Reply With Quote
Don't forget the Clinton Derangement Syndrome to rile up the conservative base..
Ingraham, Beck, et al are having an apoplectic fit with McCain winning Florida.
That intrigues me. If McCain holds and wins the nomination, does this split the GOP and cause the religious right to leave the party?
Don't forget the Clinton Derangement Syndrome to rile up the conservative base..
Why would the religious right schism because of McCain? His heresies are on fiscal and regulatory issues, not social issues. The fiscal/economic conservatives have cause for pause on McCain.
Anyway, I'm not sure how the average Republican voter perceives McCain. Right now, conservative pundits are upset because a moderate looks like he's going to win the nomination --and not just any moderate, but the one guy who is personally responsible for some of the legislation most galling to conservatives.
What would be weird is that they'd be turning their backs on a candidate who hasn't exactly not been with them on various social issues. It would be about McCain not kissing the ring of the self-appointed leaders of the movement more than anything else.
To me, that would be th eonly thing to hold the GOP together, what I heard (briefly) on the radio from these shows was that (and I paraphrase) "Even if we have to hold our nose, we HAVE to vote for McCain".
It wouldn't suprise me if McCain wins Super Tuesday that Gingrich throws his hat in the ring, but then again, that to me would absolutely fracture the GOP.
Which may not be a bad thing.
From what I understand, McCain supports embryonic stem cell research and has stated that he would not be in favor of a repeal of Roe v. Wade.
True, yet it's because the party has so wholeheartedly embraced the social conservatives that it's lost its way on fiscal policy. You can't expect to draw in and retain voters across a broad range of the economic spectrum without seeing the party drifting towards ever greater government involvement in the economy. McCain's an odd duck, someone who has often been willing to do whatever it took to enhance his own national image.
I'll have to look up his stance on stem cells, but I think he's supported whatever judicial candidates (presumably anti-Roe) Bush has sent down the pike.
McCain had a run-in with one of the televangelists back in the day and that seems to be the greatest cause of the angst. That would be a reason I might not view a McCain nomination that unfavorably, frankly.
Embryonic stem cell research is almost a moot point now with recent advances.
As for Roe vs. Wade, any President who promises to "repeal" Roe vs. Wade is counting upon the stupidity of the audience. A candidate either can promote a cons utional amendment which has zero chance of passing, or he can nominate Supreme Court justices who take a disdainful view of post-1960 activist jurisprudence.
So the relevant question is, what kind of justices would McCain nominate? The Alice Batchelder type or the Consuelo Callahan type?
After calling himself a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution last night; he spoke of appointing judges who understood it was not their job to legislate. FWIW.
I've thougth McCain was the logical nominee for the Republican party for a couple of months now; it appears I am not alone.
It's just interesting to me that right-wing radio is so violently lashing out at those who have voted republican in the primaries and caucuses to date. The conservatives are begging for Romney, but the republicans are voting for McCain.
apocalyptic
they have been bought by lobbyists that want the puppet Romney to be president.
Ron Paul had 0 lobbyists working for him......that tells you the lobbyists control who wins this thing.
the oligarchy wants romney, but if he loses in super tuesday all of those lobbyists will start kissing Mccains ass too.(he has some lobbyists in his camp too don't be fooled.
oligarchy-1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
in case you didn't know.
Speaking of which, if Paul stays in the election, does he have an effect on the GOP "split" and does he go down in history with other party spoilers such as Nader and Perot?
I'd lean towards that he won't.
Not sure if it's the best term, but it's actually one "oligarchy" against another in the GOP. The social conservative "leaders" and the talk radio hosts are merely other elites that have their own self-interested aims.
Well that would stand to reason, wouldn't it? After all, aren't lobbyists employed be corporations/causes to lobby politicians on their employers behalf so they enact policy more favorable to those interests?
What gain would a politician have by employing his/her own lobbyists?
Paul's ceiling as a third party candidate is probably 3%*. However, I don't think he has the same effect as a Nader because Paul would draw from both Rep and Dem intenders.
Paul probably would effect a greater legacy if he stayed within the GOP and inspired his libertarian followers to run for and win local political offices, to build up a grass-roots effort against creeping statism that way. Paul could go down as a latter-day Barry Goldwater.
*-That of course is the ceiling in this reality. In the alternate reality occupied by the John Birchers, Truthers, and Rockwellites, of course Paul is the most popular candidate in the history of the universe, polling at 142%.
Paul's support is a hodge podge, with some being from nostalgic and disgruntled Republicans, disappointed in what the party has become and hoping that it can once again become the party of limited government and responsible fiscal policies. He's drawn in libertarians. He's also drawn anti-war supporters and people in general who are tired of a federal government that has deviated so much from anything representing cons utional government. And it also consists of Alex Jones' listening audience and the myriad of tin foil hat wearing conspiratorial cracksmokers.
Yet, Paul speaks the truth and it's refreshing that someone is doing so on some semblance of a national stage. The other candidates in both parties seem unwilling to admit that the country does face some serious issues and that the twin deficits along with the exploding en lement program liabilities and a weakening dollar in tandem with runaway military expenditures and a government with a disregard for our cons utional rights represents a path to ruin. Maybe he'll be rewarded with a 5 minute speech at the convention (at 9am on a weekday, no doubt).
don't ask me but they have a trail of lobbyists work for their campaigns.....makes you wonder???
They should be embracing John McCain to the bosom of conservatism.
I would absolutely LOVE for the religious right to get their own damn party. Their interference is one of the main reasons why I started voting democrat.
I suspect the monolithic "religious right" as it was 1980-2006 will cease to be. Evangelicals for a while there enthusiastically threw their support behind a guy who for all intents and purposes was a pro-life liberal.
I really can not fathom that the religious right would be all so gung ho over voting for Romney either. Many Evangelicals I know blast the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I can't see them rallying their troops for him.
That's too bad.. I was really hoping for the traditional gay bashing legislation.... Sorry, I mean the pro-family legislation that rises only during Presidential campaigns...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
