GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Neither Dem Presidential Contender Fit to Lead

by

Sometimes, when I have an idea for a post, a catchy title for the post comes to me as I write.  Other times, I’ll finish the post and have to struggle to think up a title, one which may be catchy, may even summarize one point in the article, but doesn’t necessarily often a succinct synopsis of the post’s central idea. Â

Such was the case with the post I wrote late Wednesday night California time, If Dems had Strong Nominee, GOP would be Toast in ‘08. Just today, after breakfast, it occurred to me that the above title better suited the post than the one I gave it.

So, I’ll use that title and see if it attracts more attention. 🙂

UPDATE:  A Democratic official describes the protracted campaign for his party’s presidential nod as the “nightmare that’s getting worse.” While the article focuses on the tight race, it all but ignores the Democratic candidates weaknesses, something which surprisingly we have seen more mention that we might have in years past.

Comments

  2. Going back to your original post, you can’t predict what’s going to happen in November based on polls taken in March.  McCain’s  current "lead" is inflated  because a lot of potential voters are turned off by the tone of the Democratic contest.  Once a nominee is selected and Democrats on the losing side calm down, just the thought of a McCain presidency will unite Democrats, moderate Independents and moderate Republicans.

    For the first time in my adult life I’m supporting a Democrat…Hillary Clinton  If the general election were today I’d be among those Hillary supporters who cannot vote for Obama.  I cannot support McCain so I would have to skip the presidential section of my ballot (unless Hillary somehow pulls it out and is the nominee.)

    It’s always possible, but not likely, that I could change my mind by November.  For example, if McCain looks to the right for a running mate I might hold my nose and vote for Obama.

    A few months ago I sincerely believed that if Hillary lost her bid for the nomination I would have no problem supporting Obama.  But a lot has happened since then.  I still recognize that Obama is an inspiring speaker but I am troubled by his failure to provide sufficient detail about the "change" he seeks.  I think circumstances in some of the caucuses he "won" raise questions about his claim on the nomination.  I have come to be worried about his qualifications, experience and judgment.  I have yet to be convinced he has any business answering the ringing phone at 3 a.m., especially if any of his national defense advice is coming from the likes of General Tony McPeak (former Air Force chief of staff).

    Having said all that, I sure wouldn’t want to bet on the November election.  I think Hillary would have a good chance against McCain because of her positions on the economy and because she is less vulnerable on the commander in chief issue should McCain be able to make national security a bigger issue than it currently appears to be in the polls.  I think McCain stands a better chance against Obama because of his inexperience and the liberalism he tries to hide with the fluff he spews in his inspirational speeches.
    By the way, I don’t dislike McCain.  I greatly admire him for his military service and his continuing service to America as a member of Congress.  And I frequently agree with him.  But on most of the issues of greatest importance to me he is far too conservative.

  3. Trace: I’m curious… How could you support a habitual liar like Hillary?

    This is a woman who had the White House Travel Office staff false indicted on charges of fraud so that she can fire them all and bring in her friends.

    None of that matters?

  4. This bit about Barack being an inspiring speaker…sure I wish W could string together a few cohearant lines. I recall Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro were very inspiring speakers. They convinced the children to spy on and turn in their own parents.  Nice. Bill Richarsons main selling point for coming out for Obama was…."wow he gives a great speech and watching the crowds reaction was amazing." Blather. Pretty thin if you ask me.

  5. Hillary didn’t know her husband was having affairs. Barack didn’t know his preacher of 20 years was a raving racist. Both know how to fix Iraq and high gasoline prices though. Obama knew Iraq didn’t have WMD, but he didn’t know his preacher was G Damning America in front of his wife and daughters.

  6. Hillary’s positions on the economy…….(!)  I have often wondered why anybody would vote for any candidate of any party on the basis of the economy. Do some people really believe that the economy is directed by a single source of forces with some wizard at the helm?

    I listened as Hillary told the Ohioans how many jobs they had lost during George W. Bush’s years in office. Then she promised to fix the problem. Wonderful. Open the window, Hillary, and talk specifics. Tariffs? End featherbedding? Bust the crippling retirement packages? Subsidize businesses? Put everyone on the government payroll and pay them to mow each other’s yards? Send the illegal aliens packing?

    And as a person who just cares deeply, why wouldn’t she already have her brilliant agenda out there so that we can all get started making it happen? That would be the patriotic thing to do.

    Of course there are small measures that a president can take, but my memory is too long to want many of the past nostrums. FDR had price ceilings and government jobs; Truman went back to the price ceilings coupled with luxury taxes; Eisenhower dropped the price ceilings and funded national building programs that improved the infrastructure; Kennedy cut taxes; Johnson raised taxes and printed bonds; Nixon had price ceilings and wage control and added Medicare; Ford gave out lapel pins; Carter let inflation run wild and turned down the thermostat; Reagan cut taxes and raised social security taxes to secure its future; Bush 41 raised taxes; Clinton raised taxes and pulled social security payments into the budget to "balance" it; Bush 43 cut taxes and tried to address the mess social security is in because its income is pork barreled out by greedy congressmen of both parties. And Hillary will do what?

  8. I think Hillary would have a good chance against McCain because of her positions on the economy

    Sorry. I wasn’t aware adding almost a trillion dollars in spending and dictating who makes too much profit was good for the economy.

    Did I miss that memo?

  10. I saw Hillary defiant tonight, "she is not going to quit." When was the last time either Bill or Hill did anything for the benefit of the Democat party? After their 8 years in office the party was at it’s weakest point in 20 years. They tear down and defy to build up their own personal power. She doesn’t give a damn, if she can’t win….nobody will win. Thankfully the Republicans and the country will benefit in the long run. BTW I miss all the leftists who use to debate in this blog. Since the many Democrat scandals and party canabalism they seem to have drifted away.

  12. Do some people really believe that the economy is directed by a single source of forces with some wizard at the helm?

    Yes. Marxists. They not only believe the economy can be directed but they want to direct it. And both Hillary and Obama would move us drastically in that direction.

  15. BTW, raj, please don’t call me a “conservative”. That term used to describe what I believe in, what I stand for. While I haven’t changed, the contemporary meaning of “conservative” sure has. Comment by Trace Phelps — June 24, 2006 @ 10:58 pm – June 24, 2006

    And, ND30, why would I ever bother to read your biography? I’ve never visited your blog and don’t intend to. People like you have moved my beloved Republican Party away from its core principles and made it what Republican author Kevin Phillips calls a “religious party”.Comment by Trace Phelps — June 5, 2006 @ 6:00 pm – June 5, 2006

    To Michigan Matt: There you go again, trying to turn the Republican big tent into a little pup tent. Kevin Phillips is a longtime Republican who, to my knowledge, has never deserted the core principles of the Republican Party (unlike President Bush and that gang running Congress).And please don’t redicule me for loving the Republican Party — at least the party of Eisenhower, Goldwater and Reagan. Unless you’re older than I think you are, I was working my butt off for the Republican Party and Republican candidates before you were old enough to spell R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n. And I don’t regret one penny of the nearly one million dollars donated to the party and candidates (in the pre-Bush years).Comment by Trace Phelps — June 6, 2006 @ 2:28 am – June 6, 2006

  18. I criticize Bush a lot for a lot of what has gone wrong. Mostly because I expect better from him because I know he has the information there and should be making better judgements. However, no matter how poorly hes’ done., there’s no contest.. in anything the Leftists are complaining about now. their people would be so much worse.

    I love how these Leftists suddenly care about debt and spending.. their candidates talk like they’re going on an unlimited spending spree.

    To the Kevins out there.. please tell us which increased spending under Bush would you have wished not happened?

  19. #18: "To the Kevins out there.. please tell us which increased spending under Bush would you have wished not happened?"

    Defense spending.  No contest.  It’s a zero sum game to liberals.  Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar that was SUPPOSED to go to education, healthcare, etc.  That’s why there are so many of those ignorant websites out there that have a furiously spinning tally already up in the trillions showing the money "wasted" on the war and those petulant calculations of how many schools and hospitals the "wasted" funds could have built.  To borrow Mark Steyn’s phrase, to liberals, we have no enemies–only friends we haven’t yet apologized to.  They hate the military and have no intention of ever using its services, so they regard the money as down the toilet–an obscenely huge premium for an insurance policy on which they will never make a claim.  That’s why the only thing that Obama is on the record saying he will actually cut is 10 billion of  the defense budget.  (It was in the Obama clip that was posted on GayPatriot a couple of weeks ago in which Obama also said he will dismantle our defenses so that we can have a "nuclear-free world.")

  20. GayPatriotWest #14 — Don’t try to shrink the party’s tent to exclude moderates.

    I considered myself a "conservative" when that generally meant the principles and policies set forth by the late Barry Goldwater.  Those who call themselves "conservative" today do not share the core principles held by Senator Goldwater and many of his followers.

    While Senator McCain’s maverick positions get most of the media’s attention, in truth he is one of the most "conservative" Republicans in the Senate.  He and I mainly part company on "social issues" including the type of justices he would try to appoint to the Supreme Court.

    And I’m disappointed in his flip-flopping on President Bush’s tax cuts.  He had legitimate objections when he voted against them.

    If he wants to continue Bush’s ill-fated adventure in Iraq, he should be clear that the billions a month spent on the war in Iraq won’t be borrowed; that sufficient taxes will be levied to pay for it.
    BTW, heliotrope in #6, Medicare was not proposed by President Dick Nixon.  That program was adopted during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson.

  21. Trace, you are entirely correct that Johnson signed Medicare into law. It was an immediate disaster and floundered in a systemic bankruptcy that continued to spiral ever deeper into the abyss. Rarely has such a boondoggle been perpetrated on the taxpayer.

    My shorthand about Medicare and Nixon is that he "saved" the program, thereby adding it to bloodsucking entitlements that we can not afford today. In fact, if he had had his way, Nixon would have created a nationalized health insurance program along with his screwy HMO initiatives. Nixon had the chance to scrap the program, but redesigned it, instead. He was no big government dragon slayer. His first forays into socialized medicine go back to his freshman year in the Senate.Â

    On another note, I am startled to learn that you operate (or once operated) according to Barry Goldwater’s core principles. I, too, think we should have flattened Hanoi and any Russians who happened to be vacationing there. I am sure that Goldwater (I voted for him in 1964) would have favored a quick end for Muqtada al-Sadr. He would also have been quite comfortable having a squad of imams escort troops through the mosques to demonstrate that they were maintaining their religious site neutrality.

    Again, I would never have pegged you as a Goldwater conservative. I wonder if his late in life ruminations on gays in the military is not what you see as his core beliefs?

  22. Trace: I do not believe for one second that you operate (or believe in) Goldwater principles. If you did,

    (1) McCain should be a little too liberal for you – Not too conservative. Goldwater conservatives believe in small government. McCain believes in small government some of the time, like being anti-deficit, but not nearly often enough. Let me count the ways in which McCain supports large government, opposes the economic freedoms that Barry Goldwater stood for, and slanders the people who dare exercise those freedoms productively.

    (2) Having said that: both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are so much more to the extreme of Big Government than McCain, that supporting either of them ought to be an impossibility for a real Goldwaterite.

    So Trace, kindly cut the crap. Support Hillary as much as you want.  Whatever.  But in your comments above, you have stretched, warped and twisted the meaning of words like until they have none.

    And no, saying that you’re a "moderate" and "conservatives" want to drive out "moderates" doesn’t cover it either. Because… remember this speech of Barry Goldwater’s?

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

  24. Trace, to call McCain one of the most conservative members of the Senate is to read left-wing blogs calling him "McBush" and ignore his voting record and rankings which put him to the left of the average Republican Senator.

    John McCain may no be a perfect Goldwater Republican, but Goldwater did favor a more aggressive stance in Vietnam than did his 1964 rival in the presidential contest.
    The more you write,  the less confidence I have in your Republican credentials.

  25. To ILoveCapitalism in #22 — What Barry Goldwater believed in the early 1960s when he first came to national attention was pretty much what he still believed late in life.

    But late in life he observed more than once that, in view of contemporary conservatism, his beliefs would almost make him a liberal among Republicans.

    I wish Barry was still around.  I’d be curious to know how he’d feel toward Senator McCain.   Barry, a major general in the Air Force Reserve, loved his Air Force.  McCain not only shows little respect for our Air Force. on occasion he’s tried to screw USAF.  And, more than any member of Congress, McCain deserves blame for France’s Air Bus getting the multi-billion-dollar contract to build the new Air Force tanker aircraft.

    To GayPatriotWest in #24 — I must admit that I, too, sometimes question if I’m still a Republican, although just before logging on to this website I wrote out another check to a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives (the fourteenth check I’ve written to Republican candidates this primary season vs just one to a Democrat).
    This will be the 15th presidential election in which I’ve been involved (‘tho I wasn’t old enough to vote in the first three) and the first in which I cannot support the GOP ticket (I had to hold my nose but I did finally vote for Bush’s re-election in 2004).  I am uncomfortable about many policies advocated by the Democratic Party but after struggling through the last several presidential elections to make a decision, I’ve concluded that on most of the issues most important to me Republican Party and I are at odds.  I disagree with a lot of what Hillary Clinton stands for, but on my "personal" issues she and I agree.  On every one of those issues John McCain and I are on opposite sides.
    On the rest of my November ballot I will be voting for more Republicans than Democrats.
    I don’t have time to explain it, Dan, and I’d probably never get you to understand, but the Republican Party that I embraced when I first took an interest in politics hardly resembles today’s Republican Party.  They don’t have the same principles and many of those calling the shots in the GOP today would have been considered the "fringe" when I was a teenage Republican.

  26. #25 Trace writes: "But late in life he observed more than once that, in view of contemporary conservatism, his beliefs would almost make him a liberal among Republicans."

    Goldwater was joking about becoming a "liberal" compared to the moral majority Christian right of Robertson and Falwell. He loathed those people, but he knew the Rockefeller republicans well and he would never accept being compared to them. Eisenhower was way to far left for Goldwater. Â

    Goldwater completely bombed out in his run for the presidency. He was opposed to social security, government welfare in general (including the GI Bill) and supported privatization of TVA and the airwaves. He even sued Jimmy Carter over the Panama Canal Treaty. As a libertarian, Goldwater opposed having the government get involved with abortion. He could not see why the government should take a role vis a vis being gay.Â

    Like Harry Truman, in his old age he loved throwing a verbal stink bomb just to watch the reaction. I am still surprised that Trace exhumes Goldwater for a model of circumspection when Ron Paul is readily available as a living counterintuitive role model.