Here’s my problem: Since leaving office, he has worked with the ACLU. Extensively. 

This bothers me a great deal, and gives me real pause. I honestly don’t know whether to trust this guy or not, JUST because of the ACLU connection.

Any thoughts on Bob Barr’s reliability as a conservative, in light of his ACLU ties, would be greatly appreciated. 

Thanks, ya’ll.  

This endeavor is predicated on the following assumptions:

1. That the GOP has abandoned conservatism, and that conservatives are consequently under no moral, ethical, or other obligation to support the so-called “lesser of two evils.”

2.  That no true conservative would willingly and enthusiastically support John McCain.

3. That the basic tenets of conservatism are accurately reflected in the “three-legs” model (social, fiscal, and national security), and that a true conservative will embrace all three.

4. That conservatives may, however, differ on the application of each “leg,” particularly with respect to questions of faith, and should respect each others’ right to do so.

5. That with unprecedented turmoil in both major parties, there has never been a better time to galvanize and mobilize conservative support for a viable, third-party candidate.

6. That compromise is often necessary in politics, but that there comes a time when compromise becomes counterproductive and even suicidal.

7. That the GOP, in making an abusive and manipulative “case” for John McCain, is asking conservatives to put party over principle and to help the GOP destroy the conservative movement.

8. That, in consequence of the aforementioned, a forum should exist wherein conservatives may discuss, debate, and compare the various third-party candidates.

9. That conservatives should, as much as possible, throw their support to ONE third-party candidate, en masse, in order to facilitate a strong showing in November, and future election victories.

Anyone who agrees with at least numbers one through four is welcome to participate. I’ll then do my best to explain why I believe you embrace all nine. (Unlike the GOP of late, which has grown into an oversized schoolyard bully, I will do so with respect for both the person and intellect of all concerned.) 

Since there are any number of fora in which liberals and others can voice their opinions, I will be frank in stating that it is not their input which is here being solicited. I respect the opinions of those who disagree, and over at TH I’m glad to debate and discuss virtually any issue with them.

The purpose of this forum, however, is to allow conservatives a place to choose a party and candidate, and then go forth to campaign on that candidate’s behalf.

Think of this as the Conservatives’ Nominating Convention. Here we can discuss, debate, and decide—and then focus our efforts to make sure that our votes in November have the greatest possible impact on this and future elections.

Anyone interested in becoming a full contributor to the Blogatorium should email me at normanloquendiATyahoo.com. I think it would be great to have as many people as possible posting at length, rather than being limited to the 2,000 character comment limit.

I warmly welcome and encourage the fullest possible input of all articulate, thoughtful, true conservatives.

Together, we can reclaim our country. 

I hope that you’ll join us.

 
Conservatives are suffering from a political variety of "battered spouse" syndrome.  Like a wife who has been subjected to years of emotional abuse by a loutish husband, we are so eager to avoid being yelled at by the GOP's new Poohbahs, that we're starting to fall in line.

Question:  Of the three remaining contenders for the Presidency, which one:
1.  Favors closing Gitmo;

2.  Favors giving Al Qaeda detainees full access to our legal system, including access to classified material to be used against them;

3.  Wants to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens;

4.  Believes that Justice Alito is "too conservative";

5.  Has a close advisor, Warren Rudman, who is responsible for Bush 41's disastrous appointment of Justice Souter;

6.  Has admitted that he has a weak grasp of basic economics;

7.  Regularly votes against his own party to "cross the aisle" and "work with" members of the opposition;

All three qualify on 1-4, but 5-8 belong exclusively to "our" nominee:  "John McCain."

So, if you hate yourself, and you want to see conservatism permanently rebranded as "liberalism lite," by all means vote for the 71-year-old cancer survivor with anger management issues (and who calls Asians "gooks").

It seems that every day, another "conservative" pundit pops up like one of those "Whack-A-Moles" at Chuck E. Cheese's and spews some variant of the following (in between popping up and then ducking back down again):  "Only . . . an . . . idiot/traitor/liberal . . . would . . . refuse . . . to . . . vote . . . for . . .  John . . . McCain . . . and . . . if . . . Hillary! . . . or . . . Obama . . . gets . . . elected . . . it . . . will . . . be . . . your . . . fault . . ."

And darn it, they always duck down before I can whack 'em with that poofy mallet!

Take a minute to let that sink in. 

The base is upset, and rightly so, but we are told to meekly submit to our new masters, as they sit at the 19th hole unwinding after a long day of living off of their trust funds.  The country club, blue blood types are in charge now.  Rockefeller is in.  Reagan is out.

1.  Conservatism vs. Republicanism:  These are not the same; in fact, today they are very nearly opposites.  Conservatives stand for liberty, which means small government, low taxes, and minimal governmental intrusion.  The GOP has used the natural conservatism of the American people to gain power, and then outspend the Democrats.  With George W. Bush having rebranded (and in fact maligned) conservatism by adding the insulting and redundant "compassionate" modifer, conservatism is already on life support.  By supporting a RINO like McCain, you will be contributing to its death.

No, I don't.  If he wants my vote, he can ask for it.  His last word on this subject was that he would not "pander" for conservative votes.

a.  No, he won't.  Why would he?  He's not a conservative.  If I were President, I wouldn't appoint liberals.  Why then would "our" centrist-leaning-liberal nominee appoint conservatives?  That just makes no sense.  In addition, one of his chief advisors--as already mentioned--is Warren Rudman, who duped Bush 41 into appointing David Souter.  By all accounts, Bush was actually trying to appoint someone who was at least slightly conservative.  Anyone think Souter is the slightest bit conservative.  In addition, also as already mentioned, McCain thinks that Alito is too conservative.

b.  Even if it tried to get a conservative through the Supreme Court, how hard do you think he would pressure the majority Democrats in the Senate (his "good friends," in the words of "our" nominee) to approve a judge in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or (gasp!) Alito.  Zero.  Zilch.  Zippo.  No chance at all.

No, it won't.  It will be McCain's fault for not attracting enough support.  Go away.

 (Let's see if those crossover Dems and moderates who earned McCain "our" nomination will support him in November.  If you believe that, I've got some Bear-Sterns stock I'd like to sell you . . . cheap!)

In closing, I say once again that if you hate yourself, and want to see Reagan conservatism dead and buried, then vote for John McCain!  (Hey, that could be his new campaign slogan!  "Reagan's Dead!  Let's Bury Him!  Vote McCain!)

After all, with McCain, you get Hillary!’s charm and Barack’s modesty wrapped up in a cranky, bitter, condescending, 71-year-old, melanoma ridden package!

Yeah, great.  Sign me up. 

Now, I'm not going to follow the advice of my beloved St. Ann of Coultershire and pull the lever for Hillary! in November; nor do I recommend that any conservative do so. 

I do however IMPLORE my fellow conservatives not to buy the tired old "but other side is so much worse" line.

The sad truth is that, while a Clinton or (more likely) Obama presidency could well be "Jimmy Carter bad," it's the GOP's fault for letting it get this far.  We voted for Bush 41 (the quintessential "Rockefeller Republican") in 1988--and for Bush 43 twice (at least I did), despite some strong misgivings.  We did it because we bought that argument, and thought that things might actually get better if we just "went along."

Well, things didn't get better.  After seven years of Bush II, conservatism has lost the GOP and is in the process of being redefined.

So, here's the question you need to ask yourself:  "Am I first and foremost a conservative or a Republican?"  If you're a Republican first, then vote for the closet liberal with the "R" after his name. 

If you're a conservative, let the GOP see if they can win the White House without you.  If they can, then they were right; they really DON'T need us.  If they can't, we get another chance to bring true conservatism back to life.

That's our only shot; it's all we've got left.  We have let the GOP become the party of big government. To use the “12-Step” parlance, we have “enabled” them.