There is no more conservative party.

[LightningBoy]

[Republican_Man]

While I agree that conservatism has very much been lost, as Bush's fiscal socialist presidency has shown, I think you're misguided if you think conservatism is dead if Rudy's the nominee. Far from it, especially compared to Mitt "I Like Mandates" Romney.

I'm working on my next column in my local newspaper on why Coloradans should vote for Rudy come caucuses on February 5th. I'll post that here and you can reconsider whether or not you think Giuliani is conservative.

Ronald Reagan once said that "the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," and what he meant by that was a small-government approach - less government control and regulation, smaller size and scope of government, lower taxes, and greater economic freedoms and personal responsibility. While he is not perfect, Rudy Giuliani truly fits this bill, and certainly better than Mitt Romney. Any comparison of their healthcare plans, for instance, helps to show this is true.

That said, Huckabee's a populist and McCain is...well, McCain, the guy who supposedly spouses "straight talk" yet, in actuality, does not. Romney's my Number 2 because, next to Rudy, he's the most conservative guy out there in the truest sense.

[Republican_Man]

Here is my column, as promised. I do wish I could have gone into more detail with it, though.

[beansidhe]

Re: healthcare...

Do you really think that health savings accounts will provide enough when insurance refuses to pay? Do you realize how expensive the latest, greatest treatment is?

I also wonder if you realize that health care was largely unregulated before the Reagan administration... The current managed care mess is the legacy of that administration attempting to curb the skyrocketing fees charged by hospitals and doctors at the time.

[robbiewebster]

You might think that's insane but it's exactly what I want to hear. I hope that he truly means it because I'll vote for him if nominated.

[Valathous]

I dunno about the U.S., but in Canada Huckabee would have just committed political suicide.

Perfect example... A couple of months ago the province of Ontario was having a provincial election. It looked like John Tory of the Conservatives was going to win because everyone was tired of the Liberal guy, Dalton McGuinty, breaking promises. John Tory then decided to run on a platform of taking $500 million away from public schools to give to faith-based schools. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals won a large majority government.

Frankly, I think it's stupid. Isn't the U.S. based on equality? This would essentially be putting Christianity on a pedestal and forcing people of other religions to conform to Christianity in order to live under the rule of the U.S. constitution, essentially making that constitutional amendment unconstitutional, no? He won't win, but doesn't a U.S. constitutional amendment require 2/3 Congress, 2/3 Senate, and 2/3 of the States in order to pass?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, since I'm not American.

[Omok]

[LightningBoy]

As many of you know, i'm a vehement Mitt Romney supporter, and a life long conservative (CONSERVATIVE, not necessarily Republican anymore).

With Romney's defeat in Florida, I fear that McCain will ultimately be the Republican nominee. When it comes down to McCain and Hillary, and I compare their voting records and histories, I find that they're essentially the same person.

On taxes, our candidates have said the following:
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you."
Sounds pretty similar: One Democrat, one Republican: two liberals.

On free speech:
Senator McCain proposed a piece of legislation that penalizes certain broadcasts that “promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes” any candidate for office. Hillary Clinton voted for it too. Seems like these candidates don't much care for the first amendment... One Democrat, one Republican: two authoritarians.

On energy and environmentalism:
McCain and Clinton both opposed the 2005 Cheney energy bill because of its oil industry "give-aways". Both have always opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wastedland Refuge. Finally, both support a cap-and-trade program for factory emissions. One Democrat, One Republican: two green Malthusians.

I could go on, immigration, campaign finance reform, national defense, ect... McCain and Hillary are both very WRONG for conservatives. Mitt Romney may still give the conservative voice some hope, but he looks to be losing steam after his Florida loss. Hillary's a shoe in for the Dems, but Obama's record is identical, so it doesn't matter which of those two gets the nomination: either will be a disaster.

So why vote for Hillary? Because if two different candidates are destined for failure, then why support the one that associates with your cause? Why kill the Republican ideology? If Hillary gets the nomination, in just four short years, we can replace her with a new breed of Reaganite. Afterall, Ronald Reagan's legendary presidency was spawned by Jimmy Carter's disastrous one. A vote for McCain is a vote for blue-blood, country club, liberal, 'R.I.N.O.' Republicans, and the death of Reagan-conservatism. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the slim chance that we could finally get another Reaganite candidate after the four years of hell we're doomed to either way.

We don't need two liberal parties. Conservatism built America, and we need a fresh dose. The Republicans have grown stale, liberal, and are more about surviving as a 'club' than as an ideology. I am a conservative, I believe in small government, freedom, and self-destiny. Am I really so alone?

[robbiewebster]

[Omok]

[squiggy]

[robbiewebster]

[Theresa]

[Omok]

[squiggy]

[squiggy]

**Sorry for double post **

[Theresa]

[squiggy]

[beansidhe]

[Omok]

[Theresa]

As I'm sure you know, twisting words has zero to do with quoting,

And I didn't insinuate that you shouldn't vote according to your convictions, I merely complimented Rob on doing so, even though he is obviously in the minority. A fact which was made glaringly obvious,

[Omok]

[Theresa]

You're either choosing to be dense, or really are. I know which I think is true, but that's irrelevant. And if I have confused you, that's too bad. It's cute really how you rip apart my posts, but then in doing so say I didn't really say anything. Does that mean my posts are really so meaningful to you that you have to reply even though nothing is said, in your opinion? Apparently.

If you can't maintain a civil level of conversation in WN, I will remove you from the usergroup. I know you don't believe that I should be able to act as a mod here because I'm involved in this "discussion", but that's really too bad. I'm not making the choice to be involved (with your issues). You are making the choice to fixate on my posts. Move on, post on topic, or don't post at all. Those are your choices.
If you have anything further to say regarding this discussion, we have a nice little PM feature.
Now back on topic. Or at least in the ballpark.

[Omok]

[Debra]

I rather have a president with good christian morals.. And not all christians force christianity on people like people lead to think. But, I would want a president that has good morals.. and in my opinion .. it is not going to be a democrat especially obama or hilary.