JOHN McCAIN supports Heller

[Triphammer]

Whenever McCain needed Az. conservatives he was pro civil rights ( firearm ownership IS a civil right). As soon as he thinks he can get more mileage, he "reaches" & comes up w/ a gunshow loophole or an incumbent protection plan.

Will I vote for him in November? Probably but I haven't convinced myself yet.
I don't agree w/ anything the two others believe in. I think it may be easier to fight a polar opposite than someone who's occasionally an ally & sometimes the foe.

 

[Winchester 73]

Agreed. I cannot vote for someone who says we could be in Iraq for . . . ever.

How long have we been in Germany,Japan,South Korea and too many other places to mention?
For...ever.
So vote for one of the pure Commies or take your chances with the oddball who at least most of the time will go with the 2A.
A little quirkiness on the gun show "loophole' and CFR but looks a whole lot better than C or O.
Unless I'm looking at the world upside down.

 

[packratjimnm]

Vote Ron Paul!

Mc Cain is a wolf in sheeps clothes. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Ron Paul is still in the fight, contrary to what the media says. He will be on your Republican primary ballots. He's the only true patriot.

 

[Telemundo]

I'm always stunned by people here who would sacrifice so much for the 'lesser of two evils'. Win, lose or draw, make a decision you're proud of.

 

[circle456]

+1 for VOTE RON PAUL and Telemundo #29

McCain is an "approved" candidate, same as Hillary and Obama.

For 2 minutes of Ron Paul, Google: Ron Paul High Tide

Freedom is popular

 

[Winchester 73]

I'm always stunned by people here who would sacrifice so much for the 'lesser of two evils'. Win, lose or draw, make a decision you're proud of.

Right ,and get a Communist as POTUSA.
That's a noble sacrifice.

 

[Ieyasu]

Right ,and get a Communist as POTUSA.
That's a noble sacrifice.

Right-on Winchester 73.

I understand how some people feel, however without Bush, ie., had Kerry been elected, we never would have gotten a favorable decision in Heller (I'm assuming we'll get one).

That's why I'll be voting for McCain in the presidential election. I can't stand the guy, but it's our ONLY chance of getting pro-RKBA judges on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

What so many people fail to realize, is that long after a president is gone, the judges they've appointed remain.

I don't understand why some folks aren't satisfied with incremental change. We'll never get it all at once.

 

[Winchester 73]

I don't understand why some folks aren't satisfied with incremental change. We'll never get it all at once.

Mainly because these people remain forever idealists.
Its the old Winston Churchill cliche quote,"Those who are not liberals at 20 have no heart.
Those who are still liberals at 40 have no brains".
Winston's sage message is still ringing true.
And thank you for the backup.

 

[Run&Shoot]

Yeah you're right, you guys are the sages and we're idiots. Compromise is always better than standing up for what is right. We have no choice, but must choose from the short list we are fed.

I wish I had trusted in Bob Dole. I should have trusted Bush when he gleefully said he would sign an AWB. I ignorantly took him at his word. I should pretend that McCain really is trustworthy. I mean character doesn't really count does it?

And if only I just compromise one more time the Republican party will really remember that conservatives are their base next time. May be one of you geniuses can explain to me how by going along all the time with a candidate that panders to the other side strengthens out position? All I see is that every election we drift further and further to the left/global/socialist agenda.

I have been a Republican for decades but I am really fed up with their ridicule of the conservative base, betrayal on key issues, and pandering to the liberals who will never in a million years vote for them. Bush appointed good justices only after much arm twisting and howling.

In the end both parties are controlled by globalist who will work to erode our rights and sovereignty. One may just get us their faster than the other.

To paraphrase Kevin Costner in Open Range: there are some things that will gnaw at a man worse than death. Or as my dad once advised me, sometimes you have to fight for what is right even if you have no chance of winning.

Some of you guys may want give McCain and the Republican Party more rope in the hopes that someday they really want to be conservatives and not Rockefeller globalists. I've run out of patience after four decades of rooting for them.

 

[Winchester 73]

Yeah you're right, you guys are the sages and we're idiots.

We're not sages and you are not an idiot.
It's a choice between McCain and 2 rabid Socialists.We're not that happy with J.M. either.
But there is no other option now.
Try to be patient awhile longer.
You'll be glad you did.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

There is always another option.

 

[seeker_two]

That's why I'll be voting for McCain in the presidential election. I can't stand the guy, but it's our ONLY chance of getting pro-RKBA judges on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

Are you so sure? Remember, Bush promised the same thing in '04.....and then nominated Harriet Myers. Alito was grudgingly nominated and never defended by Bush. And McCain supported neither Alito or Roberts. Would you feel better if Myers and Alberto Gonzalez were hearing Heller now?

McCain reminds me a lot more of Dole than Reagan

McCain is Dole without the Viagra......

 

[boilingleadbath]

McCain can win the general election, and is more acceptable than Obama or Hillary, so it makes sense to vote for him in the GENERAL election.

However, I don't see the harm in sending a message to the party leaders and McCain by voting for Paul in your state's (republican) primaries.

As the election cycle moves on, McCain seems to at least be paying lip service to some of Paul's ideals.
Logical, as he wants to capture the people who wanted to elect Paul.

 

[seeker_two]

McCain can win the general election, and is more acceptable than Obama or Hillary, so it makes sense to vote for him in the GENERAL election.

Then why is it, in every poll taken where McCain is pitted against either Dem, he can't beat them by a greater margin than the poll's margin of error?

If he runs without the support of the Republican base, he'll lose. And he's not doing much to convince the base to support him. Maybe he'll do better with his VP choice.....but I doubt it......

 

[Poper]

We need to create a new Conservative Party.
I'm willing to help with that.

Count me in!
I this age of information and communication, you would think it would be possible to begin a new political party and direct it on-line without much of the huge overhead costs of the 2 ruling parties.

Any ideas on how this could work?
Poper

 

[pittspilot]

I am frequently amazed that folks who describe themselves as strict constitutionalists fail to recognize that the Constitution's fundamental structure forces compromise between differing sanctions, and thus moderation and big party politics. Ideologically pure politicians do not win majorities in American politics.

James Madison was quite explicit about this. See http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Is McCain perfect?

Nope.

Will there ever be a candidate I consider perfect?

Maybe, but he (or she) will not win the majority of votes because my beliefs are not in the majority.

So I take what I can get, and frequently vote against the greater evil, which is this case will be either of the Democrat candidates.

 

[Triphammer]

I miss Ronnie

 

[Ieyasu]

Remember, Bush promised the same thing in '04.....and then nominated Harriet Myers. Alito was grudgingly nominated and never defended by Bush.

Yep, I hadn't forgotten in the least. However my point still stands. If Kerry had been prez, our chances would have been zero. At least with a Rep president, there is a CHANCE the admin can be lobbied. We apparently got TWO pro-RKBA Justices.

And McCain supported neither Alito or Roberts.

Your source? This one quotes McCain claiming:

McCain emphasized that he supported Alito enthusiastically, spoke in his favor on the Senate floor, and voted for his confirmation. He has said repeatedly that if elected President, he would nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019662.php

I'm not aware of any PUBLIC statements to the contrary. Again, of course that's not a guarantee, but a far better chance than we'll have with Obama or Hilary. (And again, don't forget the entire federal judiciary.)

 

[Winchester 73]

I'm not aware of any PUBLIC statements to the contrary. Again, of course that's not a guarantee, but a far better chance than we'll have with Obama or Hilary. (And again, don't forget the entire federal judiciary.)

Amen to that.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

I am frequently amazed that folks who describe themselves as strict constitutionalists fail to recognize that the Constitution's fundamental structure forces compromise between differing sanctions, and thus moderation and big party politics. Ideologically pure politicians do not win majorities in American politics.

James Madison was quite explicit about this. See http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Is McCain perfect?

Nope.

Will there ever be a candidate I consider perfect?

Maybe, but he (or she) will not win the majority of votes because my beliefs are not in the majority.

So I take what I can get, and frequently vote against the greater evil, which is this case will be either of the Democrat candidates.

First off, Madison never, EVER said we should comprimise on our Rights (which, if you haven't noticed, is exactly what we've been doing, under both Democratic and Republican leadership). It should also be noted that the word "compromise" does not appear even once in the source you provided. What Madison does say, and often at that, is to play one side against the other to maintain equilibrium. I can agree with that (to an extent), but what do you do when both sides have become so corrupt that liberty is destroyed with the election of either?

If I may elaborate a bit, the reason for pitting one department against another as stated by Mr. Madison is to keep the government controlled by itself ("Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." - Madison). The fact that McCain reaches across the aisle so often does not support this purpose. What you will end up with is one, unified and vastly overpowered government with no restraint upon itself, and likewise, no regard for the rights of the people. I challenge any McCain supporter to come back to this thread in about another two years and tell me I was wrong. And it might not even take that long.

Secondly, the reason the "pure" candidate will never enjoy a majority position is evident by your post. The decision of who is electable should not be made by the rulers or the media corporations. It is made by the people, and that decision is currently only left to the former because the people are no longer free-thinkers, and must have their choices made for them.

'Tis sad that you would surrender your beliefs because they are not in the majority. You talk as if you are helpless to change the status quo.

And everyone is talking like election day is tomorrow. Pardon me, but . . .

"***?"

 

[pittspilot]

"First off, Madison never, EVER said we should comprimise on our Rights (which, if you haven't noticed, is exactly what we've been doing, under both Democratic and Republican leadership). It should also be noted that the word "compromise" does not appear even once in the source you provided. What Madison does say, and often at that, is to play one side against the other to maintain equilibrium. I can agree with that (to an extent), but what do you do when both sides have become so corrupt that liberty is destroyed with the election of either?

The Constitution itself is an excercise in compromise. Myriad components of the document compromise competing ideals.

I can certainly agree that there is corruption in the government. It's inherent to the system of governance. The USA isn't as bad as most of the world though. Fundamentally though, the vast majority of the people seem to have elected to allow the government to take care of many aspects of their lives. People seem unwilling to accept that if they cannot have paternal security and liberty at the same time. That's the system we have now and the one that we have to deal with.

And as far as compromising our rights. By the late 1990's the right to own firearms was in serious jeopardy. Through the Republican party, the appreciation of gun rights and the lobbying powers that protect those rights have won substantial victories and made substantial progress. And that's the way things work. You have a principal. You fight for that principal and make progress. However, you will never win everything because the system is designed not to allow that. Same for you, same for the ideologies you disagree with.

I would also argue that the system is no more or less corrupt then it was from the beginning. However, its impacts are felt more as more and more government influence is exerted.

Secondly, the reason the "pure" candidate will never enjoy a majority position is evident by your post. The decision of who is electable should not be made by the rulers or the media corporations. It is made by the people, and that decision is currently only left to the former because the people are no longer free-thinkers, and must have their choices made for them.

The majority of people in this country are busy raising kids and working for a living and don't have the time or the inclination to stay or become intimately involved in politics. It's always been that way. So what happens is that there is a political elite that are the opinion makers, and the every one else tends to let them have their way. That tendency usually ends when the political elite begin to pick on a faction a little too much, and that faction organizes. (ie. the rise of the religious right, etc)

'Tis sad that you would surrender your beliefs because they are not in the majority. You talk as if you are helpless to change the status quo.

And everyone is talking like election day is tomorrow. Pardon me, but . . .

"***?"

It's not a surrender of my beliefs, its a recognition that the majority does not share them to the extent that I do. Upon recognizing that fact, what should I do? I certainly can't impose my beliefs, nor would I want to. I can support candidates that share a measure of my beliefs, which I do. I can support organizations that share my beliefs which I do. But other then that, I have three kids to feed, love and play with and a mortgage to pay, and that takes up an awful lot of my time.

 

[LAR-15]

Voting for McCain here