I know it is still early in the race and many in the GOP are still smarting from John McCain's win on Super Tuesday. But if you really want to rehash that argument, go to the following blog entry and re-read it:
Conservatives Only Have Themselves To Blame For The McCain Mutiny
84rules
February 12, 2008
Since it is clear that John McCain will be the GOP nominee, we need to look forward to November and why we will support our candidate.
Writing for TownHall, Larry Elder asks if the same Republicans who voted for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are the same ones refusing to vote for John McCain. After all, both Reagan and George W. expanded the role of the Federal Government all the while claiming that government was too big.
But Larry gives the main reasons for supporting McCain:
| McCain consistently supports the war in Iraq, and enthusiastically backed "the surge," a new approach that caused a dramatic decline in violence along with some signs of political reconciliation. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, damn the consequences. As for the economy, don't conservatives believe that the Bush tax cuts helped to jump-start the economy, expand family income, and create jobs? Sen. McCain voted for the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2006, and supports the repeal of the death tax. His Democratic opponents promise to repeal the cuts and increase taxes on the so-called rich. Campaign promises made separately by Clinton and Obama would grow the budget by between $200 billion and $300 billion annually. As to the Supreme Court, think of the many 5-4 decisions, including but not limited to, Bush v. Gore, the decision that put President Bush in the White House. McCain supported nominees like Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. Why, he even voted for the "reactionary" Judge Robert Bork. Justice John Paul Stevens is 87 years old, with four more justices near or over 70. One more conservative appointee, and Roe v. Wade could be history. Are principled conservatives truly willing to allow that decision to remain for at least another generation? To quote another John, this time McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" |
And gives reason why sitting back and letting a liberal Dem take the White House would be a disaster:
| The I'd-rather-sit-on-my-hands-than-vote-for-McCain crowd argues that sitting out paves the road for the Party's re-emergence in the mold of Ronald Reagan. But name a federal government program that, once begun, gets undone. New Deal social programs are now fixtures. The federal government created the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide Southern states with electricity. The electricity is there -- but so is the TVA. Imagine a filibuster-proof Democratic-controlled Congress -- one that passes HillaryCare on to an eagerly waiting President with a pen in her hand. Once that program's out of the bottle, good luck on trying to stuff it back in. McCain opposes a government takeover of health care. The irritating Arizona senator, for all his flaws and warts, understands the big issues -- the war, taxes, and the Supreme Court. Our nation remains at war. The stakes are high. |
You can access the complete column on-line here:
Yes, McCain
Larry Elder
TownHall.com
February 14, 2008
And since we now have a good idea of who Senator McCain will be running against, it's time to start doing some comparisons. Ken Blackwell has the following to say about B. Hussein Obama:
| The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. |
Obama has stated some very lofty goals, but what does he propose to reach those goals?
Ken goes on:
| Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk. Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck. Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values. |
And given that Mr. Blackwell is African-American, let's not overlook his parting shot:
| But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war. |
You can access the complete column on-line here:
The Real Obama
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
February 14, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment