The Year the NY Times Re-Defined Conservatism

It boggles me; really, why some continue to perceive John McCain as a viable choice to run this country.  Aside from being a ripe 71 years old who is not changing anytime soon, the man has as much ability to tick off the far-left as Teddy Kennedy. 

He teamed up with Teddy Kennedy to create a Bill that would give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens.  He seemed to not be too far apart from Kennedy’s positions that day.

He teamed up with Russ Feingold to create a Bill that reformed campaign finance.  Basically this rule wiped out anyone who was not a Hollywood star, a raging liberal, someone endorsed by Oprah, a Republican that liberals liked, or someone with instant name recognition like Hillary Clinton.  His positions weren’t that far off from Feingold’s that day.  (Come to think of it, perhaps we all know now why he supported Campaign Finance Reform in the first place!)

He teams up with congressional members of the far left to cry about dropping water down the noses of terrorists.

He teams up with members of the far left to denounce and demand that we shut down Guantanamo.

The NY Times loves him because he supports these crazy positions.

But one thing they love more is watching alleged Republicans call someone “far right” simply because we aren’t allowing the media to select our candidate for us.

McCain IS NOT G.O.P.  No matter his outcome, we lose the White House anyway because our principles will not be going with him.

All of the above positions that McCain has sold us out on are NOT positions that are important to the “far right!”  They are positions important to “Americans!”

Just get used to President Barack….

  • Much like McCain, he was funded by George Soros
  • Much like McCain, he opposes water-boarding
  • Much like McCain, he wants illegals to have amnesty
  • Much like McCain, he criticizes the war
  • Much like McCain, he wants to shut down Guantanamo
  • Much like McCain, he is loved by the NY Times

But unlike McCain, he was endorsed by Oprah.

That’s our future, people.

When Democrats don’t show as much fear of our Presidential candidate as we do with theirs – then we really may as not have a candidate to begin with.  We really have four bad years ahead of us.

Amazingly though, the same voters who supported Ronald Reagan and his positions 25 years ago are now members of the “far right.”

A category I will gladly rest in if that’s what it takes.

The NY Times can make that claim and anybody else can. 

I am a Republican and McCain is not my candidate.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “The Year the NY Times Re-Defined Conservatism

  1. Love ya, too.

    What we aren’t realizing is that with McCain being funded by Soros, with the NY Times endorsing him – they figured that conservatives would have less time to turn this disaster around once he won in the key states they wanted him to win in. They were right!

    Every major catastrophe created by our party – Harriet Miers, Bush/McCain amnesty for illegals, we turned it around once the few conservatives around; with the voices to do so, shouted from the rooftops against them since the MSM isn’t going to help us out.

    Those things took time. We didn’t have that time to undo McCain’s nomination.

    So the NY Times and media figures that there isn’t anything we can do about it now and that we have no choice but to vote for our nominee.

    This is our opportunity to prove them wrong.

    I mean come on – do you not find it ironic that the only ones who had a shot in this campaign were a Hollywood celebrity, a Clinton, a rich Democrat Senator, an Arizona Senator whose been around longer in the Senate than most plant life has existed in the country, and a half-black guy endorsed by Oprah? Do you not find it Ironic that the Bill that caused this was developed by John McCain?

    Phil you know damned well that this is not the true Democratic process. We have allowed the media to make us all lazy and to do our research for us – then feed it to us the way they want. Thus scaring us to voting for a liberal parading around as a Republican. They tricked us.

    We need not fight eachother over this – we need to learn from this mistake and never let it happen again.

  2. I’m not happy about it. I wanted Fred, but James Dobson poo-poo’d him and other conservatives refused to rally around the one true, viable conservative in the race. Look where we are now.

    No, I’m not a happy camper.

  3. As long as you both cite the demise of what was the ideal conservative, I’ll only add that we still have one with at last a semblance of popular acceptance. Selling a conservative to this country is like getting kids to schedule thier own dentist appointments. They’ll go for the Kool-Aid all the time.
    Allow me to suggest that there have been extraordinary efforts to smother media (Fairness Act) and, why should each government agency have public information officers with the sole purpose to control information. Think about the number of executive orders that could be issued.
    Let me shorten this: We can’t afford to give four years to organizations; internal, foreign, or united in cabals, to bring us down. One group will do it with sanctimony, the other with sacrileage.

  4. This is not about smothering media. This is about overturning McCain-Feingold. With McCain-Feingold, Americans have less power to bring good candidates forward.

    This is how we wound up with John McCain.

    Nobody is suggesting censorship. I am for everyone speaking their mind on whatever issue it is they want. But when a candidate’s top priority during a campaign becomes paying for it, we sort of miss out.

    There was a reason McCain endorsed this type of censorship. It was to his own benefit. It was marxist and explains to us just how willing he was to sell out conservatives for his own gain.

    He knew he was loved by the NY Times. He knew that McCain-Feingold would only help him when it prohibited good candidates like Duncan Hunter from advancing.

    Duncan Hunter has been re-elected over and over again in a blue state. This means he had the power – as Reagan did – to inspire and reveal the benefit of sticking to conservative ideals. But with McCain-Feingold; promoting him as Reagan’s constituents were able to do was virtually impossible.

    Get used to a lot more McCains until this ridiculous Bill is overturned.

  5. Come to think of it – I would “almost” consider backing McCain if he selected Duncan Hunter as his Vice-President.

  6. Steve, I’m curious… exactly HOW has McCain-Feingold thwarted good men like RR from coming forward? I just don’t see it. The GOP had Tancredo, Hunter, FreddieT and TommieT and a host of others tipping their toes into the race this year.

    Please don’t use Coulterish talking points from the FarRightFringe… give specific examples of HOW the campaign finance reform act stopped ANYone from entering the fray. Specific, Steve.

    And if you can explain that, beyond the soundbites and catchy-but-silly cliches, help me understand how someone like Huckabee or Paul can hang in there and continue to fight their own version of the good fight within the context of McCain-Feingold?

    Frankly, I don’t think McCain-Feingold-Cochran went far enough in limiting the role of soft money in campaigns nor in limiting the use of issue ads by so-called independent 527 campaign groups. Granted, I thought the SwiftBoat ads were great and effective –but bringing transparency to the people who chose to contribute to that fund to influence a Presidential campaign seems fair enough to me.

    How did the act, as you offer, “(b)asically this rule wiped out anyone who was not a Hollywood star” from running for office?

  7. Not just Hollywood stars: also, senators, big names, and folks endorsed by the media like John McCain or Barack Obama.

    You really are for censoring Americans? When Americans are told that there is a limit on how much they can and cannot donate to a campaign to get the message out there, I guarantee you we will never get another Ronald Reagan.

    There isn’t any cliches in anything I wrote. It’s all true!

    “Coulterish” & “far right” – I love it. Actually I could explain the entire story again of how Ronald Reagan was endorsed by millionaires – when there were no restrictions on campaign finance – but Coulter herself wrote a magnificient column this week explaining it using historical facts, data, figures, and common sense – or something you and the NY Times like to call “talking points from the FarRightFringe.”

    I’m not letting standard Republican ideals be re-defined by someone who may as well be a liberal or by someone who thinks that it’s okay for our Presidential candidate to basically be a liberal on every issue but abortion.

    anncoulter.com

    Anyone out there challenging the column, please feel free to do so.

  8. By the way. Instead of using terms like “Far Right Fringe”, Matt – why don’t you give us specifics? You act as if conservatives are being knit-picky and overly critical of McCain for no reason. The issues mentioned over and over again are MAJOR concerns that could reflect poorly on conservatives and wind up with us under 30 years of Democratic rule.

    The issues of Obama and McCain both are dangerous for the country. Guantanamo, interrogation methods, give driver’s licenses and amnesty to illegals? We’re sick because he passed a Bill and you would rather just believe it’s mere coincidence that he was the one chosen to be our Presidential candidate?

    Americans HAVE to feel to give us another Ronald Reagan. McCain-Feingold should be overturned, we have to live through four more years of Jimmy Carter-like times both economically and I am sorry, but we will have to probably endure one more attack to wake us all up out of this crazed syndrome that has us believing that McCain is a conservative, anyone who loved Ronald Reagan is part of a “far-right fringe” or that pointing out the logical facts of McCain’s horrible voting record is a “far right” thing to do?

    The actions required to re-adjust Americans’ views are going to happen under McCain or Obama – and in my opinion, the next Jimmy Carter may as well be a Democrat.

  9. I’m with you on McCain-Feingold, Steve. It was an abrogation 0f First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court overturned part of it, and I feel confident that the rest of it will face more scrutiny – that is if there are a couple of more Constructionist judges on the SCOTUS.

    I wouldn’t count on Hillary or Obama to place such justices on the Court. As I see it, McCain might do just that with his pledge to place more Roberts-like justices on the bench.

    There are a few Supreme Court justices near retirement age. And 4-8 years is a LONG time for them to decide to quit the court. Think John Paul Stevens (age 87) or Darth Vader Ginsburg (age 74) are waiting around for a Republican president before they retire? Think again.

  10. The four good judges are the young ones. In 30 years, the young ones will be old ones.

    McCain would not have nominated Sam Alito.

    Theoretically, your argument is true. But if they are going to hold out, they will hold out again until 2012….

    And after four years of McCain-economics, McCain defense, and McCain-terrorist daycare centers in full operation, I guarantee America will be ready for a change. But I guarantee, it won’t be for a conservative President.

    But I suppose we’ll let time play out to see who was right.

    Good points though.

  11. Steve, thanks for taking a stab at noting some specific examples of how McCain-Feingold-Cochran will thwart another RR from coming forward… ever. Of course, you didn’t. And then you turned to the other defense game: attack the broader set issues as NOT being FarRightFringe agenda.

    Sorry, but your inital comments were NOTHING BUT Coulter-ish talking points. Lots of spikey, mean-spirited “charm” with little substance.

    Let’s try this: I like McCain-Feingold-Cochran because it now allows me to increase my contribution to national parties for Prez campaigns to $10k, up from the long-standing 1991 era limit of $5k.

    I like the act because I can now give to state party “federal PACs” –who help in Michigan to advance contenders against long-seated, entrenched Democrat Congressmen… I can give them an additional $10k over the $10k I want to give to any federal campaign.

    I like the act because it now forbids corp and labor soft money –like providing jet service to officeholders– to candidates and officeholders. And it severly limits other soft money expenditures to federal officeholders and candidates… and that’s a good thing since the soft money was not accounted for in any class of campaign finance reporting. I like transparency. It helps democracy advance and keeps partisans honest.

    The act doesn’t restrain nor bring transparency to the contributions of 527s… or issue advocacy groups… but maybe we’ll nail those suckers another time.

    And on the notion that the act is a violation of 1st A rights –as many FarRightFringe types like to contend– it isn’t. SCOTUS opined last June that the 30/60 day ban on ads which appear susceptible to the interpertation they are electioneering ads under 527 rules is unconstitutional… that’s a far, far cry from the usual hysterics of the FarRightFringe that the entire act is unconstitutional… or the “look, look, see… the Court validated the FarRightFringe” nonsense.

    It’s that latter point that makes me want to point out again that the FarRight more often than not likes to trot out cliched talking points used to churn up the waters and chum for shark than to bring some light to their positions. You did it here on the McCain-Feingold-Cochran act.

    We saw it in the Immigration & Border Security Reform legislation. We saw it in the TeriSchivao nonsense by FarRightFringe congressional kooks. We saw it in the FlagBurning amendment. We saw it in the torture of detained terrorists. We saw it in the black op prisons and vetting of terror suspects to other countries issues.

    And we’re seeing it today in the treatment of McCain’s conservative credentials by most of the rabid FarRighters. AnnCoulter is simply JamesCarville’s junkyard dog act in drag; she is probably the most intellectually dishonest, self-promoting pundit alarmist on the FarRight… and there are lots of those on the FarLeft, too.

    They add nothing but make the public marketplace of ideas and public square an uncivil, disturbingly disrepectful shouting hall where participants in the limelight are encouraged to make outlandish soundbites at the expense of reason or rational discussion. The are our modern-day snake oil salesmen.

    I’m sorry you didn’t take the challenge and point out SPECIFIC examples of how you think the act thwarts another RR from coming to fruition.

    But with a campaign that allowed all the GOP contenders we experienced earlier last year to enter the fray, your argument it’s prohibiting anyone like RR from being Pres is just silly.

    The facts and immediate past prove you wrong.

  12. Preventing organizations from forming under a 527 exemption is a preposterous stifle of speech and expression inasmuch as NOTHING done to introduce Ronald Reagan to the American pubic could have happened under McCain Feingold.

    I basically sent you to a magnificient column written by Ann Coulter with actual analysis explaining the raminifications.

    And “you” get to donate more money…so can George Soros – and he did by the way. This is why we have McCain as our Presidential candidate.

    You completely disregarded the Coulter column and basically wrote it off to “Coulterish” remarks. When in essence, it was a completely accurate description (with specific examples) of what McCain-Feingold has done to our Democracy.

    So let’s try this: instead of deflecting and talking about Terri Schiavo (which had nothing to do with REPUBLICANS by the way) and copying and pasting portions of a Wikipedia article, you refute the $2,300 limit that Coulter makes mention of and tell me that is a “Coulterish” remark.

    Take her FACTUAL scenario, and tell me which part of it is a lie.

    Mitch McConnell and others at the time noted all of these concerns.

    Ronald Reagan’s campaign was funded through “Friends of Reagan” in the early days when he was backed by a couple of millionaires. The fact is Matt – that would not have happened under this law.

    The immediate facts are on my side here – we have John McCain as a Republican presidential nominee! What other proof do you need?

    The historical facts are on my side as well resting on the FACT that Reagan could not have been funded like he was under McCain-Feingold.

    McCain is not supported by Republicans in majority. He’s supported by the NY Times and funded by George Soros.

    Finally, any American with a heart cared about Terri Schiavo. You don’t play God and starve a human being to death because you feel like you should without any regard whatsoever to the parents.

    I will grant you that Schiavo was not defended by Democrats at all – after all, this is the party that celebrates abortion in mass. But it was not “FarRight” defending her. It was Americans with a respect for human life.

    Sorry pal – you’re either a really bad Republican (as bad as McCain) or a perpetrating Democrat that likes John McCain (there isn’t much of a difference, really). You don’t just throw human decency down the toilet – or political Democracy for that matter – and label those who exude and support it as “far right.”

  13. More on McCain-Feingold:

    http://users.mikrotec.com/~dcgay/mccain.htm

    http://www.euthanasia.com/mccain.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060501835_pf.html

    (“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argues that even grass-roots lobbying should be banned during the blackout periods. It comes as a surprise that incumbent politicians have the constitutional power to prohibit people from criticizing them, but this is what McCain-Feingold does.”)

    Tell us, Matt. When organizations form and are able to donate large amounts of money to a Presidential campaign – where does that money come from?

    Does it magically appear? Or is it contributed by Americans in masses that stand for a set of values? Organizations serve as the talking heads for many of the lower-known candidates such as Hunter for example.

    If you’re telling me that any organziation or Christian foundation should be banned (or limited) from collecting money and distributing it to a cause of selecting the leader of the next free world, then I can assume you have no problem with stopping the media from talking about Presidential candidates or someone like Oprah who endorses one, etc. Should they all be temporarily silenced until America chooses their candidates based on their own private research?

    Which vessels of getting information out to America do you support and which ones do you have the problem with?

  14. Not to take Matt’s side, but you do have this Ann fetish. If you grow your hair longer and start wearing heels, I’m outta here.

    😛

  15. Well that’s okay to say. Even with the long hair and heels, Ann is more of a man than any “moderate” Republican. So, I’ll take that as a compliment. Plus her and I agree so much.

    Eeeener Neener, LOL.

    The only reason someone could label Ann Coulter as a “Far Right” figure (there’s no such thing really) is because of her extra special ability in making liberals cry. Her positions and yours and mine are virtually the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s