"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater 1964 Republican National Convention
We are entering a new political era. These words from over 40 years ago can stir the conservative masses. But where are we? There is no one running for president who exemplifies this. The two Republicans who represented this ran poor campaigns. The only person still running who is semi-conservative (Mitt Romney) does not really fit this bill. If elected, I think Romney would be a good to very-good president, but I don't think he will be great, because I honestly don't think he will do everything it takes to defend America. I don't think he is an extremist for conservatism. I hope I'm wrong. But truly, what are our alternatives? John McCain, whose positions follow the Mainstream Media? How about Hillary Clinton? She never met a crowd she wouldn't pander to. Barack Obama seems like a really nice guy, but what about his policies? He sounds as far left as Hillary.
Both Clinton and Obama would pull our troops out of the Middle East regardless of the situation there. It could be argued all night about whether we should have been there in the first place, but we made a big mess, and now we have to clean it up. If the left and right keep arguing about how and if we should clean it up, it will still be a mess. If we work together, we can say; 'Well how do we fix this now? We'll figure out who's to blame later.' That's not what we get from Hillary or Barack though.
What else do they offer? Higher taxes. Open borders. Infanticide on demand. Socialized business. The restriction of the first and second amendments. It goes on and on. While most of Europe is going to the right as they've seen the impact of socialism, America keeps going left. John McCain is only marginally better than Clinton or Obama. He seems to understand that we must win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's willing to leave our borders open. He fought for the Amnesty bill, and when overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, he (along with his co-conspiritors) tried to sneak it in again.
So where does Romney stand? He is pro-business. Now I am not a fan of business having free reign as they have under the Bush adminstration, but socialism is not the answer either. He is for keeping taxes low. He is certainly better on infanticide, immigration, freedom of speech and religion, and taxes than anyone else running. I also think he will do a good job managing the war. He couldn't do worse than Bush and Rumsfeld anyway. So I hope that on super tuesday, conservatives will make the right choice. I hope conservatives will vote for Mitt Romney. Even if he loses the general election, we can't lower our standards so far to vote for McCain because; 'He polls better against Hillary.' That can't be it. Romney is no Lincoln, but who is? He is conservative enough to be a good President. Here's hoping conservatism is still alive in America. We don't have an extreme conservative, but we have a decent one, if people will vote for him. The alternative is less than 'moderation in the pursuit of justice.'
12 comments:
You're engaging in "straw man" argumentation against the Democratic candidates, and you're bearing false witness *FOR* the Republican't candidates, IMHO.
(well, for Romney. In McCain'ts case, you're engaging in "straw man" attack against him as well as the you're doing it against the Democrats, IMHO)
What is straw man there? They are for pulling out of Iraq regardless of whether we win or not, open borders, infanticide, limiting free-speech and religion and socializing big business. I'm keepin' it real.
Nestor, the only thing that's true that you said about them is that they're for pulling out of our illegal occupation of Iraq. All the rest you repeated are inventions of your enemy to attack instead of attacking your real enemies.
Open Borders - Are they for closing the border? No.
Infanticide - Are they pro-life? No.
Limiting free speech - Are they for bringing back the 'un'Fairness Doctrine? Yes.
Socializing Big Business - Are they for government control of Healthcare, the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Oil Industry? Yes.
Limiting freedom of religion - Are they for making it part of hate crime legislation to say what the bible says about Homosexuality? Yes.
Where's the straw man?
Nestor @ February 5, 2008 1:38 AM, you're repeating your straw man(s). Attack the real Obama and Hillary, you're missing your targets.
Not only that, Nestor, you're bearing false witness against your neighbors.
Stan,
It's not a straw man. Please tell me their positions on these issues since you think I'm wrong. Saying 'straw man' and calling me a liar doesn't prove your point.
Hey Nestor,
When is Texas' primary?
The Texas primary is March 4th (I think)
Your framing is the problem, Nestor. For instance you claim that being pro-choice is infanticide. Here's what infanticide is, Bush's occupation of Iraq. On the rest? Do the research yourself. Listen to talk radio that doesn't fill your head with all that garbage.
Being pro-choice means you support other peoples right to murder babies, even if you choose not to yourself.
Hillary and Obama both want to socialize American Healthcare, they've said it, its a fact.
They have alluded to taking over the pharmaceutical and oil industries, (Edwards was clear about it) and Clinton has promised she will go after the profits of oil companies. (Thou shalt not steal???)
Hillary for sure (probably Obama as well) wants to bring back the fairness doctrine which would require liberal talk shows on talk radio, even though there is only a very small audience for it.
They do want to limit free speech whether you like it or not. They also want to keep our borders open. I don't understand your problem with what I'm saying. Do you not like their positions?
Post a Comment