Several weeks ago I went through the ritual of removing my red, white, blue and gold Huckabee bumper sticker from the back window of my truck and dutifully replaced it with the blue, white and gold logo of John McCain.
I accepted the reality last summer that I was going to have to “eat my peas and carrots” at the end of the day and get behind a less-than favorite.
Like many conservatives who just so happened to be registered Republican, I will support the nominee-apparent, not because he was the best candidate or the most conservative, as he wasn’t on either count.
But I won’t be backing him just because he’ll have an “R” by his name on the November ballot or due to fear and loathing of the Democratic alternative.
First, I admire John McCain’s service to our nation.Though military experience alone does not make one qualified for the presidency, that he endured five and a half years of torture and brutal privation at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors yet still refused to take the easy way out by accepting the Communist government’s propaganda inspired offer of repatriation ahead of prisoners who had been held in captivity longer than him is admirable and indicative of his tenacity and inner strength.
Second, though he has a habit of playing to the media, one unpopular area he has been an avid supporter is continuing to support the Iraq mission until the post-Hussein government is stable.Perhaps it will take a Vietnam vet to ensure that Iraq does not become one by abandoning our commitment to that country.
Third, McCain has been a fairly reliable conservative.Granted he’s no Jesse Helms, but he hasn’t been Linc Chafee either.Having played Martin Luther in my previous column, I won’t bother reposting his transgressions again here, especially since they’re all too well known already.
But to his credit, McCain has been consistently pro-life and has enjoyed the support of a number of conservative leaders, including former US Senator Phil Gramm and Oklahoma US Senator Tom Coburn.Besides, John McCain at his worst was still more conservative than Mitt Romney was at his most Massachusettian.
I entered the 2008 primary season on my 8th or 9th candidate to start with.
First there was my original choice, former Jersey City mayor Bret Schundler.Governor was to be his launching pad towards the presidency but in the end got the Soprano treatment courtesy of his fellow GOPers.His presidential aspirations have slept with the fishes ever since.
Then there was Pennsylvania US Senator Rick Santorum.The ardent-social conservative lost a lot of cred backing Snarlin’ Arlen’s renomination over a true conservative.Hence his later demise as a senator was hardly missed.
Then there was George Allen.“Macaca”, which has been etched into the American political lexicon even though it is not a word, best sums up that one.
When arch-conservative South Carolina governor Mark Sanford backed away from a run, conservatives entered the primaries without a candidate.
Fred Thompson offered a glimmer of hope for a little while but upon watching him perform at the Young Republican National Convention in south Florida, I knew right then and there he was not serious.
I resigned myself to Huckabee not because he had a chance, he didn’t, but as a protest vote to demonstrate the continued significance of social conservatives in the party.Embracing his candidacy was made easier since I admired his campaign style and personal sincerity.
At that point Rudy, Romney or McCain were playing a game of no-man stands to settle the nomination with Florida sealing the deal.
I am convinced now more than ever that the former New York City mayor made a decision to pull the plug on his candidacy before the new year and his Florida strategy was nothing more than an expensive and ungraceful bow out.
And Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity be damned, I privately preferred McCain over Romney.
At some point in our lives, we all learn the errors of our previous ways and wish to atone for them.But when I looked at Romney and his considerable shifts, I didn’t see sincerity, I saw expediency and though Mitt v. 08 positioned himself to the right of McCain, I can at least respect principled stubbornness.
Though McCain is probably not going to change his position on areas where I disagree with him, he also not likely to switch on those where I do.And that’s worth something.
by Michael Bayham, a columnist and former Parish Councilman of St. Bernard Parish
Well Mike... it may be significant that over 800,000 people cast ballots for Ron Paul during various primaries. That, plus the money he's managed to raise from supporters... oh yeah... the FACT that he has yet to officially drop ut of the race... one might think a political reporter with any integrity would at least mention this candidate in his "summation" of the Republican Party's choosing of their candidate for President. Interesting, the questions this media blackout brings to mind. Written by kpf
on 4/21/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well tell me Tdub................. Is Limbaugh and Coulter the only Media outlets in existence? Or do you simply want them out of existence so that you and you alone (Along with Your 'approved' media 'propagandist' outlets) can put your opinions out for the world to bow down to??????? Not very 'sporting of you old chap'............ Cherio!!!!!! Written by .... Werewolve from london
on 4/21/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well, just like FoxNews is the propaganda wing of the American conservative movement, the Republican Party is the political arm of said movement. Did we really expect folks like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Mike Bayham to keep up the McCain bashing, now that he's the GOP nominee? Do we really think Coulter and Limbaugh are going to go out and campaign against McCain, even if Hillary's the nominee (whom, they both argue, is more conservative than McCain)? Of course not. So they all will support McCain, even though they wish he were a bit more on board with the whole "torturing Arabs" thing. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I appreciate your appreciation Carol, but my suggestion was for my test was merely made out of sarcasim..... The fact of the matter is NO MEDIA access NO EXPOSURE, so, there we go, back to square one. U-Tube is hardly what I would consider a source for basing decisions on. And so we are back to square one again. PROPOGANDA. In other words, half of what you see, and none of what hear. So, I suppose then it bedcomes "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".... In the long run though, it usually isn't until the bottom completely falls out that people try to make an effort and dig their way out of the hole they are in..... And these days, by the time that sort of realization sets in, it is generally too late. Sort of like closing the barn doors after the horses get out..... And the vote for President, well, let me say that if it happens again, this won't be the first time we have elected an eneffective President into office..... And the odds are that 2 out of three of the current candidates are simply that... And the third? Well, I suppose that would depend on what your definition of effective is..NOt what the definition of is IS........ Written by To does or not to did, that is the question
on 4/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I like your test for the candidates! That could be part of the program. Instead of just submitting a certain number of names to get on the ballot, they would also have to pass your test. And it can all be open-book for all I care. Or all on YouTube, since there are concerns about literacy, especially in regards to incumbents....
I'm opposed to regulations of all kinds, but this is one regulation I might favor, since it does not affect one's actual choices, only the level of knowledge one possesses prior to the choice.
I'm not sure what is inherently stupid about that. It is unusual, to be sure, but that is not the same thing. Written by Carol
on 4/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Carol................ I read you, and I understand your concerns and intentions. But there is a thing called the internet if you want to find out about a person, and what that person's voting record or qualifications are........... As for a test on the voter’s knowledge to find out if the voter is qualified to vote before it is allowed to vote, I think that is sort of stupid suggestion. It is interesting, but still, it is stupid. Sorry 'bout that, but facts are facts......................... I do not think it is the voter, but rather the candidate that should be subjected to a test, particularly a test on whether it knows what it is talking about or not................. whether it can do what it is promising, or if it is just going to be another dead head hanging around in a public office......................... In fact, I only know of one metering device of this kind that was ever offered up for the voters to make an informed choice on during election processes to figure out if any of the legislatures recently elected to the Louisiana Legislature were qualified to ask for votes, odd thing of it was, or I should say the simplicity and beauty of this metering stick even applied for folks running for Louisiana Governor. It was really, really, really simple. It merely asked if they were aware of the provisions of aid that amount in value to many hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run offered for the State of Louisiana on page 12 of www.strongconcrete.com Guess what Carol? That simple little question, with all of its benefits involved went unasked, and unanswered. So my opinion is that the State of Louisiana is entitled to the Politicians it is currently stuck with.... Have fun when they start to demand more taxes out of your pockets, or start writing more tickets to make up of for budget shortfalls, or when they start cutting programs and benefits that were supposed to help the constituents they serve. All because they don't have enough common sense to look into something that will save the taxpayers money, and protect the property the taxpayer’s work for as well as a host of other benefits..... Written by Maybe it is common sense you are looking for
on 4/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
My little plan has nothing to do with race or with the necessity of the media to provide information. The media has no obligation to provide election information to anyone. There is no "we" or "them."
The premise is this: People have strong opinions for-against the candidates often based on limited or deliberate mis-information. Most don't know who all the candidates even are, let alone their views. They are making decisions that have huge repercussions for other people based on little of substance. Ie -- voting to send others to war, voting to deprive others of their property, etc....
So, if the people are going to be able to send my husband to war, for instance, they should know all the viewpoints on the war before they can do so.
It is in the interest of everyone to have an informed electorate. (That is the only "we.")
The media likes power. They like to bend thie viewers to their viewpoint. If they wish their biases to played out at the ballot box, they might want the viewers of CNN or FOX to pass the test, and might voluntarily provide all the answers, not just the ones they like.
Unlimited chances to pass the test before you vote to impose aggression upon others.
It doesn't exactly deprive people of the right to be stupid. They can still be stupid. They just can't harm people with their stupidity. Written by Carol
on 4/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,, Carol, did you take a stoopid pill when you woke up this morning??????? Or is that simply the normal ‘state’ of your mind (Nayuckkkk-nuck-nuck-nuck…. ‘State’… Ha!Ha!Ha!.... Mind…… Ho-ho-ho-ho!-ho-ho!) Note the word ‘antiquated’ before the rest of the sentence in my post……..” law that decreed that "All Negros must be able to demonstrate the ability to read and write (subject to the discretion of the test giver) before it can vote??????? In other words, Geessssssssshhhhhh are you an airhead or something????? Oh perhaps I should have said ‘Ignorant’. ( There goes that ‘state’ paradigm type thing again, oh I just can’t help myself when it comes to veiled sarcasm, but I try to be politically correct so as to not offend the genteel mindset or perceptions of the dainty as they read my discourse.) Come to think of it, you may be sort of fun on a night out on the town, maybe even interesting to talk to….. ehhhhhhh, I’ll give it a little thought) And I am sure you believe THE MEDIA would be more than glad to tell us what we NEED to know…… Question is Carol, who owns the media????? Or perhaps, is there any reMEDIAtion that needs to occur? (Nayuck-NUCK-nuck-nuck-NUCK). That is why there are sources like C-Span, and this dumb buzzy bored, and a host of other internet sites…….I mean do you seriously think Anderson Cooper, or Lou Dobbs, or Nancy Grace really read your emails, let alone going to talk back to you on the T.V. screen??????? For Christ’s sake Toto, this doesn’t exactly look like Kansas to me……… And ‘WE’ want them to succeed????? Where do you get this ‘We’ thing from? Sure I am glad to see blacks succeed, being as you seem to be wanting to make this a racial issue, but am I going to toss and turn in bed all night long because blacks aren’t running the country……..? Uhhhhhhhhhh,, not only NO!, but H….E…..double hockeysticks NO!....... Much in the same fashion that many blacks toss and turn in bed all night long because it ‘appears’ that ‘White’ people are running this country. Now if Colin Powell were running for PreZ, I SURELY WOULD CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF VOTING FOR HIM…….. And that last sentence wasn’t sarcasm, and it is no lie. Written by I know a website you should look at....
on 4/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I anticipated that some racist would remark that blacks are too illiterate to pass a test or vote in an informed way.... It's 2008 and it's very sad that I could still anticipate this.
If you'll note, I carefully stated that the media would be free to give all the answers all the time about all the candidates. The idea is for everyone to succeed, not fail. Everyone would have unlimited opportunitues to pass the test -- and since the very liberal media would certainly want the "black illiterate vote" (as you assume) to be voting for the liberal candidates, they would ensure that their viewership became well acquainted with all the issues and all the candidates -- and then added their spin.
The right wing media would have to do the same. Well, neither media would be forced to do anything, but if they wanted to influence the election with their carefully planted biases, they would also have to inform their viewers about all the facts, not just the ones they wanted you to hear.
Instead of repeating the same story about Obama's pastor ad nauseum, interspersed with the latest about Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith, they would tell the full platform of Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, etc. All of them.
The public would be protected from the media deciding who they think is electable or not. If the media wanted their viewers to vote a certain way, it would be in their interest to report ALL of it, or the couch potatoes might not get to vote at all.
The country would be protected from voters making choices from ignorance or deliberate misinformation. If voting didn't matter enough for some to learn the material, well, it would be a civic service on their part to honorably abstain.
Now, I don't happen to think black people are less capable of learning the facts than white people. But sure, illiterate people of any race could take the test orally. We want them to succeed, remember. Written by Carol
on 4/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Geeeee Carol, is that anything like the antiquated law that decreed that "All Negros must be able to demonstrate the ability to read and write (subject to the discretion of the test giver) before it can vote??????? Or how about “In order to vote people must own land” which was an even earlier law in effect on the colonial books? Written by Castrate the, uhhh, I mean Castize the voters
on 4/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well T-duuuuuubbbbbb, now you see some of the beauty of election processes, Rick Santorum was overlooked, and so were others........ Are you saying that Hillariously, and Boreraacckkkk aren't SCARY???????? Now when it comes to Piyush.... Well now, in the words of Ann Coulter,,,,, "Then there is that guy who came out of nowhere that is the Governor of Louisiana... Interesting"............. Oh, and so you don't get the wrong impression of what was written TW, Later she said that she "Is a destroyer, not a builder of personalities"...... And I appreciate her honesty, and I consider her conservative nature.... So read between the lines.............................................. I really don't see anything unique about him at all, aside from the observation that yes, he is a good orator, elections in 1934? Well now, it seems apparent that Hitler was the mouth piece, great public speaker, but you would have to ask about the roles of Gohering, Himmler, Goebbels. You see, they were given the authority to act on Hitler’s words, and the actions taken could be whatever they deemed ‘expedient’ and subject to their own interpretations…. Now enter Erich von dem Bach, Richard Baer, Herbert Backe, Paul Blobel, Kurt Blome, Ernst Boepple, Viktor Brack, Otto Bradfisch, Rudolf Brandt, Alois Brunner, Josef Bühler, Herberts Cukurs, Theodor Dannecker, Oskar Dirlewanger, Adolf Eichmann, Hans Frank, Roland Freisler, Karl Frenzel, Karl Fritzsch, Odilo Globocnik , Hermann Göring, Curt von Gottberg , Ernst-Robert Grawitz, Arthur Greiser, Reinhard Heydrich, Karl-Friedrich Höcker, Hermann Höfle, Otto Hofmann, Rudolf Höß, Karl Jäger, Friedrich Jeckeln, Manfred Freiherr von Killinger, Helmut Knochen, Wilhelm Koppe, Friedrich Krüger, Wilhelm Kube, Franz Kutschera, Slavko Kvaternik, Rudolf Lange, Ernst Lerch, Arthur Liebehenschel, Martin Luther (diplomat), Josef Mengele, Ain-Ervin Mere, Alfred Meyer, Heinrich Müller (Gestapo), Artur Nebe, Otto Ohlendorf, Oswald Pohl , Hans-Adolf Prützmann, Otto Rasch, Walter Rauff, Hanns Albin Rauter, Wilhelm Rediess, Heinz Reinefarth, Gustav Richter, Alfred Rosenberg, Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg, Martin Sandberger, Julian Scherner, Walter Schimana, Franz Schlegelberger, Karl Eberhard Schöngarth, Franz Walter Stahlecker, Franz Stangl , Jürgen Stroop, Wilhelm Stuckart, Harold Turner (German SS commander), Edmund Veesenmayer, Petro Voinovsky, Gerhard Wagner, Gustav Wagner, Ernst von Weizsäcke, Christian Wirth, Eduard Wirths, Dieter Wisliceny, Karl Wolff, Petro Zakhvalynsky, etc., etc., etc…… Along with the entire population of Germany both willing and unwilling………………………………….. So I would suppose we are looking at ATTITUDE……………. Hmmmm, attitude, a very strong and potent thing that can be twisted by impo’tant peeples…. Soooo…. In other words, take away peoples hopes, and you take away their happiness for the future……. And believe you me, during the Berlin bombings, a lot of folks weren’t thinking about happiness, or even the future, they were worried about their today which was many, many, many, yesterdays ago….. I have to cut this short though, because some *ick (ick, nayuck-nuck-nuck-nuck) is probably going to get it’s panties up in a twist because I wrote SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many words, and his short attention span just couldn’t accommodate that so he pisses and moans as he can’t stand it and cries for a FOUL!!!!!!! And a decision from the buzzy bored referees…………………….. And I know you won’t like this T-duuuuuuuuuuuub, but this was
Written by ..We didn't start the fire, it was always burning
on 4/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
After reading this, I propose a constitutional amendment that all prospective voters must first pass a test that demonstrates knowledge of ALL the presidential candidates and their positions, including the fringe candidates. The questions and answers will be submitted by the candidates themselves so that they are not defined by devious others. The voter must also know the definition of conservative, liberal, statist, libertarian, and centrist -- and be able to correctly insert each candidate into the appropriate category before they are permitted to vote.
They can take the test as many times as necessary. It is win/win for everyone if voters become informed and only vote after they are informed.
If the media wishes a certain demographic to vote for their annointed candidate, it will be in their interest to fully educate the public on ALL the candidates, or their viewership will not pass the test and be able to vote. The answers will be freely available. This test will protect the people from the media.
Now then, Huckabee is not a conservative. He only fits the "social" side of the conservative equation. His economic policies are liberal. When you combine these two features -- a belief that government should intervene in both personal and economic decisions -- the resultant viewpoint is that of a statist.
Romney is not a conservative either. His economic viewpoints are conservative, but again this is only half of the equation. His social viewpoints are centrist to liberal. When you combine these two features -- a belief that government should be restricted from imposing itself on economic and personal freedom, it puts him in the centrist/libertarian region.
They are absolutley opposite views-- but neither are conservative.
Written by Carol
on 4/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh my God you like some dangerous, stupid people. Rick Santorum? Are you serious? Thank goodness the good citizens of PA have more sense than you. Cripes. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 4/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
