Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast gay right wing conspiracy.
Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
GayPatriot is the internet home for American gay conservatives and hailed as "the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet."
"Terrific blog" -- Michael Barone, principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
FOLLOW GAY PATRIOT ON TWITTER!
Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot)
- Email: bruce -at- gaypatriot.org
B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest)
- Email: GayPatriotWest -at- aol.com
Sarjex Muller
- Email: Sarjex -at- gmail.com
Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
- Email: ColoradoPatriot -at- gmail.com
John (Average Gay Joe)
- Email: avgayjoe -at- yahoo.com
Vera Charles
Which scenario would be worse for conservative principles, American security and fiscal responsibility?
We ask…. you decide.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
In the short term, Obama. In the long run, I’d argue McCain. As president he’d put a Republican stamp on liberal legislation (like Bush has done with things like the MediCare drug program) and the GOP in Congress will grumble but comply as they did under Bush. The GOP seems to do well remembering its conservative principles while in the wilderness for a period of time and an Obama presidency would galvanize them to fight. McCain would not. Having said this, while I’m grateful to Obama for apparently taking out the Wicked Witch, I still will not vote for him. Well, unless the Maverick is stupid enough to pick the Huckster as his Veep. If he does, I make no promises.
Comment by John — February 15, 2008 @ 5:15 pm - February 15, 2008
It is the Supreme Court that is front and center with me on this one. I know Obama will nominate Cynthia McKinney, Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover. But McCain actually name some people who will apply the Constitution, not their audacity of hope.
Comment by heliotrope — February 15, 2008 @ 6:25 pm - February 15, 2008
I honestly can’t say.
Officially, McCain is clearly better. Michelle Obama is a raving Marxist. Hugh Hewitt had a clips of a recent speech of hers today – it’s just astounding. She truly believes in the salvific power of Big Government – yes, folks, its power to save *souls*! And in the magical, salvific power of "Barack". "Barack won’t let you" this, "Barack will want you to" that, she said. As one of Hugh’s callers put it: She had Barack sounding like General Zod by the end.
Having said all that… "Barack" would at least galvanize the Republican Party the right way, i.e., in the direction of smaller government. McCain will confuse and mislead it. Our host Dan (GPW) claims I’m not giving conservatives enough credit – that conservatism is a movement of ideas not personalities, etc. My answer to that is: Who the hell has been voting for McCain? Look at all the conservatives and Independents that McCain has already managed to confuse and mislead.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 15, 2008 @ 8:59 pm - February 15, 2008
ILC makes good points but I think, given the times, Obama could do more damage than Jimmy Carter.Pessimist that I am, I think conservatism is dead (or on life support, at best). An Obama presidency wouldn’t shock us back to conservatism; we’d just end up with another liberal.People in this country just the idea of being relieved of their responsibilities. Once they taste the reality of being relieved of their responsibilities, they won’t like it but it will be too late.McCain may well sells us out to Calderon and Al Gore but he does have a history of tax cutting and he would certainly appoint better judges than would Barak & Michelle.My choices are in the presidential race are McCain or None-of the-above. For now, it will have to be McCain.
Comment by Robert — February 15, 2008 @ 10:28 pm - February 15, 2008
Agreed. Barack Obama is the Jimmy Carter for the new millenium — running on charisma and public appeal and just waiting to dazzle us all with his level of incompetence.
Iran took the US hostages because they knew Carter would never fight back. What do we think’s going to happen with a nuclear-armed Iran when they know Obama will never fight back?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 16, 2008 @ 12:35 am - February 16, 2008
<i>Michelle Obama is a raving Marxist. </i>
Marxism aside, doesn’t anybody else remember her introducing her husband as "<i>My baby’s daddy!</i>"?
Couldn’t they get someone more ghetto trash than that to run?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 16, 2008 @ 4:09 am - February 16, 2008
Damn you, new format!!!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 16, 2008 @ 4:10 am - February 16, 2008
I cannot vote for either. I am looking to who they pick for VP.
Comment by PatriotMom — February 16, 2008 @ 7:11 am - February 16, 2008
McCain might be too fond of government regulation, but he’s the original warrior against pork and entitlement programs. See his record.
And what the hell is the little popup window? I first get an error, then have to hit the back button to submit.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 16, 2008 @ 8:08 am - February 16, 2008
Michelle Obama is a real piece of work. I have been keeping an eye on her, wondering when she might finally wear out her MSM protective shell. She has a lot in her craw aa well as a ring in Obama’s nose. If you become familiar with the ravings of Saul Alinsky, you will begin to understand how the Obama’s think and operate.
Comment by heliotrope — February 16, 2008 @ 9:01 am - February 16, 2008
Hillary is a Saul Alinsky disciple too.
So let’s see – we have a patriotic, but arrogant, "maverick" and ancient class-warfare guy who is running against 2 Alinsky disciples.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2008 @ 11:45 am - February 16, 2008
ILC, you are so right about Hillary and Alinsky. I may be all wet, but I would call Hillary a pragmatic disciple (moistened finger in the wind) while Obama is a general in the Alinsky revolution.
Comment by heliotrope — February 16, 2008 @ 3:54 pm - February 16, 2008
McCain might be too fond of government regulation, but he’s the original warrior against pork and entitlement programs. See his record.
As long as you ignore the immigrant support entitlements, the embryonic stem cell pork, the globall warmism pork etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2008 @ 2:34 am - February 17, 2008
I just have to say how much I love everyone who commented on this thread! You are all echoing my thoughts and fears, and its wonderful to find a blog where folks are blind neither to Obama’s undiguised uber-leftism (and all the statist, socialist, regulatory, big government, defeatism therein) nor McCain’s dreadful record on taxes, free speech, illegal immigration, "global warming," and "reaching across the aisle" to Dems while saving the viscious scolding for those in his own party.
This is a terrible crossroads to be at, but at least it’s good to know I’m no the only one utterly appalled at our choices. The very fact that Bruce asked:
<i>Which scenario would be worse for conservative principles, American security and fiscal responsibility?</i>
reminds me yet again why Gay Patriot is one of my favorite blogs.
Cheers to all of you for reminding me I’m not alone! You guys rock!
Comment by Laura — February 17, 2008 @ 3:24 am - February 17, 2008
I personally think the Mirror’s headline (paraphrased) How Can Millions Be So Stupid was about 4 years too early.
Can’t we just be honest and admit that nobody gives a rotten rat’s ass about McCain’s record? Not too long ago, the right was utterly PISSED OFF at McCain for his "Maverick" style. Now the right is utterly embracing it. We were PISSED OFF about the "Gang of 14", amnesty for illegals, etc. etc. Now we’re supposed to genuflect before Him and marvel at his superior intellect? WTF?
Can’t we just be honest, here, and admit that Republicans only like him because he served in Vietnam? Just as liberals like Orgasma because he can talk, never mind that he says absolutely nothing.
Can’t we just be honest and admit that we don’t give an ever loving shit about substance, but are voting for meaningless, vapid fluff?
If anybody truly gave a damn this year, the front runners we have would enjoy the same numbers as Kucinich or Paul. I seriously can’t see how anybody in America gives a sweet damn about who’s president next. That goes for liberals and Republicans. Just a few months ago, McCain sucked sweaty balls. Now look where he is. I suspect either A) everybody’s colossally ignorant or 2) they’re letting the liberal media decide our candidate for us.
Not a single, solitary soul is taking this the least bit seriously. Prove me wrong. What has McCain said or done to inspire any of us to reward his sorry ass? What did he do to convince Republicans to do a 180 from a few months ago? Screw his "record". What has he done lately that’s been so fukcing great?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2008 @ 5:55 am - February 17, 2008
As long as we’re at war, I couldn’t care less about immigration (and you can thank your juvenile, spoiled brat "I want it all now and no compromises!" attitude for still having the status quo). I’m pretty sick of litmus tests and other "pure conservative" horseshit. I’ve been voting since Nixon, and all this garbage has gotten us is defeated.
Now you can stamp your little feet and squall like a baby about your so-called "principles," but I am taking names, and if we end up with Democrats in power, every single time one of you "pure conservatives" complains about anything, I’ll be right there reminding you that you have no right to complain.
Grow up. There is no such thing as an ideal candidate. You can’t have it all right now. Deal with it.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 17, 2008 @ 8:21 am - February 17, 2008
Excellent point. From the billions in research grants to the billions in ethanol and other subsidies, what is the Global Warmism scam, but one gigantic PORK operation?
And what are Open Borders, but a vast quasi-entitlement program for certain foreigners (poor and rich alike) who haven’t earned it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2008 @ 11:01 am - February 17, 2008
RWP, it’s all fine and good for you to accuse other people of being babies or whatever, but you just wrote the little foot-stamping rant here. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2008 @ 11:05 am - February 17, 2008
Which would be worse for conservative principles?
An aggressive national defense OR a return to feckless national defense and a prosecutorial approach to terrorism
Defeating our enemies OR talking with and placating them?
Imperfect but improved fiscal conservatism OR $900 billion and counting in new entitlement spending?
Two to four more John Roberts on the SCOTUS for forty years OR two to four more Ruth Bader-Ginsburgs on the court for 40 years?
Moving back towards free-market healthcare OR nationalization of the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries?
A flawed conservative setting the national agenda OR a screaming marxist setting the agenda?
Gee, let me think about that a while.
Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2008 @ 3:18 pm - February 17, 2008
btw, that wasn’t intended to sound snarky
Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm - February 17, 2008
Did I really? I’m not the one threatening not to vote, am I? Nor am I the one who feels that he is entitled to hold the party hostage to his agenda, am I? I’ve pretty much had it with you little boys who weren’t even born when Reagan was in the White House, much less old enough to vote for him, invoking his name dishonestly to push your crap.
Grow up. Obviously, voters don’t agree with your "pure conservative" agenda. That means you’re out of touch, not them. Anybody stupid enough to think McCain is a liberal is too damned stupid to be allowed to vote. And when you don’t, you lose any right to complain. Pay your inflated taxes, get your paychecks garnished to pay for socialized medicine, and suck it up, cause you will have brought it all on yourselves.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm - February 17, 2008
#16
So <b>WTF</b> is the point in having a Republican party? If you’re going to spread your cheeks for the liberals, why not just be one?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2008 @ 1:51 am - February 18, 2008
Now I’m ROFL
(If only you knew how far off that comment is)
McCain won’t stop that. That’s the problem.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2008 @ 2:02 am - February 18, 2008
<blockquote>As long as we’re at war, I couldn’t care less about immigration</blockquote>
I may be a simple southern boy from Mississippi, but that sounds like a litmus test to me. If none of the Republican candidates had the stance you wanted on that, wouldn’t you "stamp your little feet and squall like a baby"? You can take your conceited arrogance and shove it up left.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2008 @ 8:03 am - February 18, 2008
Put immigration aside for a moment.
Do you realize that Americans are being kidnapped IN THE U.S. and being held for ransom in Mexico? Certain elements in Mexico like to kidnap folks for fun and profit. One doesn’t have to be rich or come from money to be kidnapped either. My partner, who grew up in Mexico, would be happy to explain it to you if you’d like.
Mexicans move somewhat freely into U.S. border towns. I’ve been to Laredo, TX. and Nuevo Laredo, TAMPS. You’d be surprised to find out which town you find more white folks in. Folks are kidnapped regularly in and around Laredo. The cousin of a friend of ours was kidnapped in broad daylight, hauled to Mexico, and held until his family coughed up enough cash.
Do you realize the drug cartels are still fighting for control of border towns? These are the type of folks who have killed police officers and displayed their heads on pikes just outside the police station. This shit isn’t relegated to South America or to the interior of Mexico anymore. This is just a block or so from the U.S. border. Sometimes, it spills over into towns on this side. Last time I was in Nuevo Laredo, I was in a cantina about 2 blocks from the border. The Mexican military was patrolling on foot and in technicals with their weapons shouldered. Our friends we were with told us that the soldiers had instructions that if they saw the Most Wanted, they were to shoot first and ask questions later.
Maybe you don’t give a damn because you’re safe in lala land far from the border, but this kind of shit goes on all the time down there. Take your pick of border town news sources and watch it for about a week or so. You’d be surprised. Chances are it will never make it in the Associated with terrorists Press or the New Jihad Times.
So tell me, do you feel comfortable with this type of shit going on, or should we do something to stop it?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2008 @ 8:43 am - February 18, 2008
RWP, you’ve nailed it with the comments about being sick of "litmus tests" and ultra-pure issue positions… and the whining conservatives’Â often used threat of not voting in 2008, putting the GOP out in the wilderness to learn a lesson, etc.
Politics and governing is about advancing pragmatic policies. It’s about ideas to the extent they inform an agenda.Â
It isn’t about litmus test purity results –unless you’re one of the AryanSuperRace survivors from WWII. And, as I’ve written here before, it’s about WINNING elections… not losing them to teach lessons to the "sinister elite" of the GOP or some other looney paranoid darkroom cabal.
Like you, if the conservatives stay home on election day like they did in 2006, I’d argue the GOP ought to put them out to the curbside for trash pickup and head for the political center dominated by reasonable independents who are not aligned with either party (yes, that excludes you, ILC/Calarato).
RWP, thanks for joining in on talking some truth to the purity test nonsense… it didn’t look like you were stomping your feet even a little… despite the lame attempt by some here to spin it that way.
I wonder if Rudy or Mitt (or even FreddieT) could have passed all these "pure conservative" litmus tests? Of course not… because if they did, the purity bois would defer they didn’t believe ‘em. I’m not even sure RR could pass muster for some of these purity bois these days– nostalgic adoration hour aside.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 19, 2008 @ 10:10 am - February 19, 2008
Now it’s time for MST3K! (Aryan supermen, sinister elites and cabals… munch… discard unpopped kernel… munch…)
But MM: I thank you kindly for recalling I’m an Independent. (Democrat before that)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - February 19, 2008
ILC/Calarato/whatever, get a room will ya?  Your fawning at me is embarassing… and it won’t get you any further along.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 19, 2008 @ 2:06 pm - February 19, 2008
Surrealer and surrealer!Â
 (Do you know what MST3K is, MM?)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2008 @ 2:16 pm - February 19, 2008
So in other words if a candidate, like Rudy, supports infanticide then we should all embrace that for the sake of victory.
Ron Paul supports telling the world to go to hell and hiding behind our own Maginot Line. I suppose, if he were in the lead, we should support that too as long as it meant victory.
So in exchange for stubborn support of the GWOT, we should grab our ankles and support blanket amnesty for those who violate our immigration laws.
I’d take defeat as opposed to compromising my convictions. What’s more, I’d be ashamed of being a gelatinous, malliable, spineless twat of a moderate who prefer to be all things to all people just for the sake of winning or getting along.
Moderate Matt is a prime example.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 21, 2008 @ 4:19 am - February 21, 2008
Besides, why should we give up litmus tests when the liberals won’t?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 21, 2008 @ 6:30 pm - February 21, 2008