Comments on: Yeah, That Will Win Me Over… http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/02/18/yeah-that-will-win-me-over/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Thu, 24 May 2012 03:48:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Lorihttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/02/18/yeah-that-will-win-me-over/comment-page-1/#comment-620084 Lori Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:01:23 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=4070#comment-620084 "It’s also “grossly unfair” that Bush the Elder and those like him have little interest in actually engaging folks like me on the issues and hashing them out." They can't engage us & hash it out...because they will lose. McCain's positions are not defend-able and have not been conservative. All they are basically doing is taking over the word "conservative". Just as the socialists started calling their policies "liberal" not long ago. (Even many dictionary definitions for the word "liberalism" still maintain a definition that sounds more like a description of most conservatives I know. And so it goes with the concept of "conservatism". A socialist is taking it over....calling his socialist policies conservative. So, really - we the real conservatives (or the real liberals depending on how far you want to go back) will just have to come up with a new name I guess. Something to distinguish ourselves from the new "conservatives". Any ideas? "It’s also “grossly unfair” that Bush the Elder and those like him have little interest in actually engaging folks like me on the issues and hashing them out."

They can't engage us & hash it out…because they will lose. McCain's positions are not defend-able and have not been conservative. All they are basically doing is taking over the word "conservative". Just as the socialists started calling their policies "liberal" not long ago. (Even many dictionary definitions for the word "liberalism" still maintain a definition that sounds more like a description of most conservatives I know. And so it goes with the concept of "conservatism". A socialist is taking it over….calling his socialist policies conservative.

So, really – we the real conservatives (or the real liberals depending on how far you want to go back) will just have to come up with a new name I guess. Something to distinguish ourselves from the new "conservatives". Any ideas?

]]> By: fosterthttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/02/18/yeah-that-will-win-me-over/comment-page-1/#comment-619934 fostert Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:23:28 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=4070#comment-619934 George HW was never a master of words. But he's following a Republican tradition. I've always been impressed that the Republican party has nearly always put up the strongest candidate they had for the presidency. And they've usually got behind him early. Now you might think Ford would be an exception, but I'd disagree. It's not that Reagan wasn't ready, it's that America really wasn't ready for Reagan. Had Reagan won that nomination, he probably would have lost in the general election. And there would have been no "Reagan Revolution." I'd even defend the Nixon nomination against Kennedy. Nixon damn near won that election. I really can't think of a time when the Republicans put up a bad candidate. Hoover in '32 maybe? But he was president, so what can you do? The Democrats, on the other hand are masters of choosing bad candidates. McGovern? Dukakis? Mondale? Humphrey? Kerry? Let's get real, you haven't seen a bad candidate until you've been a Democrat. You should feel lucky to have a candidate that might actually win. In the current environment, McCain really is the best choice for winning. Okay, I'm willing to grant that Dole was a bad candidate, but Newt was going through marital issues and there really wasn't anyone else at the time. George HW was never a master of words. But he's following a Republican tradition. I've always been impressed that the Republican party has nearly always put up the strongest candidate they had for the presidency. And they've usually got behind him early. Now you might think Ford would be an exception, but I'd disagree. It's not that Reagan wasn't ready, it's that America really wasn't ready for Reagan. Had Reagan won that nomination, he probably would have lost in the general election. And there would have been no "Reagan Revolution." I'd even defend the Nixon nomination against Kennedy. Nixon damn near won that election. I really can't think of a time when the Republicans put up a bad candidate. Hoover in '32 maybe? But he was president, so what can you do?

The Democrats, on the other hand are masters of choosing bad candidates. McGovern? Dukakis? Mondale? Humphrey? Kerry? Let's get real, you haven't seen a bad candidate until you've been a Democrat. You should feel lucky to have a candidate that might actually win. In the current environment, McCain really is the best choice for winning.

Okay, I'm willing to grant that Dole was a bad candidate, but Newt was going through marital issues and there really wasn't anyone else at the time.

]]>