alt.education

In article ,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

> In article <6261bbf3-0bf0-41e3-a06c-edc6876dec7b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> Wide Eyed in Wonder writes:
> > Well, the primary is over, and the exit data was telling.
> > http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#TXREP
> >
> > Huckabee won the large majority of those opposed to abortion.
> > Huckabee won the large majority of those that said they were very
> > conservative. Huckabee won the large majority of the middle income,
> > middle aged families. Huckabee won the large majority of those that
> > attend church weekly or more and accepted the label of born again.
> >
> > Meanwhile, McCain won the large majority of those that approved of
> > abortion. McCain won the large majority of those that didn't refer to
> > themselves as conservative. McCain won the large majority of those
> > that were rich or young (the least socially conservative groups).
> > McCain won the large majority of those that rarely attended church and
> > refused the label born again.
> >
> > None of this data is beyond question. It's right there in the exit
> > polling data. This WAS a rejection of social conservative principles
> > by the party, and the LIBERAL won. The worse part of all of this is
> > that Huckabee won the majority of those that said their candidate
> > shared their values. So, a lot of McCain's supporters rejected their
> > own convictions to vote for him.
> >
> > Now, here's the question. If you are a social conservative, do your
> > convictions matter? If they don't matter to you, and you only
> > pretended to be concerned about abortion and other conservative social
> > matters, you'll follow McCain right into the destruction of
> > conservativism from the GOP. If you DO care about being a
> > conservative, I see but one choice.
> >
> > EVERY social conservative in the GOP needs to ensure that the party
> > knows the place of conservativism in the party by A> not voting, B>
> > voting by write in for Huckabee or other social conservative
> > candidates, or C> voting for the opposition, if Hillary is the nominee
> > (she is less of a threat). If McCain preaches liberalism and wins in
> > the election, the party leaders will feel no need to seek conservative
> > support and conservativism will die. If, however, Evangelicals stay
> > home (all of the third or so that supported Huckabee..for example),
> > there is NO way McCain will win the election. Then, come next
> > election, the party will realize running a liberal against a liberal
> > Democrat was stupid and will swing back to conservativism. So, if you
> > care about your convictions, DO NOT SUPPORT MCCAIN.
>
>
> I won't argue with your analysis, but will rather point out that what you
> call "conservatism" is a rather recent flavor thereof, and what you see as
> abandoning conservatism, I see as the party moving back in the direction of
> what I thought of as "conservatism" most of my life, from Eisenhower to
> Goldwater to Ford to early Reagan.
>
>
> -- cary

Then you apparently have confused the definitions of "Liberal" and
"Conservative." And you obviously have no clue what Eisenhower,
Goldwater, and Reagan stood for. You can just make stuff up and pull
names out of thin air, but the ability to weave a meticulously
constructed fantasy world, does not equate to evidence.

John McCain is the antithesis of traditional conservatism in every
single policy that he holds, without exception. Now you can pretend
that McCain is a conservative just because you drool with lust at the
thought of killing brown people for the next 100 years, but your misled
fantasies do not create the realities you seek.

If Barry Goldwater was still around, my bet is that he would be
challenging John McCain to a duel to the death right about now...
--
Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/
Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price"
Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/