks, our candidate was, is, and shall be chosen for us by the media until we take a stand and do something about it. You can say "well this is American politics" all you want, but in so doing you acknowledge that our votes don't count, only media perception counts. Even big campaign money doesn't matter, as evidenced by Romney's failure.

 

[Calabrio]

Face it folks, our candidate was, is, and shall be chosen for us by the media until we take a stand and do something about it. You can say "well this is American politics" all you want, but in so doing you acknowledge that our votes don't count, only media perception counts. Even big campaign money doesn't matter, as evidenced by Romney's failure.

To deny the influence of the media would be foolish, but the fact is the nominee is ultimately chosen by the general public. Not the minority of people who are interested in and study policy and government.

And the fact is, the Conservatives failed.

They failed to unite behind a candidate early enough. But worse yet,in the past few years they have failed to continue to persuade the general public. And when they were in power, too many of those people who had claimed to embrace those same conservative principles, abandoned them in their pursuit of political power.

Furthermore, the broad public is disgusted with the perceived "partisan divide" in this country. Many people tend to think that being a Republican or a Democrat is virtually the same as routing for the Mets or instead picking the Yankees.

There is damage that needs to be repaired.

McCain has cross-over appeal. This is not deniable. And I'm hoping that the cult-like passion that is gripping the center-left right now for Obama can not be sustained for nearly a full year. Obama fatigue must set in eventually.

And the same people that follow politics closely enough to understand why they're hostile towards him should be smart enough to understand why it's necessary to support him now. Huckabee will not win in a general election. And Obama and Hillary can not be allowed to win, for the sake of the country.

There's also the issue of the Hispanic vote in the 21st century that isn't being spoken about, the long term allegiance of the over used term "Hispanic voters."

 

[shagdrum]

The argument that McCain is preferable because he's not as bad as Hillary is specious.

Had to look up the definition of "specious". From what I could find, it basically means "superficial" and lacking is substance. I would hardly say that arguement is superficial. in fact, I would say an "all or nothing" arguement is specious and based on wishful thinking, while a "lesser evil" arguement is based in reality and common sense.

 

[fossten]

Had to look up the definition of "specious". From what I could find, it basically means "superficial" and lacking is substance. I would hardly say that arguement is superficial. in fact, I would say an "all or nothing" arguement is specious and based on wishful thinking, while a "lesser evil" arguement is based in reality and common sense.

Specious means it sounds good on the surface, but isn't strong in substance.

The fact is that we've nominated moderates for President in the past, and it has always hurt the country and the party. Ford, GHW Bush, Dole, Bush 43, need I say more? You can argue SCOTUS justices by Bush 43, but remember the lesson of Harriet Miers, and don't ever forget out of control spending and shamnesty. And now we've got McCain. I predict more trouble and destruction for this country as well as the stricken Republican Party, and that's WITH McCain in office.

Everybody keeps throwing this "reality" canard around. I'm sorry, but if reality is that you're screwed, pretending you're not is known as denial. If someone offers you the choice between a sh*t sandwich and a sh*t shish kabob, reality doesn't mean you have to eat one of them. Reality dictates that you start hunting for your own food.

So from now on I will counter the reality canard with the denial response. Advantage: Push.

Until we repeal McCain-Feingold, get used to these kinds of moderate candidates who lack all three legs of the stool. THAT'S reality.

 

[shagdrum]

Specious means it sounds good on the surface, but isn't strong in substance.

The fact is that we've nominated moderates for President in the past, and it has always hurt the country and the party. Ford, GHW Bush, Dole, Bush 43, need I say more? You can argue SCOTUS justices by Bush 43, but remember the lesson of Harriet Miers, and don't ever forget out of control spending and shamnesty. And now we've got McCain. I predict more trouble and destruction for this country as well as the stricken Republican Party, and that's WITH McCain in office.

Everybody keeps throwing this "reality" canard around. I'm sorry, but if reality is that you're screwed, pretending you're not is known as denial. If someone offers you the choice between a sh*t sandwich and a sh*t shish kabob, reality doesn't mean you have to eat one of them. Reality dictates that you start hunting for your own food.

So from now on I will counter the reality canard with the denial response. Advantage: Push.

Until we repeal McCain-Feingold, get used to these kinds of moderate candidates who lack all three legs of the stool.

I don't think we nominated Ford, but that is beside the point...

Still, did these candidates hurt the country as much as if their democrat opponents would've if they had won the office(in the cases that the moderate republican won)?
In the other cases (where the Dem won), was it because the moderation of the republican candidate made him unelectible.

The Harriet Miers, spending and amnesty things are good points, and show the power of conservatives in the Republican party. So does the 2006 loss of both houses of congress.

While Rush does make a good point that conservatism wins when it is tried, one thing he seems to be forgeting is that it has to win first. It is a lot harder for conservatism to win then liberalism because conservatism has to overcome the mainstream media as well as the indoctrination of the school system (both kindergarden -12th grade, and college level). That was the beauty of Reagan; the great communicator. He was masterful at conveying conservatism. No conservative has been able to touch him in that area since. Conservatism has to be accurately and broadly conveyed to be allowed to work. That is why we keep wanting a Reagan, not just on policy, but character too. Obama has that Reagan "great communicator" style, but he doesn't have any substance he wants to convey.

 

[fossten]

Your post only reinforces my argument that REALITY is that we're screwed until we get a true conservative nominated.

And I'm ashamed to hear you imply that a slower decline of freedom in America is so much more preferable to a faster decline that you'd support those in the Republican Party who are knowingly contributing to the decline, by pretending to be the good guys while secretly and gently stabbing us in the back.

I thought you were more aware than that.

1775 marked a VERY FAST decline in freedom in America. Would you say that that worked in America's favor or to her detriment?

 

[shagdrum]

Your post only reinforces my argument that REALITY is that we're screwed until we get a true conservative nominated.

And I'm ashamed to hear you imply that a slower decline of freedom in America is so much more preferable to a faster decline that you'd support those in the Republican Party who are knowingly contributing to the decline, by pretending to be the good guys while secretly and gently stabbing us in the back.

I thought you were more aware than that.

1775 marked a VERY FAST decline in freedom in America. Would you say that that worked in America's favor or to her detriment?

1775?

Slower change (to an unknown or unproven idea or policy) is usually more preferable to faster change, when it comes to politics. This is due to unforseen consequences. Look at the damage that the New Deal and the Great Society caused. This as opposed to the damage of the EPA (put in place under Nixon).

It is a matter of degree, I think. McCain wouldn't hurt this country as much as Hitlery or Oblahblah. That isn't to say he wouldn't hurt it, but not as much. When a conservative finally does get in office, he doesn't have to move things so far back in the other direction.

In the end, yes we are screwed, but to what degree? Would you rather be screwed with or without lube?

 

[04SCTLS]

If the true conservatives sit out the election they won't be entitled to complain about the results.
Maybe they can move to a more conservative country but I can't think of one...

 

[shagdrum]

If the true conservatives sit out the election they won't be entitled to complain about the results.
Maybe they can move to a more conservative country but I can't think of one...

Now that is just a wierd image. McCain singin Kum-ba-ya?!

 

[Calabrio]

If the true conservatives sit out the election they won't be entitled to complain about the results.
Maybe they can move to a more conservative country but I can't think of one...

The country is still conservative... people are just emotional and can be distracted. Conservatives have some work to do in the coming two or three years. They can't rest on their laurels and think that the educating is over with and that the debate has been won. And they can't look the other way when politicians are lining their pockets or using goverment programs to buy votes, even when it's THEIR politician throwing around the money.

America is a conservative place. Even the liberals I know all embrace conservative philosophy so long as the topic is framed honestly.

 

[shagdrum]

The country is still conservative... people are just emotional and can be distracted. Conservatives have some work to do in the coming two or three years. They can't rest on their laurels and think that the educating is over with and that the debate has been won. And they can't look the other way when politicians are lining their pockets or using goverment programs to buy votes, even when it's THEIR politician throwing around the money.

America is a conservative place. Even the liberals I know all embrace conservative philosophy so long as the topic is framed honestly.

If you understand the true philosophical nature of what conservatism is (and it isn't taught in most colleges), then this country can never not be conservative.

 

[fossten]

1775?
When a conservative finally does get in office, he doesn't have to move things so far back in the other direction.

In the end, yes we are screwed, but to what degree? Would you rather be screwed with or without lube?

Ah, but there's the kicker. Name one president who has actually REVERSED directions. You will not be able to do so. This is not a pendulum we live under; it's a ratcheting noose. Please learn the difference.

 

[shagdrum]

Ah, but there's the kicker. Name one president who has actually REVERSED directions. You will not be able to do so. This is not a pendulum we live under; it's a ratcheting noose. Please learn the difference.

Well then, I have to ask, what makes you think Ron Paul could reverse directions?

I would say that, in some areas, Reagan reversed direction. Namely, the Cold War, and taxes. It did take the Great Communicator to do so. I assume you would agree that Mr. Paul is not a communicator on the level of Reagan.

 

[Joeychgo]

Honestly - the republicans did this to themselves.

The republican problems can mostly all be credited to GW and his administration. I wont bother to rehash what they have done, you all know. Fact is, McCain probably has the best chance of winning of all the republican candidates. And I suspect he'll still have a tough time of it.

SO like him or not - he's probably your best shot. And you better hope hillary wins the dem nomination, because I dont think McCain beats Obama.

 

[Calabrio]

SO like him or not - he's probably your best shot. And you better hope hillary wins the dem nomination, because I dont think McCain beats Obama.

Obama is a charming candidate, no doubt.
And he's being propelled right now because of the blind enthusiasm of his supporters, and the overall desire of the public to put an end what they perceive as nasty partisanship and gridlock. The "Why can't we all get along" class of voters.

But I wouldn't get too excited about Barrack quite yet.

He has some skeleton's in his closet and my understanding is that his first book, long before he was running for the Presidency, has some inflammatory material. A guy who did experiment, heavily, with drugs; who has anger towards white people. And these things tend to be clearly stated in his 1995 book "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance."

And while the press may give him a pass right now regarding his vague answers and avoidance of any specifics, that romance can't universally last forever. Also, his naive and ignorant view of foreign policy will eventually become an issue with the general population. This will be especially important when contrasted to McCain.

American's can be charmed, but they do value national security. I'm hard pressed to believe that a majority of the population will vote for a man after he demonstrates a complete naive misunderstanding of the world. We all love our country, our families, and our communities.

It's unlikely that the world will be silent, peaceful and calm until November.

 

[fossten]

Well then, I have to ask, what makes you think Ron Paul could reverse directions?

I would say that, in some areas, Reagan reversed direction. Namely, the Cold War, and taxes. It did take the Great Communicator to do so. I assume you would agree that Mr. Paul is not a communicator on the level of Reagan.

Ron Paul is truly the only guy who WANTS to reverse direction. Forget whether or not he could.

Cutting taxes is not reversing direction. It's tinkering in an obviously broken and oppressive system and still only slows the descent into unfair taxation.

I'll give you the Cold War, mainly because I think that was one of the best things Reagan did. But he passed gun control laws, didn't put a rein on spending, signed amnesty for illegals, and didn't work to repeal any laws. He worked within the system instead of trying to change it.

Do you really think the system is fine and 90% of it doesn't need to be thrown out? Come on, be honest. Forget about whether or not we can throw out 90% of it, name one candidate who wants to even start in that direction besides Ron Paul.