Source: Huckabee Tops McCain's Veep List

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by danjuandemarco

Republicans have historically been opposed to big government. The three Republicans you listed are the worst examples you could possibly have picked. Barry Goldwater, Fred Thompson, and even Ronald Reagan--Those are much more like the core of what Republicanism is meant to be. Politicians in general tend to become in favor of big government after they realize that's what gets them the votes, regardless of party. And in Reagan's case, he had to pass big government policies to get the Democratic house to pass that which he actually wanted to pass. Politics is a messed up world.

Also, I keep hearing about this "McCain is against free speech," yet I've never seen any evidence to support this.

...see; Three of the last four GOP presidents (excluding Ford) are the worst examples I could pick and are not representative of the party as a whole...hmmm...I'll have to really give that one some thought...

Now, McCain.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

George F. Will - McCain-Feingold's Wealth of Hypocrisy - washingtonpost.com


Surely, you jest.

[danjuandemarco]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...see; Three of the last four GOP presidents (excluding Ford) are the worst examples I could pick and are not representative of the party as a whole...hmmm...I'll have to really give that one some thought...

Now, McCain.
George F. Will - McCain-Feingold's Wealth of Hypocrisy - washingtonpost.com
Surely, you jest.

They are not representatives of the party's roots. It's unfortunate that over the past few decades, the party has been drifting further and further away and more towards "Bush-style" conservativism. I encourage you to read "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater if you are intersted in the origins of how the Republican party fell into the abyss it is in today.

Yea, i forgot about that McCain-Feingold thing. That's just one case, though, and it wasn't his intention to curtail free speech, but to prevent candidates from being bought out by special interest groups, and make them work hard to appease more people instead of richer people, in hopes of increasing free speech. Good intentions, poor execution.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by danjuandemarco

They are not representatives of the party's roots. It's unfortunate that over the past few decades, the party has been drifting further and further away and more towards "Bush-style" conservativism. I encourage you to read "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater if you are intersted in the origins of how the Republican party fell into the abyss it is in today.

Yea, i forgot about that McCain-Feingold thing. That's just one case, though, and it wasn't his intention to curtail free speech, but to prevent candidates from being bought out by special interest groups, and make them work hard to appease more people instead of richer people, in hopes of increasing free speech. Good intentions, poor execution.

...and conservatism are two different things. Reagan was seen as a barely tolerable odd ball with his quaint ideas by the Republican establishment including Bush 41 and Reagan didn't even want him as veep but it was felt that he had to as a nod to the party core. Nixon, Eisenhower, big government, big US GOP'ers very much in keeping with Bush 43 and the massive expansion of government we've seen under Bush 43.

You can call Mc/Fein whatever you like, but it still has feathers, still waddles, still has web feet and still quacks. And if you read Goldwater you should know better.

Again, if we're talking conservative, we agree. If we're talking GOP, we don't.

[kwillia]

Originally Posted by MMDad

As a conservative who is turned off by religious fundementalism, Huck is a deal breaker. I could never vote for that ticket.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by kwillia

You're flirting with me again, aren't you? Is it because my new av is hawt?

[kwillia]

Originally Posted by MMDad

You're flirting with me again, aren't you? Is it because my new av is hawt?

[danjuandemarco]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...and conservatism are two different things. Reagan was seen as a barely tolerable odd ball with his quaint ideas by the Republican establishment including Bush 41 and Reagan didn't even want him as veep but it was felt that he had to as a nod to the party core. Nixon, Eisenhower, big government, big US GOP'ers very much in keeping with Bush 43 and the massive expansion of government we've seen under Bush 43.

You can call Mc/Fein whatever you like, but it still has feathers, still waddles, still has web feet and still quacks. And if you read Goldwater you should know better.

Again, if we're talking conservative, we agree. If we're talking GOP, we don't.

I agree that the party has been losing it's conservative roots for a long time, as we could see in the primary debates with the, "who is the true conservative," arguments. And the answer was none of them, with the exception of Fred Thompson and Ron Paul(even though he seems a little senile). The origins of the party, however, were rooted in federalism and equal rights under the law.