Sounds like he may be throwing his hat in the ring. Always liked the guy, and I’m very torn on McCain, a lot to admire about the man, but he’s wrong on so many big issues. Any other conservatives or libertarians consider voting for Barr in November?
There is nothing to admire about McCain.
Barr has made some serious strides in revising his view points. I’d vote for him now…He used to be a real rigid hard ass, he is much more live and let live now…I’d vote for him too.
Bob Barr interview with “Borat”–
The look on Bob’s face is priceless.
Vote McCain 2008!!!
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
Alan Keyes has left the Republican party and joined ranks with the Constitutionalists. There is a very strong chance that he will be their nomination for president. This is the guy that conservatives should be backing.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.[/quote]
Unfortunately this is reality. We have a choice between bad or worse.
A “feel good” vote may put the worse candidate in office.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.[/quote]
Really? If it’s about foreign policy, good luck with that. Economics, I guess, although I’m not a huge fan of the tax cuts uber alles wing of the party.
Social policy (abortion foremost) might make sense, but I don’t think the GOP cares all that much about it. Witness the fact that the GOP establishment jumped happily into the arms of the pro-choice Giuliani and the unprincipled Romney without a second thought. And even the best GOP nominee to the Supreme Court in a long time doesn’t give a lot of reason for hope:
"There has been much discussion of late�??by Daniel Larison, Daniel McCarthy, Ross Douthat, and others�??concerning what pro-lifers can expect from the GOP. (I am in the minimalist camp, as I wrote here). Further indication that pro-lifers should keep their expectations low came today from pro-lifer and McCain supporter Ramesh Ponnuru, who concluded that Roberts�?? testimony in his confirmation hearing for the D C Circuit Court of Appeals that Roe is the �??settled law of the land�?? did not �??preclude�?? him from voting to strike down Roe as Chief Justice. But Ponnuru added, �??Given his judicial minimalism, however, I think that Roberts will be reluctant to find that a case does require him to affirm or overturn Roe.�??
The political goal of the pro-life movement is to see Roe overturned. Having a Chief Justice who does not want to ever reach the issue brings us no closer to that goal, and Republican counsels of patience are wearing thin. Would economic conservatives have loyally supported the GOP for 28 years, if during that time the Republicans had failed to enact a single tax cut and the official to whom Republicans insisted on deferring on tax policy never wanted to make a decision on tax cuts one way or the other?"
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/04/02/dont-expect-the-gop-to-undo-roe/
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
GDollars37 wrote:
Really? If it’s about foreign policy, good luck with that. Economics, I guess, although I’m not a huge fan of the tax cuts uber alles wing of the party.
Social policy (abortion foremost) might make sense, but I don’t think the GOP cares all that much about it. Witness the fact that the GOP establishment jumped happily into the arms of the pro-choice Giuliani and the unprincipled Romney without a second thought. And even the best GOP nominee to the Supreme Court in a long time doesn’t give a lot of reason for hope:
"There has been much discussion of late�??by Daniel Larison, Daniel McCarthy, Ross Douthat, and others�??concerning what pro-lifers can expect from the GOP. (I am in the minimalist camp, as I wrote here). Further indication that pro-lifers should keep their expectations low came today from pro-lifer and McCain supporter Ramesh Ponnuru, who concluded that Roberts�?? testimony in his confirmation hearing for the D C Circuit Court of Appeals that Roe is the �??settled law of the land�?? did not �??preclude�?? him from voting to strike down Roe as Chief Justice. But Ponnuru added, �??Given his judicial minimalism, however, I think that Roberts will be reluctant to find that a case does require him to affirm or overturn Roe.�??
The political goal of the pro-life movement is to see Roe overturned. Having a Chief Justice who does not want to ever reach the issue brings us no closer to that goal, and Republican counsels of patience are wearing thin. Would economic conservatives have loyally supported the GOP for 28 years, if during that time the Republicans had failed to enact a single tax cut and the official to whom Republicans insisted on deferring on tax policy never wanted to make a decision on tax cuts one way or the other?"
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/04/02/dont-expect-the-gop-to-undo-roe/[/quote]
Yeah - foreign policy, definitely check; economics, definitely check; first Amendment/civil liberties, wash; and judges, big, huge check. Apparently your author only wants to consider how far a judicial nominee is from his perfect - as opposed to how bad the alternative would be…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.[/quote]
How in the hell can someone as reasonable as you think this? I really don’t get it. Unless your only issue is abortion (which still wouldn’t make sense logically) why the hell would you not prefer either dem over McCain?
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
How in the hell can someone as reasonable as you think this? I really don’t get it. Unless your only issue is abortion (which still wouldn’t make sense logically) why the hell would you not prefer either dem over McCain?[/quote]
Exactly.
I think that is a bold statement to claim that Clinton or Obama are worse than McCain.
It would also be nice, in this democracy we claim to live in, for people to vote for who they want to win, not who is perceived to be the least crappiest of two candidates that have only minor differences in policy.
Dustin
[quote]100meters wrote:
How in the hell can someone as reasonable as you think this? I really don’t get it. Unless your only issue is abortion (which still wouldn’t make sense logically) why the hell would you not prefer either dem over McCain?[/quote]
Last I knew BB was not a socialist or a hippie. Anybody as reasonable as him should despise the two democratic candidates.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
GDollars37 wrote:
Really? If it’s about foreign policy, good luck with that. Economics, I guess, although I’m not a huge fan of the tax cuts uber alles wing of the party.
Social policy (abortion foremost) might make sense, but I don’t think the GOP cares all that much about it. Witness the fact that the GOP establishment jumped happily into the arms of the pro-choice Giuliani and the unprincipled Romney without a second thought. And even the best GOP nominee to the Supreme Court in a long time doesn’t give a lot of reason for hope:
"There has been much discussion of late�??by Daniel Larison, Daniel McCarthy, Ross Douthat, and others�??concerning what pro-lifers can expect from the GOP. (I am in the minimalist camp, as I wrote here). Further indication that pro-lifers should keep their expectations low came today from pro-lifer and McCain supporter Ramesh Ponnuru, who concluded that Roberts�?? testimony in his confirmation hearing for the D C Circuit Court of Appeals that Roe is the �??settled law of the land�?? did not �??preclude�?? him from voting to strike down Roe as Chief Justice. But Ponnuru added, �??Given his judicial minimalism, however, I think that Roberts will be reluctant to find that a case does require him to affirm or overturn Roe.�??
The political goal of the pro-life movement is to see Roe overturned. Having a Chief Justice who does not want to ever reach the issue brings us no closer to that goal, and Republican counsels of patience are wearing thin. Would economic conservatives have loyally supported the GOP for 28 years, if during that time the Republicans had failed to enact a single tax cut and the official to whom Republicans insisted on deferring on tax policy never wanted to make a decision on tax cuts one way or the other?"
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/04/02/dont-expect-the-gop-to-undo-roe/
Yeah - foreign policy, definitely check; economics, definitely check; first Amendment/civil liberties, wash; and judges, big, huge check. Apparently your author only wants to consider how far a judicial nominee is from his perfect - as opposed to how bad the alternative would be…[/quote]
Really? Given how much McCain has given social conservatives in the past? And what kind of judges is he going to get by 55 Democrats (possibly more) in the Senate?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/04/02/dont-expect-the-gop-to-undo-roe/
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yeah - foreign policy, definitely check; economics, definitely check; first Amendment/civil liberties, wash; and judges, big, huge check. Apparently your author only wants to consider how far a judicial nominee is from his perfect - as opposed to how bad the alternative would be…
GDollars37 wrote:
Really? Given how much McCain has given social conservatives in the past? And what kind of judges is he going to get by 55 Democrats (possibly more) in the Senate?[/quote]
Yes - particularly as opposed to the kind of judges that would be appointed by either Obama or Clinton (both of whom are lawyers/law professors with lots of far-left liberals from whom to choose) and that same Senate.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
How in the hell can someone as reasonable as you think this? I really don’t get it. Unless your only issue is abortion (which still wouldn’t make sense logically) why the hell would you not prefer either dem over McCain?
Exactly.
I think that is a bold statement to claim that Clinton or Obama are worse than McCain.
It would also be nice, in this democracy we claim to live in, for people to vote for who they want to win, not who is perceived to be the least crappiest of two candidates that have only minor differences in policy.
Dustin[/quote]
I agree with that…sad state isn’t it.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
How in the hell can someone as reasonable as you think this? I really don’t get it. Unless your only issue is abortion (which still wouldn’t make sense logically) why the hell would you not prefer either dem over McCain?
Exactly.
I think that is a bold statement to claim that Clinton or Obama are worse than McCain.
It would also be nice, in this democracy we claim to live in, for people to vote for who they want to win, not who is perceived to be the least crappiest of two candidates that have only minor differences in policy.
Dustin[/quote]
I agree with that…sad state isn’t it?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Absolutely not - because there are only two candidates who have a chance to win, and in my estimation the Dem candidate (whichever of them prevails) will be significantly worse at worst, or no improvement at best, on the issues I think are important.
100meters wrote:
How in the hell can someone as reasonable as you think this? I really don’t get it. Unless your only issue is abortion (which still wouldn’t make sense logically) why the hell would you not prefer either dem over McCain?[/quote]
Quite easily. To paraphrase what I wrote above: on foreign policy, McCain is best, with Hillary 2nd and Obama 3rd; economics (and I just did my taxes this weekend - I’m pissed), McCain best, then a tie between Hillary and Obama; first Amendment/civil liberties, wash among the candidates; and judges, big, huge preference for McCain - and the judges issue is huge - probably as important as FP in my view.