McCain Wins Florida (sigh)
Posted January 30th, 2008 by Da King
Rudy Giuliani is out of the running. He seems happy to be out of the running. Makes me wonder if that strategy of his to not compete in the early primary states was intentional. Could he be headed for the back end of a (shudder) McCain/Giuliani ticket ? Rudy didn't seem interested enough in becoming president. He might have been slightly more interested than Fred Thompson, who ran his campaign as if he was on Valium, but not interested enough.
Mike Huckabee is also virtually out of the running, but it looks like he is going to hang in the race until Super Tuesday, if for no other reason than to stick it to Mitt Romney, since he splits off some of Romney's conservative vote.
This leaves John McCain as the frontrunner with the momentum in the GOP, and the likely nominee.
Which leaves me with one question:
HOW THE !*&$$%@! DID THIS HAPPEN ???
John McCain didn't support the Bush tax cuts, which pulled us out of a recession. Now, he says he wants to make them permanent. Gee, I wonder what could have prompted this reversal ?
John McCain supported shamnesty for immigrants entering the country illegally. He supported Social Security benefits for those same people. His partner in crime on that bill was none other than Ted Kennedy, who, not coincidentally, authored the last 'fix' of illegal immigration in 1986, that did nothing about illegal immigration except increase it.
John McCain suppressed freedom of speech with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill.
John McCain was one of the Gang Of 14 who sided against his own party in breaking up the Democrats filibustering of judicial nominess, which denied the nominees an up or down vote. This was after the Democrats held the process hostage for months.
John McCain partnered with Joe Lieberman on an expensive Climate Change Bill, a bill that would raise consumer energy prices and government spending.
John McCain was the sole Republican in the Keating Five.
Is this the best the GOP can do ? Are you Republican primary voters paying attention to what you are voting for ? I'm trying to take all this in and figure it out….let's see….
Hey, I know. I'll do what the Democrats do when an election doesn't go their way……..
VOTER FRAUD ! VOTER FRAUD ! (Hey, the primary was in Florida too !). VOTER FRAUD !
Farewell Ronnie. I'm very sad to see you go, replaced by these posers. No wonder the Conservative Coalition is falling apart. There aren't enough conservatives in it. They've been replaced by Liberal Lite (tastes like crap and is less fulfilling).
"Reagan footsoldier" my big fat behind.
It's my opinion that about 25% of the electorate is hardcore conservative, about 15% is hardcore liberal, and the other 60% floats around in the middle, sometimes floating a little left and other times floating a little right. That 60% is floating to the left at this time. We really could have a return to complete liberal control of all branches of government very soon, just like in the Carter years (aka, the worst economy in my lifetime). Good luck, america. You're gonna need it. Taking a hard left turn into enormous increases in taxation and government spending at this precise time in our history, with an already huge debt and tons of future unfunded liabilities coming our way, will end with a resounding crash. And we are standing there like a deer in the headlights watching it come, doing nothing, seemingly not even willing to acknowledge it.
——————————————————————————————-
On the Democratic side, Hillary won nothing in Florida with 50% of the vote and zero delegates, and John Edwards finally realized he wasn't in the presidential race anymore. The Breck Girl dropped out, and rumor has it, he may throw his support to one of the other candidates (Obama) in return for an Attorney General nomination ? Could you see Edwards as AG ? He could sue all the big corporations in the country for being, well, big corporations. That is reason enough for the son-of-a-mill-worker angry class warrior. I'm sure that would do wonders for our economy.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Nope. However we have traveled down the same road although you arrived sooner than I did. My liberal tapes(well imbeded by by my college experinces plus the need to feel compasionate) resulted in despising Regan at the time although the message started to make sense. My final conversion transpired the last few years as a result of engaging with progressives in one of their blogs. The more they talked the less sense it made. They finally cured me of the belief that liberals are the chosen ones when it comes to caring about the welfare of others.
Dont let the angry vile of the self appointed champions of compassion and justice wear you down. Many of them have a deep need to feel superior and since they cant logically defend many of their postions they will ignore the issues and attempt to discredit you as a person.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
King, I hate to get in here between you and Fred since both of you are making so much sense but here goes.
You said, ***Could you see Edwards as AG ? He could sue all the big corporations in the country for being, well, big corporations. That is reason enough for the son-of-a-mill-worker angry class warrior. I'm sure that would do wonders for our economy.*** when talking about Edwards getting out of the race. It is amazing what some of the well placed Democrats of the nation are doing these last few days, obviously jockeying for jobs in the next administration in the belief that it will be run by Obama.
Edwards could do more toward the destruction of the country as AG than he could as President. He could go after all the "Big' corporations and in Hillary fashion take them all down. Maybe we do need Obama over Hillary. Imagine Edwards as the AG with Hillary as the boss.
I mentioned Dems falling all over themselves to get some kind of job next time around. The Governor of Kansas who delivered the Dem response to the SOTU, whatever the f–k that is, fall over herself yesterday in supporting Obama while he was in Kansas. It is obvious that she would like to be the first female VP of the US and is trying to get to that point with the media using her name with that job so often. I voted for this woman for Governor twice even though she is a Democrat but won't vote for her for VP ever. That takes my vote a long way from Obama. Ain't it funny how things like this can work out?
January 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
1. To Fred and King: I wonder, perhaps, if you gentlemen grew more conservative as you took on responsibility of like, say, a family, kids, house payments, etc.? Responsibility has a sobering effect on people, maturing them — especially if you're in the middle class and are not insulated from liberal lunacy by wealth.
2. To King: As for McCain's victory in Florida, it shows that the liberal media is still extremely powerful in forming the perceptions of those 60% of people in the middle.
I also agree with you that, in general, the country is swinging leftward. This trend is about ten or so years old and is still growing. There's a number of reasons for it, but the bottom line is that this fever will have to run its course.
3. To Roysoldboy: You observe that "Edwards could do more toward the destruction of the country as AG than he could as President."
I agree. Edwards as AG would be as bad for America as Clinton/Gore's AG was. That was the notorious fire-bomber, Janet (the "Waco Kid"). And the Breck Girl could even rank down there with LBJ's AG, the traitor Ramsey Clark.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
McCain's win in Florida had little to do with the media, it had to do with the lack of a worthy candidate against him and the fact that the Republican party is out of touch with the thoughts, feelings, and fears of most Americans. You are a right, though, it is a trend that is about 10 years old…..in fact, it can be traced to 1994 and the Contract with America. Compassionate conservatism was a sham and peopld have finally realized it. The only hope the Rs have is if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Fred,
You said, "…since they cant logically defend many of their postions they will ignore the issues and attempt to discredit you as a person".
I've found that to be one of the main tactics of liberals. They demonize conservatives, call them evil, racist, etc. Their other two big tactics are: 1) change the subject, and if that fails, 2) lie outright.
Reason, logic, fact, history, context, and perspective don't seem to matter much when arguing with a liberal. They seem much more emotionally driven than anything else. Of course, these are just generalizations grounded in my experience, and not every individual liberal person acts this way.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Roy,
The thought of having John Edwards in any powerful position within the federal government is enough to make me reach for the Maalox. He is obviously looking to trade his delegates and endorsement for some powerful appointment. Picking Edwards for AG sounds like a nightmare to me. He was an ambulance chaser, not a prosecutor, and if he brought that class warfare attitude to the AG job, oy vey.
Is it possible to sue corporations for making a profit ? I bet The Breck Girl would try.
Vince,
I'm thinking that the best way to get the country to swing back to the right might be to let the liberals run things for a little while. I'm certain that would do it. The problem is all the damage the libs would do to the country before the voters caught on and kicked them to the curb.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:35 am
da truth,
Here is a link to the 1994 Contract With America. Tell me what you find wrong with it. I thought the '94 Republican Revolution was what resulted in Clinton's presidency turning around, prosperity being restored, and a balanced budget being reached in the 90's. All Clinton had to do (and did, to his credit, remaking himself from a liberal into a moderate), was go along with the Republican Congress.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ContractwithAmerica.html
I do agree with you that Bush's Compassionate Conservatism was mainly a sham (I say 'was', because he has backed away from it in the last year). There was already another word for that mistaken policy. It's called 'liberalism'. That's where the Republicans veered off course, resulting in their demise.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:28 am
But King, you make my point for me. When is it that the Rs abandoned their principles and became more concerned with getting theirs regardless of the consequences? It began in 1994. I'm not saying the contract itself was bad, but if you look at the behavior of your party itself from that point on, it is not only disappointing but the antithesis of what the party supposedly stands for.
There is no question that the contract and Mr. Clinton's ability to interact with a R congress is responsible for much of his success. Which is why what happened from 2000 to 2006 is dangerous. I do not trust my own party leaders, I trust yours even less. I question everything, regardless of whether it says D or R. Unfettered power in the hands of either of these groups leads to runaway policies, incredible debt, and poor decision making that leaves too much to chance. That is the only problem I have putting a D in as president. I am not fond of the idea of having control of the superme court, congress, and the presidency in the hands of one of these parties. I should have been more clear; I wasn't blaming the contract per se, more using it as a starting point for the timeline.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:48 am
"Vince,
I'm thinking that the best way to get the country to swing back to the right might be to let the liberals run things for a little while. I'm certain that would do it. The problem is all the damage the libs would do to the country before the voters caught on and kicked them to the curb."
That's how it may well play out, King, if we're lucky.
For it is dangerous whenever big government, liberal fascist like the Dims get their hands on power as they are apt to do in November. The Dim's rhetoric aside, the objective of the liberals is not to serve the country but to consolidate political power and perpetuate their hold on government.
In this regard, both B. Hussein Obama and especially Comrade Hillary would work tirelessly to chain as large a section of the middle class as possible to the Plantation of Government Dependency, just as the Dims have done to the Negroes.
The Dim vision for America is to have a country ruled over by a strong central government that itself is ruled by "experts," not the people. And the Dims have a model for this which is the non-democratic European Union (EU).
In deciding which is the lesser evil to the republic, Husein Obama or the Clintons, I'd venture to say to it is Obama even though both are devoted students of the radical anti-American leftist, Saul Alinsky.
This is because Comrade Hillary is a far more methodical and committed Leftist than Obama who is a bright, but empty, flash in the pan.
The good news is that if either one of these two leftists are elected president, they will alienate their base in short order, especially on Iraq and other foreign policy issues. This is what happened with the Dim Congress elected in 2006. And it will happen again if the country is unfortuante enough to be burdened with either President H.R. Clinton or President B. Hussein Obama.
What happens from that point on is anybody's guess. Factors beyond the control of any president are sure to come into play -Islamic terrorists, decisions made in China, Mexico, etc.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
As I read the comments here it's like entering some Alice like Wonderland.
However, King, this….
"Taking a hard left turn into enormous increases in taxation and government spending at this precise time in our history, with an already huge debt and tons of future unfunded liabilities coming our way, will end with a resounding crash. And we are standing there like a deer in the headlights watching it come, doing nothing, seemingly not even willing to acknowledge it."
Decades of Republican economic "leadership" and illegal, costly wars…..leadership that ran deficits year after year while increasing the national debt exponentially….leadership that cut taxes while waging an expensive war….and you're now crying doom and gloom about how new leadership will mess everything up??
"not willing to acknowledge it"….my word….the current debt situation came upon us as a result of Republican policies to purposely increase the debt…thus blackmailing the country into accepting further cuts of popular domestic programs, much as you are suggesting. What we now are facing is EXACTLY what Republicans wanted.
The answer to this is very simple. Get the heck out of Iraq, saving us hundreds of billions.
Expire the Bush tax cuts and raise the cap on Social Security now.
Single payer, government run health care for all, eliminating, completely, parasitic insurance costs. Negotiations with Big Pharma, leading to lower costs for drugs.
Corporate reform and new guidelines for offshoring jobs.
Legalize the non-criminal Latinos inside the country, bringing all of their incomes into the revenue stream.
Much more oversight of Casino Wall Street and tighter, not looser, controls of the banking industry.
But the first thing we have to have is a leader. Obama…is that leader.