WHAT ABOUT THIS GUY???

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/01/courica...

Senator McCain made a proposal on immigration that he could not convince anyone of its benefits, could not provide any sort of compromise when faced with opposition, could not convince anyone else that he meant what he said, and in the end, repudiated his position for political reasons while planning to go back to is original position after the election.

Ever action that McCain has taken on immigration has demonstrated a total lack of leadership. He did the bidding of big business in proposals a disaster of a bill and then followed the Republican Party activist to disavow it while putting people on his staff who support the opposite of his position.

If this is what you think of as good leadership, I would hate to see what you think of as bad leadership.

McCain has consistently demonstrated the the same lack of leadership and ability that President Bush has demonstrated. Haven't we learned our lesson.

CO—-

Because he has shown himself willing to take unpopular stands on tax cuts,immigration and campaign finance, and because he pisses off people like Ann Coulter and Michael Reagan.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts at first. One conservative value is reducing taxes and the size of govt, so this would be a conservative knock against McCain. And yet a balanced budget is also supposed to be a conservative value, and one can easily imagine that a conservative might choose a balanced budget over a tax decrease periodically. For campaign finance, one has to buy both that money equals speech and that the irrelevance of people without money in the current system does not equal an attack on free speech to say that finance reform is unconservative. The real problem, as others on this site have mentioned, with the finance reforms might be that they aren't fair to both parties. But that's just a matter of power play and has nothing to do with a liberal or conservative political philosophy.

And then you get to immigration reform. While an “amnesty” is clearly against the current conservative line and its members, again it isn't clear that this is due to a conservative philosophy of less government and more reliance on the private sector and individual freedom. If you believe in pure markets and freedom, one should advocate more open borders so that the market can determine labor supply and migration patterns, not government bureaucrats. One might very well argue, however, that “strong defense” is part of traditional conservative philosophy and there is therefore a real tie to conservatism that McCain has betrayed if he isn't strong enough for controlled borders. And yet even here the real security threats we've seen so far appear to come from people who immigrate legally and then disappear at the ends of visas and such. And yet the issue that has conservatives hopping mad mostly deals with the large undocumented immigration of Hispanics, an entirely different matter. People overstaying their visas is only a small part of the anger.

Sure, McCain is not as conservative as some, but the anger to me seems more partisan than philosophical. McCain hasn't towed the right line always and it's viewed as betrayal to the party. It's interesting to note how the issues have changes that McCain has been consistently conservative on abortion, gay marriage, budget, and several other issues, but people will gladly dump him today for immigration and lower taxes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow2...

These are all fitting but somehow insufficient. Only Rushmore suffices — and it is peculiarly appropriate to Ronald Reagan.

When Doane Robinson first conceived the idea of Mount Rushmore, he wanted to commemorate larger-than-life Western heroes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbys...
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/72834...
Like the above link proves,cooler heads prevailed. signatures (145 signatures of 1million).

One of the problems with McCain is that he has demonstrated no apparent leadership skills. If he does not want to be Reagan and he wants to lead the conservative movement in a different direction, he has not demonstrated any ability to do it. It is much more likely he will end up like Arnold in California where he sells out the conservatives to get some ego boosts from the majority Democrats. That is why many on the political right are worried about McCain.

He's perceived as frequently being like one of the D's, Pete. That's why.

This would be even more true if Bloomberg were to seek the Presidency.

I was a huge Reagan fan but the idolatry has gone way too far. Next we'll be criticizing GOP candidates if they don't wear a Reagan icon around their neck or sport a “WWRD” bracelet.

For the record, I would not be impressed by a run by Jeb Bush, and yes, I would suspect the GOP of desperation if they got him to run. (An interesting related question on many people's minds, I suspect, is what Dubya has done to Jeb's future chances of election.)

* * *

“M. Reagan has the audacity to think that talk radio voices are the voices of the Republican electorate.”

It is an unwise assumption for Reagan to make. Non-liberals, and even conservatives, are hardly monolithic.

“No, Mitt, the world of conservatism is not behind you.”

Hugh Hewitt, a Romney cheerleader, is reminded of this time after time if you read the reader remarks to his web log entries at Town Hall, the conservative Web site.

* * *

“If you are on the far left, McCain is conservative by comparison.”

HA! If you think he is conservative, you are on the far left!

“The GOP needs to stop looking for a Reagan imitation.” … “The best bet is McCain.”

At this point, McCain seems to be the likely nominee and a real conservative will just have to be selected as McCain's VP if this continues.

He is much more competitive with the D's in the head to head than Romney. Why, I don't know, but he is.

So, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the radio-cons would effectively prefer the notion of President Clinton over President McCain.