Not all is well in GOP land
I will continue to monitor and spotlight ongoing P.D.S. (it’s the subject of my syndicated column tomorrow), but all is not well in GOP land.
Three items to dampen your convention enthusiasm:
1) Stacy McCain reports on the McCain camp’s dissing of stalwart conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.
What the hell are they thinking?
2) One of the speakers on stage tonight was Tommy Espinoza of the RAZA (Race) Development Fund, the open-borders, tax-subsidized group, ethnic supremacist that encourages illegal immigration. (Via Lonewacko).
Juan Hernandez approves.
3) And speaking of Juan Hernandez, he’s quoted here in La Opinion busily lobbying for McCain:
El representante de McCain, Juan Hernández, dijo a los pastores reunidos en Vanguard que el republicano no sólo está alineado con ellos en los valores de aborto, matrimonio gay y el nombramiento de jueces conservadores a la Suprema Corte de Justicia.
“Él, McCain, estuvo con nosotros cuando era necesario”, dijo Hernández, refiriéndose repetidamente al liderazgo del republicano en 2006 al copatrocinar un proyecto de reforma migratoria junto al senador demócrata Ted Kennedy. “Yo sé cómo es su corazón y lo que siente sobre los hispanos y los inmigrantes”.
I’ll let you translate.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Campaign misstep for McCain? « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN
- Romney vs. Huckabee « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: GOP, Jihadists, John McCain, Open Borders Lobby
Stop The ACLU
» Obama’s Approval Ratings Tank, But Media Still Love HimNewsBusters.org
» Top Press Secretly Parties With Obama on Fourth of JulyRiehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoSister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day – from Carol Browner, climate-czar
On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm, Weary Citizen said:Wait. You said were leaving and not coming back b/c of all the racists/biggots/xenophobes/mccain haters here at MM’s site (not exlcuding MM in some of those names). It was nice while it lasted I suppose. Sigh
And we’re weary of you, citizen.
Tommygun,
Gee, let’s call everyone that doesn’t fall into line with McCain childish and self-defeating. I’m sure that will turn them into fanatical McCain supporters.
I’ll grant you that McCain reached out to us quite a bit with Palin, but after seven years of eye-poking for his own selfish political gain, I’m still not convinced. He should be grateful there are many conservatives who will hold their nose for him now, and do exactly what you’re asking, because it’s more than he deserves.
You miss the point. It’s the TIMING of this article that I object to. It’s very poorly timed.
We are at war. We are facing overwhelming odds with the media in the tank with the enemy.
One does not win wars by tearing down ones own side. Look at how the anti war nutjobs tried to destroy our will and our spirit in fighting Iraq.
This article is guilty of doing the same. Again, it is impolitic.
Ah. I see rose has a friend (you are the only one). Weary is having this ridiculous conversation of “mcamnesty good, no mcamnesty bad” argument freaking daily. It’s fruitless. But at least some of the mccain supporters are cordial and understand our frustrations, rather than attacking and name calling (as if that will change anyone’s miond).
Irish idiot is nothing but a liberal, or at best, a “compassionate conservative”. Go back and read the crap she throws out there and attacks every person. Hmmm, come to think of it, sounds a lot like you (but at least you confine your drivel and attacks to this mcamensty subject). She has said over and over this board is full of racists and biggots anytime an immigration issue is brought up. She also said she would leave and not return. But as usual she can’t be trusted. Now, if only you and her would leave, we would be in heavan.
Yawn.
This will be my 10th presidential election. Our country and economy was limping along for decades until Ronald Reagan came along. His influence and success was of such a magnitude that it carried clear through the terms of Bush 41 and 8 years of that lady’s man, Pigboy Klinton. That is why some of us are so stridently conservative. We all know the power of conservatism.
McCain has dissed the conservative base time and again. I’m willing give him a listen tomorrow night. His selection of Gov. Palin was a stroke of genius. But he’s going to be the one driving the wagon and illegal immigration in a post 9/11 world is a major issue for me (and it seems Michelle as well). Let’s hear what he says on this most important issue, then decide if the Palin selection is enough to earn our vote.
Bingo.
For all of you lets get McCain elected and hold his feet to the fire folks I have a question… Why can’t we do that now? RIGHT NOW. That way we’re guaranteed he can’t misconstrue our votes for support of his stupid policies.
You know, policies like:
Open borders
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Lieberman
McCain-Feingold
How about we pull him to the right before the election instead of him pulling us to the left afterwards? Our politicians have been moving the party to the left for years because we try to hold their feet to the fire after they’re elected. Sometimes we’re successful, other times we’re not. The result in the end is always the same, slow but steady progression to the left. It’s time we conservatives start pushing the politicians & the party back to the right before the election. The time for our voices to be heard is now, If we wait till afterwards it’ll be too late.(agian)
Go away already, why don’t you? You know, like you promised us you would.
zorro,
I’ll be listening, but don’t expect any change.
He could be leading now with a commitment to enforcement and attrition through enforcement, in addition to his stated commitment to border security, of which many are justifiably skeptical. He won’t win if he keeps siding with illegal aliens and their employers on amnesty. The American people are on the other side by a wide margin. And many of those are who he needs to get elected.
Virginia, my heart sank last night when the convention introduced that La Raza guy, Tommy Espinoza as a speaker. His pro-life message was eloquent but the rest of the La Raza story was left unspoken. John McCain must at least try to allay our apprehensions and abandon forever the open border stance.
Time to thicken the skin. It’s a culture war that’s being fought on two fronts: ours and the enemy (democrats). The combatants are trying to rally their troops plus turn the enemy combatants into allies. A few internal skirmishes aside, hopefully the bigger picture will yield a victory for all.
On September 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm, Virginia Patriot said:
He has stated that he will secure the border before he signs off on any “immigration reform”. He has promised to have the governors of the border states sign that their borders are secure before he will turn to “immigration reform”. They will ave no incentive to do do because it will cost them money and it affords us an opportunity to stop it by lobbying them not to sign. In the interim we can lobby, through pro enforcement organizations to have any immigration reform bill be sensible sane in no way resembling an amnesty for people who have broken our laws and disrespected our sovereignty.
That is a fighting chance to stop Amnesty and the fact that McCain has bent over backwards to please conservatives even though he has had nothing but spit in his eye for doing so tells me that we have an excellent chance of putting an end to any amnesty bill once and for all with a McCain presidency.
But you already knew that, because we went through this yesterday. If you have a plan to stop Amnesty that involves electing Obama, a true open borders advocate I would love to hear it. Otherwise I’ll see you tomorrow when we get the latest Daddy Yankee thread and we can repeat the same thing all over again.
I have seen it argued here that the best way of ending abortion is to elect someone who actually voted to murder live babies. I have seen it argued that the best way of getting a republican majority is for republicans to lose our elections. I have seen it argued, over and over and over that the best solution to the Amnesty problem is to elect someone who is truly open borders, indeed, someone who considers himself a world citizen and resents the things that most of us who are ONLY American cherish. If that isn’t “stuck on stupid” what is?
If this is truly about “Amnesty” may I suggest that the only way of stopping it at this point is to elect McCain and fight it with the governors, in Congress and with the president. And we will have to fight because the other side is actually organized, funded and committed. We are not. Since you are in a battleground state you might want to volunteer.
If this is just about venting on McCain to help get Obama elected well then carry on.
Solo said:
Ronald Reagan signed the biggest Amnesty for illegal immigrants in US history. He was called the equivalent of a RINO back when he was running against Carter by the same kind of people who are trashing McCain now.
Because he is fighting for the center in order to win and we are 2 months away from the election. The game of chicken is over and you won. You got a true, blue conservative as his running mate, even though she comes with baggage that we may not be able to overcome. There are no more concessions to be wrung out. You are just damaging your last chance to have any say over the next 4 years.
Solo said:
I said no such thing, Bill. You’re thinking of zorro.
Are you saying he needs the votes of open borders crowd? If that’s the case he’s screwed. He’ll lose more than he gains.
How am I responsible for that? Blame the idiots doing his vetting, not me.
Bill,
The Gov.s in question are all in favor of amnesty, they will sign off on Jan. 21st. The GOPers will follow along if he’s leading the charge, after all, he’s just been elected with everyone knowing he’s for amnesty. It could be on his desk in Feb. and he’d sign it.
On the other hand, Obama may not even get around to it. No indication that he’s as committed to it as McCain. If he is stupid enough to step in front of this bus, as McCain has twice already, he’ll find quite a few of the Democrats in Congress don’t wish to commit political suicide with him.
The GOP is providing cover for the Democrats. It’s way past time for this issue to divide the Democrats. That can only happen if McCain loses. Then the GOP might decide to represent American citizens instead of illegal aliens and their employers. The midterms of 2010 could give them more seats than ‘94.
I would rejoice and vote for him if he had an epiphany and decided to side with American citizens who want the laws enforced. If we are going to lose our country either way, I’m not going to assist in national suicide.
Gee I am sooooo shocked. Gutless Johnny and his appeasers try to “handle” people instead of living with values. Pathetic.
But hey! He got you Conservatives on board with the Palin pick. Guess handling people works.
This country is doomed.
Hey, when did amnesty become a centrist position? Last time I checked, that was a pure leftist issue, plain and simple.
FYI: I just installed the Ubiquity extension to my Firefox 3 browser. All I needed to do then was highlight each paragraph, right-click and go to the Ubiquity entry and then to Translate. It was only a rough (Google) translation, but I could figure out what Juan H. was quoted as saying.
It hasn’t.
Correct. Any republican that thinks legalizing millions of illegal aliens is a good idea is either insane or a liberal. 70+ percent of those that register are going to vote democrat. Why do you think the MSM supported McCain during the primaries? They know conservatism is circling the drain and it’s only a matter of time before a rino like McCain completely flushes it.
On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm, Solo said:
It is another opportunity to fight it. Fighting it there is one of the tactics we can use, along with fighting it in the house, senate and presidency. WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION OTHER THEN CAPITULATION? Seriously; lets hear your solution. Lets hear how we can fight amnesty under Obama.
They told you this, eh? Even though it will cost them federal dollars.
He wont be leading the charge, enforcement first, remember? There is so much supposition and mind reading here… Did the GOPers follow along the last time after people rang their phones off the wall and flooded them with mail?
So roll over and elect Obama. What else can I say? You clearly wont listen to reason.
The idea that you are pinning your hopes on Obama just not getting to it is pretty lame. It is wishful thinking. He will probably get to it within the first 100 days when he is looking for some easy legislative achievements to be able to say “look what I did”.
McCain has promised enforcement first, Obama hasn’t. Obama has said he will “Give the 12 million people who are here illegally… many of whom have U.S. citizens for children…a pathway to legalization.”.. Amnesty.
Will he? He would have a democrat-controlled house and a democrat controlled senate. How many democrats were thrown out over the last Amnesty vote?
The GOP was the only thing that prevented it the last time. The democrats were lined up to vote for it because it essentially creates more democrats.
If McCain loses, and the house and senate go the way they are predicted to go there will be absolutely nothing to stand in the way of an Amnesty bill. (This is like beating my head against a brick wall at this point.) Democrats for amnesty. Dems think amnesty good.
Another you have to lose in order to win fellow. Eh? That idea was first tossed out by the Hill & Knowlton PR firm as a way of capitalizing on republican ambivalence toward John McCain in Texas in order to keep the rubes and suckers on their tractors for the primaries so that they could get Hillary Clinton elected. It is a tactic, a trick to split the hard right off the Republican Party and keep you home on election day, patting yourself on the back for being such a good conservative while you have effectively helped elect the most liberal senator we have.
You do not gain influence by losing elections. Think about it.
I think that you are trying to look at this like it was a chess game, sacrifice a few pawns here and there and you can mate the king. It isn’t. It is more like a football game where we need people to push the ball down the field. Lose elections and the opposition will have no problem pushing the ball (Laws, policies, continuation of their power) down the field. That means socialism, capitulation in the war on terror, bankruptcy and yes Amnesty.
You do not gain influence by losing elections.
You have had as much as you are going to get. If you are serious about stopping amnesty then it will take work to counter the people who are pushing for it.
I respectfully submit that is exactly what you are doing by condoning an Obama presidency.
On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm, symrian said:
And it is so adult of you to get mad and go off your own way, the country be damned. And your attitude is sure to keep Hussein out of the White House.
I’m not asking for fanatical supporters. I’m just asking for cooperation while the rest of us fight the battle for your freedom.
Try worrying less about what McCain himself deserves and more about what the country needs. It needs Hussein kept out.
=====
On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm, meatpieandtatters said:
Very nicely put.
=====
I want everyone like symrian and VP to explain why Hussein winning will be better for the country than McCain winning. Please do come on here and tell us how great things will be. After all, between the increased PC pressure, the “Fairness Doctrine”, “hate speech” laws, etc., if that Socialist Black Nationalist — with the cooperative, White Liberal Guilt-plagued Congress and a thinly-balanced Supreme Court — manages to seize control, you soon won’t be able to say anything else anyway.
On September 4th, 2008 at 12:41 am, Bill Grant
VERY NICELY SAID!!
That’s been done.
You’re wasting your time by supplying the links, your intended audience won’t visit them but instead will attack tou with mouth-foaming enthusiasm.
AND
I think that McCain picked her for expediency. I think he will be surprised when she comes for his corruption.
I am considering voting for Palin/McCain, myself.
Why doesn’t he go for the whole enchilada: invite the KKK & the Black Panthers up there too?
Sorry, couldn’t resist the correctiuon. Let’s keep the terms accurate…
)
(please! someone attack me on my McCain change above! I’ve got lots of links to his own words supporting my position….
Absolutly correct. One of the things I’m least happy about McCarbonTax is he is a past-master of using Liberl-speak to cloak his movements.
Yeah, he’s certainly developing a pattern here: pat-on-the-head, poke-in-the-eye, pat-on-the-head, poke-in-the-eye, pat-on-the-head, poke-in-the-eye, rinse & repeat.
I don’t know if it is deliberate, Tommygun, but you seem to be either unaware or mistaking Reagan’s comment. There were people whowere bad-mouthing Dems who followed Reagan simply because they were Dems — even though they were Conservatives. He had little use for those who were stuck on “I always vote R because he’s and “R”…!”.
Reagan wanted to accept people into the party as Conservatives, not as any-old-warm-body, keeping their Leftist viewpoint intact. His actions illustrated this.
If you let anyone, regardless of viewpoint in sor the sake of the Sacred Big Tent, you’re basically saying that while you agree with boarders for our Country, you don’t for the Republican Party. I assure you that the same reasons obtain conserning borders for either.
Hi, St.LB! Who’s your father? (sonehow, whenever I type that, I always hear Vader’s voice in my ear…
)
Not I. And I don’t hate him. I have just looked at every public thing he’s done, and see how he’s no more than an opprotunist. I don’t know where McCain the Vet went, but I wish he’d come back. Maybe when he wins he’ll find what he needs to straighten-out & fly right. I hope so. If he continues on his current course, he will wind up worse than OB could be… he will kill Conservatism for at least a generation and Madam Hilary will be the elected 2012. W/o Conservatism’s straigthening influence we will walk off that cliff.
The reasons are still the same. To say differently is to twist things all out of shape.
In Command School, the 1st thing taught is: always decide. Even a wrong decision is better than no decision.
The 2nd thing is: never make a decision out of or from fear.
Is this why the slavering McCainanites can’t see the figurative two days ahead? Why they can’t see what is plain: Nixon was called a Conservative by the press. He was not. He tainted Conservatism until it was reclaimed from the trash heap by Reagan. The danger is that McGagOrderPriorToAnElection will do the same, and at a time when the Left has learned how to shut down dissent.
Yes, borders are an example, too. He made the mistake of trusting the Republicans in Congress, that they wouldn’t colude with the the Liberals in Congress, and that Congress collectively, would keep their word. He negotiated with the Liberals. You could say he reached across the isle! A true example of McCain bipatisanship!
So, now we should place in office a person who takes one of Reagan’s big flaws, and in magnifying it, makes it a major character trait? How is that good?
Everyone slavering over McCain, trying to shut down a critical look at his flaws, say OB wouldn’t listen at all. OK, I’ll grant that for discussion’s sake.
Except for his pick of Palin, (which is easily explainable as a tactic to quiet us “Noisy People”), when has McCarbonTax changed any of his actions to more Conservative ones? Don’t tell me what he’s said!
BTW, did you know I’m Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? What, you don’t beleive me? Why on earth not? What’s that you say: “Just because I say something is/will be so, doesn’t make it so?”
And before the phoney RTL-ers, (as opposed to real RTL-ers… of which I am one) pop-up to escoriate me, tell me you’ve looked at and can discuss McCain’s complete record on RTL, (incl. Wisconsin, which is an easy to find place to start…). Would that he really was RTL!
Yes, no one is perfect. My opinion was the Palin was a pick to head-off an uprising at the convention. That is what the history of JM’s actions indicate. If you look at his Sen. races, he has a habit of changing about 1.5 yrs out, back to what he promised at this election. His voting record was solid Conservative… when Conservatives were a tiny minority and he’d stand out. They went Liberal when he needed to stand out from the Conservative Repubs and then even more so when the Lightly-Left GWB became President. How is this different?
BTW: Go ahead, look it up! His voting record is at The Conservaive Union, look it up… all of it. Graph it. Come back, we’ll talk.
Thoughtful analysis, there are flaws. Your term “Ideological Self-indulgance” is very interesting. What you seem to basically be saying is that we can’t stop the the slow march off the cliff, so be happy. I see this term used mostly by Liberal bloggers trying to sway those who aren’t moored in Conservatism, trying to equait them with those Nasty Rabid Ideologs, while simultaneously appearing to be one of those “hurmmmm… Well Reasoned Centrists”. Is that your intent?
And w/McGagOrderPriorToAnElection, you expect him to nominate Conservatives? You know, ones that will tear-down his Landmark Piece Of Law: McCain-Feingold? What of his action causes you to think that? I ask in seriousness, since I am looking for reasons to vote for Palin/McCain
Why, yes you could say that… and I am sure that you’ll tell us how self-destructive, and enemy-enabling it is to complain when Pres. JM calls on Congress to quickly pass the New/Old Not Amnesty bill. They’ll probably pass it in less than 4 days. Preceeded of course by the 1st Admentment Protection Act… The one that makes any communication, unless lic. as a lobbiest, with Congress an illegal campaign contribution.
All those who say that OB will sign bills so much worse than JM, and if we vote JM into office we can hold his feet-to-the-fire, I ask: How is it any different calling the WH switchboard to meltdown with JM than with OB? When JM has our vote, how will he listen any better than OB? With his back-wrenching dashes to the “other side of the isle”, how will JM hold the line? With a veto-proof Congress, why would JM fight for Conservatives when his every political inclination is against it? Don’t tell what he’s said. A man can say anything, and Politicians always do. His actions show the secrets of his heart. Show me the actions that proves falws in my analysis, and I’ll happly become one of the choir.
Now you see why the Blue-blood Repubs front-loaded the primaries, and why they provided the talking points for a willing press to bring JM’s run back from the dead. No matter who gets the WH, Conservatism and those who practice it are going to be the targets of the next admin. JM/OB both will strength anti-1st Amendment laws, and either will use SCOTUS nominee picks as a Liberal/Liberal replacement exercise. The different is JM will probably pick Semi-Cons and immediately buckle when his “good friends” in Congress have a word w/him.
I know how people will dismiss this comment: “so we should give up, right… go away!”
NO! Those who say we have no choice bring to my mind what Alexander’s generals must have said to him: “But, Alexander, be reasonable! They’ve got chariots! No one can win against chariots! We should just concede the field…”
THIS war will be won by the details. By that I mean that we must win from the smallest unit up to the apex, not the other way around. We must keep our name, Concervatism, pure. If we don’t keep our Good Name, after JM we’ll have pick another… and that will set us back years!
Oops, time to leave for the outbrief…
On September 4th, 2008 at 1:48 am, Tommygun said:
Thanks Tommygun, you too have been eloquent and reasoned here. Thanks for that.
To: martin.musculus(jr.) On September 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am:
First, on the reference to Reagan’s 11th Commandment, I respectfully disagree. My main point was about the Left lining up behind one ticket, while the Right is very divided. The Left looks at the destination of their their ideology, and supports (with exceptions) the ticket which will do the most to support that. The Right looks (with exceptions) only at their policy positions themselves, and sees them as items with value purely of and in themselves, and cuts out those who don’t specifically support them. (The Left does, by the nature of sociopolitical human nature, can find it easier to do this, but that’s a discussion for another day.)
On “ideological self-indulgence,” which is action based on the above, all I seek to refer to is the tendency of purists to say, “My way or the highway” to too many tickets.
Like intense religious pro-lifers (with all due respect to our next VP —
)Not to single out any particular group, some issue groups seem to see politics as less about actually running a community (polity), and more about “getting their ideas out there” or “making a statement”. They view their vote as less the Starship Trooper-esque exercise of authority and more about “pleasin’ duh Lo-wor-da”. They look less at results than they do some sortA point I made earlier on tried to hit at this: They think God will look at their vote/campaigning in isolation and say, “You supported only
pro-lifegood candidates. I am well pleased,” when that action may in fact, by virtue of court appointments, bully pulpit influence, etc., lead tomore abortionsoutcomes very contrary to their desires. It’s a combination near-self-righteousness and cutting off the nose to spite the face.I urge them to see political involvement from a broader perspective: Working with people, parties, etc., regardless of whether they are
sufficiently pro-lifeexactly right on particular issues, in order to effect the policies and changes desired. Keep ethics and honesty, that is fine, but be realistic.The following is a touchy-feeling poem that I’ve long remembered. It’s offered here not as a cumbaya crap, but rather as a metaphor for ideological self-indulgence. Think of the expressed attitudes as policy positions, “coldness” as something like how ideologies (your own, or those of others) have movement and effect for or against you, and the fire as the general policy positions which need to be in effect for your agenda (survival, in this metaphor) to actually proceed (not just “be expressed”). Each person indulged in their positions completely, and you can see the result.
THE COLD WITHIN,
by James Patrick Kinney
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1248.html
Six humans trapped by happenstance
In dark and bitter cold
Each possessed a stick of wood–
Or so the story’s told.
Their dying fire in need of logs,
But the first one held hers back,
For, of the faces around the fire,
She noticed one was black.
The next one looked cross the way
Saw one not of his church,
And could not bring himself to give
The fire his stick of birch.
The third one sat in tattered clothes
He gave his coat a hitch,
Why should his log be put to use
To warm the idle rich?
The rich man just sat back and thought
Of wealth he had in store,
And keeping all that he had earned
From the lazy, shiftless poor.
The black man’s face bespoke revenge
As the fire passed from his sight,
For he saw in his stick of wood
A chance to spite the white.
And the last man of this forlorn group
Did nought except for gain,
Giving just to those who gave
Was how he played the game,
Their sticks held tight in death’s stilled hands
Was proof enough of sin;
They did not die from cold without–
They died from cold within.
Tmartin.musculus(jr.) On September 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am:
“Keep our name, Conservative, pure”. Uh, as much as the Internet has turned a few things, the MSM will always malign “our name”.
To be blunt, your approach puts an avowed enemy of the country in the White House. The battle with Hussein is not a battle a merely opposing agenda, though I have tried to be nice about that up until now. It is a battle with a movement which makes typical 1960s hippies look like patriots. It is a battle with someone pushing ideas that are not simply non-traditional or bad, or even unAmerican in places, but which is fundamentally anti-American. Yes, I do question his patriotism.
While I appreciate long-term perspective, it is denying the short-term threat. It is like the problem (at least, the one I have) with certain Buchananesque views of WW2: It is absolutely true Communism was the vastly worse long-term threat, but to have not opposed Nazism, etc. (after all, Hitler was fighting Bolshevism–and please don’t do that common Conservative stupid twisting of the traditional Right-Left distinction there; try to be honest) would have allowed that far more immediate and pressing threat to win.
Hitler and Tojo were shooting at us, Stalin was not (right then). We had to work against the Axis, and then take on the Commies.
Unfortunately, today it is reversed–the larger threat is also the more imminent one. Hussein and friends stand on the verge of creating the most fundamental defeat America has ever suffered. They are prepared to not just alter a few matters here and there, but rather to set the country on an irrevocable course to hell.
On the other hand, amnesty supporters are milder threats, and threats which can be handled. One loss there does not destroy the country, whereas a Hussein administration handing over the Middle East to terrorists, destroying American military power, and instituting “comprehensive hate-speech reform” in America will.
Your focus on the “smallest unit” is the very self-indulgence of which I speak. Years ago, an Israeli general expressed some concern about Jewish settlements being built in the West Bank. He explained that with those settlements there, in the event of war, he would be faced with times when the tactical reality called for giving up some particular settlements in order to win the whole war. He might have to (temporarily) allow a settlement to be captured in order to maneuver and save the whole country. He did not like having to make decisions like that.
Here, there may be times when we have to lose a little here and now in places in order to save the base and bulk of our positions, with an eye toward (re)gaining lost ground.
You use your Command School experience. Well, remember the end-of-the-day adage, “Is this the hill you want to die on?” Remember, it’s not just you dying, it’s your country. Your insistence on trying to hold every little hill all the time will get us all killed.
It’s not the abandonment of the ideological belief or desire, it’s the recognition that that position is not implementable at a given time. I fear you are, as described before, ignoring the difference and focusing exclusively on belief. God will understand if you have to backburner the implementation of something.
McCain disagrees with most of us here on some things. Hussein disagrees with most of here on virtually everything. For whatever reason (I’ve laid out my view of why it is), we have come to this place where this ticket is the ONLY thing to stop the Leftist juggernaut. That is the reality.
Tmartin.musculus(jr.) On September 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am:
“We don’t need artillery (to win). We’re gentlemen.” — From Gone With the Wind. (And as I look at the situation with the CSA today, we see how well that worked out.)
ONE LAST POINT, and then I have duty: Just because you work for a candidate, it doesn’t mean you agree with him/her on everything, or even most things. It merely means that at that time and that place, that person’s success served what you perceived to be the nation’s best interests.
The people in “The Cold Within” could work together to stay alive, and then later pursue the implementation of their attitudes (positions), attitudes which they could easily have held even while keeping each other/themselves alive. (I know, it’s not the best analogy–work with me here! lolol)
You can help get someone elected based on that, and then respectfully work to oppose aspects of their agenda with which you disagree.
That is political reality.
Two last points:
1. I can respect someone refusing to vote for a candidate on a matter of principle, though I believe it to be misguided. Nothing is perfect, and we choose the “lesser of two evils” all the time in our lives.
2. I do, however, find it difficult to appreciate, given the vast differences here and the supreme threat faced by Barack Hussein Obama [my usual spiel omitted], allowing personal offense and/or ideological purity to prevent one from acting to mitigate the damage. I understand the logic, but not the decision. Literally every bad thing McCain might do, Hussein would do in spades (yes, I said it), and so many more (and more destructive) things.
Please, to the Judeo-Christian people in that camp, consider just one scripture passage. Please consider the entire thing:
– Ecclesiastes 7:15-17
Perhaps the wisdom of Solomon will help you understand.
– Ecclesiastes 7:15-17 (emphasis and comment added)
Perhaps the wisdom of Solomon will help you understand.
The sad thing is, I don’t even know spanish and I could figure out how that translated. Amnesty. Still, McCain will still be better than Nobama who swings every direction these days. He doesn’t even know if he is coming or going.