...and that.

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make is that he, and other dictitorial types, are hard-liners and far from the middle where all of us normal people live.

Your impression of what makes a person a conservative is way off base. Most of us are much closer to the libertarians and much further from "dictatorial types" than other groups. We believe in individual liberty and limited government, and those are the areas in which most conservatives disagree with McCain the most. McCain is far more of an authoritarian figure than the "far right" conservatives that you disparage.

Though not a McCain supporter myself, I find the bolded to be false and unfair. I challenge you to find evidence to support it, or ask that you retract it.

I will do so in a separate thread this evening. Exhibit 1 will be the demonstrably false accusations that McCain made against Romney over the weekend, in which he accused Romney of supporting "timetables for withdrawal" just like the Democrats. Romney's position was exactly the opposite of what McCain claimed. Even the AP concluded that McCain's accusation was unfair and misleading.

It is fine with me if you want to label me as a "far right" conservative, but I fall within a large group of Republicans - a large enough constituency to make or break a candidate in the general election. If the Republican Party wants to alienate its own conservative base by running a RINO this fall, then they will deserve the landslide loss that will result.

Actually, statistics show that you are among a dieing breed. Most Americans have gravitated toward the center. They are no longer little automatons that see things exactly the way one party tells them to.

 

People are examining both sides of issues, and seeing that there is value in taking both sides' interests into account. On issues that don't lend themselves to compromise, they feel more free to pick and choose whether they'll support a conservative or liberal stand. The major parties are starting to see the trend and are responding to it. So maybe we should store the DNA of a few far right conservatives, before they go extinct.

 

No, wait...that would be genetic research. And we can't have that.

So you are in effect saying that the far right wing of the Republican party will repeat the error committed in '96. Doesn't speak very highly of them. I'm hoping that they will realize that while McCain doesn't share their far right views, that McCain will certainly be better for this country than the much, much more liberal candidate from the Democratic party. Then again, I sometimes give too much credit to people being rational and logical.

 

I find it interesting that for years the critics of national politics have been crying about the candidates for President being too extreme because only extremists can win their party's primary. For the first time in a long time, the Republicans have the opportunity to nominate someone who is not so extreme, can appeal to moderates of the other party and can unite this country. What do we do: whine and complain about him and attack him. What is even more interesting are those comments are coming from Kentuckians, the home of the Great Compromiser, Henry Clay, one of our most revered sons. Simply amazing. And folks, contrary to what his attackers post on here, McCain is not as liberal as he is made out to be. Sure on some isssues he's not attractive to the far right extremists. Heck Limbaugh hates him. Then again, Limbaugh is nothing but an old wind bag, so full of himself that he actually believes he is on "loan from God". And people think I'm arrogant. If Rush was supporting McCain, I'd have to carefully reexamine my support of McCain.

 

The fact that some Democrats, particularly Ky Democrats whom can be more conservative than a of Republicans, support him should not alarm people. It should give them some comfort knowing that if real conservatives, conservatives truly more interested in what's best for this country than what's best for their idealogical faction of the Republican party, support McCain and the moderate Democrats and independents vote for him also, we can avoid another Clinton in the White House.

 

I appreciate the zeal, but you are acting under the (I believe) false assumption that centrism and the politics of compromise are "in the best interests of the country." While the word "ideology" now has a negative connotation, there are certain conservative principles that many of us do not believe should be compromised. The country may have moved more centrist, and be willing to compromise for sake of expediency, but that does not mean that those of us committed to certain conservative truths are somehow abandoning Henry Clay when we refuse to support a centrist candidate. In fact, if anything, I believe we honor his memory.

 

I am not afraid of losing elections LN, I am afraid of losing identity.

Your impression of what makes a person a conservative is way off base. Most of us are much closer to the libertarians and much further from "dictatorial types" than other groups. We believe in individual liberty and limited government, and those are the areas in which most conservatives disagree with McCain the most. McCain is far more of an authoritarian figure than the "far right" conservatives that you disparage.

Despite the labels, the point remains.

The country may have moved more centrist, and be willing to compromise for sake of expediency...

Not for the sake of expediency. For the sake of balance, fairness, and logic.

 

Being a "centrist" or "moderate" doesn't mean you have fewer values or are less committed to them. It means you're willing to see the big picture and decide where you will stand on an issue by issue basis. Sometimes you'll end up on the far left. Sometimes on the far right. And yes, sometimes you end up in that evil place...the middle.

Actually, statistics show that you are among a dieing breed. Most Americans have gravitated toward the center. They are no longer little automatons that see things exactly the way one party tells them to.

 

People are examining both sides of issues, and seeing that there is value in taking both sides' interests into account. On issues that don't lend themselves to compromise, they feel more free to pick and choose whether they'll support a conservative or liberal stand. The major parties are starting to see the trend and are responding to it. So maybe we should store the DNA of a few far right conservatives, before they go extinct.

 

No, wait...that would be genetic research. And we can't have that.

 

I am not an automaton, and I am certainly not little. It is precisely the party's abandonment of certain conservative principles that causes me to object vehemently to their actions, not "see things exactly the way they tell me to," as you say.

 

Genetic research is not a core conservative issue or principle. It is an evangelical issue. Evangelicals and conservatives are not one and the same. But yes, we are a dying breed.:thumb:

Evangelicals and conservatives are not one and the same.

When did that happen? :eek:

Not for the sake of expediency. For the sake of balance, fairness, and logic.

 

Being a "centrist" or "moderate" doesn't mean you have fewer values or are less committed to them. It means you're willing to see the big picture and decide where you will stand on an issue by issue basis. Sometimes you'll end up on the far left. Sometimes on the far right. And yes, sometimes you end up in that evil place...the middle.

 

Balance and "fairness" are not conservative principles. Fairness is such an oblique concept these days that it is applied to just about anyone's personal agenda. I would also be interested in seeing how "logic" is applicable here. And being a conservative does not mean you have fewer values or that you are unwilling to see the big picture. To the contrary, I see it and just don't like it.

 

The difference between me and many others who are actually conservative but display it inappropriately is that you will still get a handshake and a smile from me, and I will truly respect your right to disagree, but I am not going to advocate with any less zeal for my position, and losing a battle does not bother me in the least.

When did that happen? :eek:

 

About the same time the NEA was formed.

Balance and "fairness" are not conservative principles. Fairness is such an oblique concept these days that it is applied to just about anyone's personal agenda. I would also be interested in seeing how "logic" is applicable here. And being a conservative does not mean you have fewer values or that you are unwilling to see the big picture. To the contrary, I see it and just don't like it.

What I don't like is tha implication that those who have diverse beliefs and opinions are somehow "selling out" their morals and ethics. And that's what I hear when you and other hardline conservatives say things like:

 

"the politics of compromise"

 

"conservative principles that many of us do not believe should be compromised"

 

"willing to compromise for sake of expediency"

 

"those of us committed to certain conservative truths"

 

I'm just as committed to certain conservative truths. I just reserve the right to choose which one's I will be committed to. And I refuse to shut the door on the possibility that, occasionally, a liberal truth works better. And finding "compromise" is not surrendering your values. To me, it's often the far more Christian thing to do.

What I don't like is tha implication that those who have diverse beliefs and opinions are somehow "selling out" their morals and ethics. And that's what I hear when you and other hardline conservatives say things like:

 

"the politics of compromise"

 

"conservative principles that many of us do not believe should be compromised"

 

"willing to compromise for sake of expediency"

 

"those of us committed to certain conservative truths"

 

I'm just as committed to certain conservative truths. I just reserve the right to choose which one's I will be committed to. And I refuse to shut the door on the possibility that, occasionally, a liberal truth works better. And finding "compromise" is not surrendering your values. To me, it's often the far more Christian thing to do.

 

Depends on what you are compromising. Certain things Christians should never compromise on.

Depends on what you are compromising. Certain things Christians should never compromise on.

True. But a few things they should.

What I don't like is tha implication that those who have diverse beliefs and opinions are somehow "selling out" their morals and ethics. And that's what I hear when you and other hardline conservatives say things like:

 

"the politics of compromise"

 

"conservative principles that many of us do not believe should be compromised"

 

"willing to compromise for sake of expediency"

 

"those of us committed to certain conservative truths"

 

I'm just as committed to certain conservative truths. I just reserve the right to choose which one's I will be committed to. And I refuse to shut the door on the possibility that, occasionally, a liberal truth works better. And finding "compromise" is not surrendering your values. To me, it's often the far more Christian thing to do.

 

Can you identify something you consider to be a conservative truth (not as issue) that you would not compromise?

Compromise is not always in our best interests. And there are no laws forbiding genetic research. Only against human cloning.