Coulter: Would Vote Clinton Over Mccain

[Justin86]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454778' date='Feb 3 2008, 02:44 PM']Did Ronald Reagan betray the movement when he signed into law the first and only illegal immigrant amnesty law in 1986?
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_19"]1986 US Immigration Reform and Control Act[/url][/quote]
Just to add to Knight, I liked how you left out how he restricted free speech. Love to see you try to defend that one.

[daytondog]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1454812' date='Feb 3 2008, 01:22 AM']Just to add to Knight, I liked how you left out how he restricted free speech. Love to see you try to defend that one. [/quote]

I don't have to defend McCain on every issue; just like I don't defend Reagan or Bush or any other conservative politician on every issue. (Bush is pro amnesty; Reagan ridiculously pulled out of Lebanon in the face of Islamic radicalism, etc) No one is 100% conservative. Plus when I think of the big compelling, moral issues of our time, campaign finance just isn't one of them. Doesn't even break the top ten. So I guess McCain has not betrayed the conservative movement; he like Reagan, has just taken occasional stances that can be construed to be counter to conservatism.

Presidential politics is always, and has always been about choosing the least worst candidate.

[son_of_angels]

To bring this line of debate back to the Ann Coulter issue: Who could possibly take her brand of conservativism seriously? In any case, it's true that there are some things that make the Democratic candidates desirable or affable in the Presidential race. If we deny that, we deny the basic humanity of the candidates. Acknowledging the humanity of all the candidates, and therefore the possibility that someone of a different political mindset may have genuine contributions to body of society seems to me to be the beginning a coherent political philosophy.

As for the issue, McCain's candidacy, that seems to be the major thread of this debate topic, it seems to me that McCain has alot of things right. His Immigration Bill was a flawed approach with correct intent; we must come to terms with Latin America and embrace the idea of a local, common economic community that couples freedom of movement with freedom of trade. Otherwise, we are just falling into the trap of mercantilism that plagued the old empires. Secondly, his stance on the war seems to me to be a strong one. In fact, I think he can bring respectability back to the idea of prolonged Middle Eastern involvement.

That doesn't mean that I would ever vote for McCain. I would not; he is far too sketchy on social conservative issues. Instead, I support Huckabee. I remember when he was my governor and think that he would bring the same level of bipartisan unity that he brought to Arkansas politics. However, I think it is true what Romney said, "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain." But ultimately, since I could never support McCain through my vote, I like the fact that Huckabee is blocking for another national unity candidate like McCain and drawing support away from Romney, who would just continue the backward political image of George W. Bush. (I have to say, though, there are things to appreciate about Bush.)

Now for the more religious aspect of politics. There is a fantastic book out there called "Liberalism is a Sin." I have never read it straight through, nor more than a few excerpts, but there are some important points to realize about what that strain of church teaching is saying. "Liberalism," considered as a social construct, is the process of making government the province of popular opinion and trying to remove any innate structure to society. It is thus different from (although with resonances to) the American left or New Left. "Conservativism" in America, because it has to deal with certain liberal democratic tendencies of American politics, is not always as Conservative as the name would imply. There's no getting around that. Moreover, as long as a candidate bases his campaign on civil rights rather than civil duties, or economic gain rather than economic control, you are always going to be dealing with a movement that's not quite Catholic (I argue). In fact, the American right is largely self-defeating because of its populist edge, as the Conservative party in England, while the American left is much closer to its ideological roots.
Because of this, I think we should not equate policies of the American right, and party loyalty, with actual social conservatism, nor should we equate constitutionalism with that same conservativism. In fact, certain aspects of our Government, such as the separation of powers, are exceptionally liberal, while their lack of real function is what has kept our country to its conservative values more than its parliamentarian counterparts. Consider how many legislative initiatives we attribute to Presidential candidates; it is clear that we, every 4 to eight years, elect a total potentate to reinvigorate government, appoint Judges, and rule us during that time period. He is the Emperor, for a time. But this is not envisioned by the Constitution, and certainly not by the Federalist Papers. It is envisioned by the Antifederalists (if you've read them) who have got most of their predictions correct. The President has become our King, the Senate his hotly contested Privy Council, and the House of Representatives has enormous symbolic, but little real, political value. The President is the monarch, the Senate the aristocracy, and the House is the peasantry. If this was not so, if we were to try to topple the monarch's power, it might be constitutionalist, but it would also be liberal.

In other words, we need to do more thinking before we make being a Republican Catholic interchangeable with being an orthodox Catholic. As for me, I am all about amending the constitution, making the President the ruler for 15 years, giving him the ability to initiate legislation in the Senate without the House, making the Senate for life terms appointed by the state legislatures, and making the state Governors appointed by the President.

[Justin86]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454828' date='Feb 3 2008, 04:39 PM']I don't have to defend McCain on every issue; just like I don't defend Reagan or Bush or any other conservative politician on every issue. (Bush is pro amnesty; Reagan ridiculously pulled out of Lebanon in the face of Islamic radicalism, etc)[/quote]
I actually don't have a problem with Reagan and Lebanon. We were still fighting the Soviets at the time; we can't do everything at once.

[quote]Plus when I think of the big compelling, moral issues of our time, campaign finance just isn't one of them. Doesn't even break the top ten.[/quote]
Glad to see your such a big defender of human rights.

[quote]So I guess McCain has not betrayed the conservative movement; he like Reagan, has just taken occasional stances that can be construed to be counter to conservatism.[/quote]
Unlike with McCain, amnesty was not Reagan's brainchild, but that of the Democratic Congress that was given to him. It also was the first time we ever tried amnesty, and I think with oh, I'm not sure how many of thousands, of Americans who have been murdered by illegals since Reagan would deeply regret his mistake and not repeat it. Reagan also decided that if we were going to allow the illegals then border security, immigration laws, and sanctions against employers who hired illegals would be strengthened. McCain would have given them a free pass.

Sorry, but Reagan and McCain are NOT the same thing on immigration no matter how much you would like them to be.

[quote]Presidential politics is always, and has always been about choosing the least worst candidate.[/quote]
Agreed, but not everyone with an "R" after his name is a conservative.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Justin86

[Justin86]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1454831' date='Feb 3 2008, 05:02 PM']Now for the more religious aspect of politics. There is a fantastic book out there called "Liberalism is a Sin." I have never read it straight through, nor more than a few excerpts, but there are some important points to realize about what that strain of church teaching is saying. "Liberalism," considered as a social construct, is the process of making government the province of popular opinion and trying to remove any innate structure to society. It is thus different from (although with resonances to) the American left or New Left. "Conservativism" in America, because it has to deal with certain liberal democratic tendencies of American politics, is not always as Conservative as the name would imply. There's no getting around that. Moreover, as long as a candidate bases his campaign on civil rights rather than civil duties, or economic gain rather than economic control, you are always going to be dealing with a movement that's not quite Catholic (I argue). In fact, the American right is largely self-defeating because of its populist edge, as the Conservative party in England, while the American left is much closer to its ideological roots.
Because of this, I think we should not equate policies of the American right, and party loyalty, with actual social conservatism, nor should we equate constitutionalism with that same conservativism. In fact, certain aspects of our Government, such as the separation of powers, are exceptionally liberal, while their lack of real function is what has kept our country to its conservative values more than its parliamentarian counterparts. Consider how many legislative initiatives we attribute to Presidential candidates; it is clear that we, every 4 to eight years, elect a total potentate to reinvigorate government, appoint Judges, and rule us during that time period. He is the Emperor, for a time. But this is not envisioned by the Constitution, and certainly not by the Federalist Papers. It is envisioned by the Antifederalists (if you've read them) who have got most of their predictions correct. The President has become our King, the Senate his hotly contested Privy Council, and the House of Representatives has enormous symbolic, but little real, political value. The President is the monarch, the Senate the aristocracy, and the House is the peasantry. If this was not so, if we were to try to topple the monarch's power, it might be constitutionalist, but it would also be liberal.

In other words, we need to do more thinking before we make being a Republican Catholic interchangeable with being an orthodox Catholic. As for me, I am all about amending the constitution, making the President the ruler for 15 years, giving him the ability to initiate legislation in the Senate without the House, making the Senate for life terms appointed by the state legislatures, and making the state Governors appointed by the President.[/quote]
Populism, where the government constantly does the will of the majority, is not an American concept(its actually Russian), and was no where in the Constitution. Actually, the Founding Fathers frequently spoke of the "tyranny of the majority", and that would be why they included many provisions against it in the Constitution. As a matter of fact the only body of the federal government that was elected by popular vote originally was the House of Representatives.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1454831' date='Feb 3 2008, 03:02 AM']As for the issue, McCain's candidacy, that seems to be the major thread of this debate topic, it seems to me that McCain has alot of things right. His Immigration Bill was a flawed approach with correct intent; we must come to terms with Latin America and embrace the idea of a local, common economic community that couples freedom of movement with freedom of trade. Otherwise, we are just falling into the trap of mercantilism that plagued the old empires.[/quote]

This would destroy the sovereignty of the Untied States and form a permanent under class. A free and opened boarder is not a boarder. Mexico has many many problems, a free and opened boarder with that nation would sink the United States and her people, Mexico must solve her own problems. Her people are her problem. If they wish to come here they should wait in line like the rest of the world, and not be able to steal into this nation and be aloud to get away with it. A open or uncontrolled or uncontrollable boarders lead to the destruction of that nation, ie Rome.

[KnightofChrist]

Anyway again Mccain is indeed a Republican but he is not a conservative, and he lies when he says he is a conservative. If he wins the nomination it will destroy the conservative movement and set it back for decades. Also I would change my party affiliation to independent.

[Justin86]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1454844' date='Feb 3 2008, 06:34 PM']Anyway again Mccain is indeed a Republican but he is not a conservative, and he lies when he says he is a conservative. If he wins the nomination it will destroy the conservative movement and set it back for decades. Also I would change my party affiliation to independent.[/quote]
I suppose I might eventually do that, but I wouldn't be ready that quickly. I would give it a few more primaries before I completely sign off from the party.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1454608' date='Feb 2 2008, 03:52 PM']82.3 rating? Ha! I would never eat at a restaurant that had a 82.3 sanitary rating.[/quote]

Would you rather have an 82.3 rating or an 8 or 9 in the White House?

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454528' date='Feb 2 2008, 12:01 PM']Why are you willing to cut off your nose in order to save your face?[/quote]

I think the saying is "in order to [i]spite[/i] your face", but I agree with the point you are getting across.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454637' date='Feb 2 2008, 05:16 PM']McCain said on "Meet the Press" that he was against cutting taxes without cutting spending. Which is a conservative position.[/quote]

Which is EXACTLY what I was referring to in other threads whan I said I like McCain's stance on the budget. I'm more of a "deficit hawk".

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454498' date='Feb 2 2008, 10:27 AM']While I wish that McCain would drop the abortion exceptions, I think he's awesome.[/quote]

For me, it's his ESCR votes that I wish he would change or state outright that since there are new scientific advances, ESCR is no longer necessary. But in November, if it is a choice of someone who has a record of voting with us on four of the five non-negotiables versus zero, I'll take the four.

I'm resigned to the fact McCain is probably going to be the nominee, or at least have enough delegates to be in a position to be the nominee if there is "horse-trading" in a brokered convention, so I'm probably going to be voting for Huckabee anyway so McCain sees there are enough social conservatives in the party to name him VP (remember, I predicted a McCain/Huckabee ticket earlier [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=76009&view=findpost&p=1441764"]here[/url]). Having Huckabee as a VP may also influence McCain to come around on ESCR and the rape/incest exceptions.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

[quote name='XIX' post='1454621' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:33 PM']Also...and people might bite my head off over this, but so be it: where in Church teaching does it state that every single conservative axiom in American politics? I'll admit Aloysius has me sold on de-centralized government, and I almost always vote conservative because their advantage in the pro-life department is simply too great to be surmounted. However, I'm not sure why some people seem to think that being a Catholic social conservative means that they have to automatically flock to all of the other conservative viewpoints. Tell me, if you are against the dismemberment of children, what does that have to do with believing that tax cuts for the rich help the poor? Or your views on Guantanamo Bay? The war? Social security? The environment? Etc?

One would expect most of these issues to be completely independent from one another, yet because we have this "taking sides" mentality, we seem to have created a situation where being a pro-life Catholic automatically means you have to be of the opinion that global warming is a hoax. Which naturally means that you think aliens should be booted back to Jupiter where they belong. And if you believe that, then you clearly believe that President Clinton should have been impeached and booted out of office.

Call me crazy, but I don't understand this "pure conservatism" idea. I happen to think that conservatives are right on most of the issues, but with the exception of the social issues, I can stomach the liberal stance okay. Bottom line, it would be an incredible coincidence if the liberals were wrong about everything. Even a blind squirrel catches a nut. Personally, I tend to think liberal about the environment (regardless of whether global warming is real), the death penalty, Guantanamo, and *gasp* I think that pulling out of Iraq is the less-bad solution at this point in time.

I'm right-of-center on the economy but can see the upside to taxing the wealthy. I believe in small government. I somewhat believe in "securing the border" but am not totally sold on the conservative stance here. I'm against universal health care, but at least we'd all supposedly have access to health care. I also think social security tax is a sham, and that SS should be privatized. Alright, so I guess that might make me a little further right of center fiscally.

But if someone disagrees with me on those issues, I'm not going to whine too much about it. Bottom line, Hilary is essentially the current-day empress of the Culture of Death. She gets in, we will have liberal judges for the next 35 years, the Mexico City Act will be repealed in order to send taxpayer money to fund abortions overseas...and every single pro-abortion, pro-cloning, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-abortifacient birth control legislation is going to be pushed and pushed by Hilary until they all become reality. McCain at least has to work with the Republican party, so he will probably be anti-abortion if only to be status quo. If having him in office means that I have to give up an extra 5% of my paycheck, well that's just tough noogies on me. Being moderate or liberal on some issues may tarnish one's label as a "pure conservative," but honestly, why the presupposition that 100% conservative = 100% aweXome?[/quote]

Very good points that for the most part I agree with.

[Norseman82]

Additionally, if there is a McCain/Huckabee ticket, would they be known as "Macabee"?

[XIX]

Should be. We've had some interesting names in this year's election.

We have the guy with two first names.
I Heart Huckabee (terrible movie, by the way)
Baseball Mitt Romney
We have...

Clinton

And of course, we have Iraq Hussein Osama.

Okay I'm done now. My next post might actually be somewhat meaningful.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1454844' date='Feb 3 2008, 03:34 AM']Anyway again Mccain is indeed a Republican but he is not a conservative, and he lies when he says he is a conservative. If he wins the nomination it will destroy the conservative movement and set it back for decades. Also I would change my party affiliation to independent.[/quote]

How does Bush get off the hook for "destroying the conservative movement and setting it back for decades"? I understand that McCain is not as conservative as people would like (which is why I like him) But come on! Bush outspent the "fiscally irresponsible" democratic presidents by leaps and bounds. He has not been conservative. If anyone should get the blame for destroying conservatism, it should be the sitting president

[dairygirl4u2c]

romney's rhetoric is very suspect to being less conservative than mccain. he talks as if he might be willing to have the feds intervene with health care, whereas mccain says no fed intervention. romney says education is the "modern day civil rights issue" hinting that he might do something federally.
also.... studies show that mccain's budget is the lowest, next only to ron paul.

i think the whole "who's more conservative" debacle is funny. romney throws out there that mccain is least, as the conventional wisdom shows, then mccain throws it back, and shows romney's rhtetoric for what it is- either lies or misguided hot air.

plus romney's been known for saying he's for gay rights and abortion, but suddenly he's not.
here's a funny video in that regard.
[url="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/17/jon-stewart-analyzes-the-fox-news-gop-debate/"]http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/17/j...ews-gop-debate/[/url]

romney might be more conservative, but ti's too hard to tell. he puts on the impression that he's not. then tries to attack mccain... tries to have it both ways.

this whole "mccain is a liberal" stuff is funny, this whole thread is too. it shows people buy into rhetoric instead of facts. at best be reserved on the matter instead of buying into the rhetoric.