What say you now?
Remember the Great McCain Debate? (Here, here, here, here, and here.) I dropped it because (1) it got boring and (2) there wasn’t much else to say until the Democrats picked their candidate.
Well they’ve picked their candidate, for all intents and purposes, and it is one Mister Barack Obama, He Who Will Fix Your Broken Souls. And time has passed, and we know much more about Obama than we did then, and now I should very much like to know what people are thinking.
Has anyone changed their minds and decided that after all, you will vote for McCain even though you still hate him with fire? Do you still consider him to be as dangerous and liberal as Obama? Et cetera.
Army of Dog says the whole thing is like poker, and I agree completely. So of course I’ll be voting for McCain because it is not mathematically possible to convince me the country would be better off with him for the next 4 years than with Obama. I’m just wondering if any minds have changed based on the whole Rev. Wright controversy and such.
Nope, nothing changed here. I will vote for McCain because HopeyMcChangeitude is just nauseating the shit out of me…. I know McCain, for all his libral wannabeeness is still better than a flaming marxist assbag!!!!
Ciao, Rachel!
May 8th, 2008 at 11:59 amESTI will vote for McCain. I love my country more than I dislike McCain. The alternative is unacceptable on any level.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:59 amESTI haven’t decided who to vote for yet. Sometimes I think I’ll hold my nose and vote for McCain and then he says something stupid and pisses me off and I think I might not vote for anyone. I suspect I’ll vote for him but I’m not at all happy about it. No matter who wins this time, we’re pretty much screwed.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pmESTOh crap here we go again. Get yer helmets! Get yer helmets here! You have a singular knack of bringing it out in folks. It should read: “Artistry with a blunt instrument and a wood chipper.”
BTW I want McCain to win just to watch the meltdown.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pmESTI will hold my nose and vote for McCain. I don’t love him (I hate his mushy gang of 14 open the borders positions), but I really, really hate Obama.
Obama is my senator and I hate him with a white hot fury that overcomes any dislike I may have of McCain.
For me, in the end it is a question of judges. McCain won’t necessarily pick another Roberts or Scalia… but he also won’t pick another Ginsburg.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pmESTYuck. That is my insightful commentary on such a discussion. I have become a woman of few words on this stinky pile of poo issue.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pmESTSo hundreds of feverish comments in 24 hours are not enough for the all-powerful Blog Mistress. She needs more. More! MORE!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:07 pmESTI was giving serious thought to the possibility of voting for McCain, but then he came out for amnesty again.
He almost had me for a second.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pmESTI never thought Obama would be a good candidate for president. He’s done absolutely nothing but talk and even that has been just a bunch of empty words strung together that make people feel better but not much else.
And while I may totally disagree with McCain’s illegal immigrant policies, at least he’s not a pansy who wants to cut and run as soon as it’s politically safe to do so.
In the end, I think it’s impossible for somebody to be a good president when they have latent hostility toward the majority of the population they are supposed to be serving. Obama can talk all he wants, but the fact he stuck with a racist asshole of a pastor for 20 years and only just recently severed the connection because the political atmosphere was turning against him shows me that he’s a closet racist.
My vote for McCain, while distasteful, has been cemented further by this whole fiasco.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pmESTNo, he’ll pick a judge with “bipartisan support”. Meaning he’ll pick whichever judge will get him the most positive feedback from the Dems and the New York Times so he can brag about what a “maverick” and a “moderate” he is.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pmESTI’ve been ranking them Hillary > McCain > Obama from the start. If (big if) Hillary drops out or doesn’t get the nomination, then that reduces it to McCain > Obama. Problem solved.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pmESTHi, Rachel. Long-time/first-time. I’m a big fan of your blog.
I am also not a huge fan of McCain’s Gang of 14 nonsense (that contributed to me helping to vote out one of our Senators here in the great Buckeye state, Mike DeWhine), and I hate the open borders BS, but I do have some appreciation for McCain’s moderation in some respects, and I am at least confident that he’ll turn the dogs loose if we need to continue the Ass-Whoopin’ Around the World cruise that our military forces are on currently.
However, Mr. Hopiness-Changitude consorts with terrorists (Ayers), racists (the good “reverend”) and sundry other fellow travelers along the Marxist road, and is a gun-grabber extraordinaire, and I’d rather extract every tooth in my head and every fingernail on my hands with rusty pliers myself rather than vote for that empty suit.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pmESTI’ll hold my nose and vote for McCain. Obama will ruin this country. I’ve heard the argument, “well I am gonna vote for Obama or Hillary because at least when they screw up we can blame it on the democrat party”. I don’t understand that kind of thinking.
You will feel all good about yourself because you can sit and say I told you so while your country went to shit?
May 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pmESTNope. Still not going to vote for McCain. I won’t vote for Obama, though, either. The country is pretty much screwed either way for the next 4 years.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pmESTI, too, will vote McCain, because I know where he stands, even though it’s to the left of me most times. Ditto the comment about wanting to please the NYT and MSM.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:19 pmESTUrrrrrrgh!
Mightysamurai — I’m with you on the immigration issue, not to mention the way McCain wussed out on the Rev. Wright issue and stabbed the N.C. Rep. Party in the back over their add.
Without some Deus ex machina, though, I don’t see any other viable option — anybody?
At this point, I expect to be pulling the lever for him, but whether I just throw up in my mouth a little or have to quickly run behind the building for a full toss will depend on his choice of veep.
In either case, the next four years are guaranteed to suck.
Sigh!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pmESTI think Thomas Sowell put it best when he said (paraphrasing) “There’s nothing McCain can say that will make me vote for him, but there’s a lot Hillary and Obama can say that will.”
Don’t like McCain at all, but on the biggest issue, The War, he’s on my side. Hopefully enough sensible Congressmen will get elected to contain his more liberal leanings…
May 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pmESTIt’s not so much that I’ll be voting for McCain, rather, I’ll be voting against Oblahblahblahma.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pmESTI still like the idea of writing in Sunny Lukis. She’s definitely smarter than any of the hooman candidates.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pmESTFelicity I agree with you on that. I have a feeling however, McCain is going to mightily disappoint us in his choice of VP. I hope I’m wrong.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pmESTObama, of course… after all he’s #8 on Stuff White People Like!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pmESTSo what else is new? I’m afraid you’re absolutely right.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pmESTBottom line? McCain will stand up to the terrorists. Obama most likely will not, or will resort to Jimmuh Carter’s Keystone Kops diplomacy. That’s reason enough.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pmESTI wish that it was the Hildabeast running.
But, since the choice is between an idiot and a nut, I’ll vote for the nut.
And curse Huckaduck for splitting the conservative vote.
And curse teh Fred for running such a wimpish campaign.
Feh.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pmESTI’ll be voting for McCain, if only because doing anything else only helps Obama.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pmESTI think we’re going to find out exactly how well the Repubs can pull off the failed campaign strategy of the Dems in ‘04: Anyone But McHitlerBushMonkey.
Forcing your base to vote AGAINST someone instead of giving them someone to vote FOR didn’t exactly work out so well for the Dems in ‘04. But maybe the Repubs can somehow pull it off?
Pissing off your base with a sub-par candidate + inspirational rallying cries of “but at least he’s marginally better than the other guy” = Victory in ‘08? We’ll see.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pmESTDon’t turn what is already a mathematically irrelevant action into a morally questionable one, by voting for an evil (lesser or greater). Don’t give these people your sanction - one of them will win whether you stay home or vote (and the same person will win no matter who you pick). Keep your soul clean.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pmESTSigh. Will be voting for McCain, merely because the idea of the Obamessiah or the Hildabeast in the White House makes my skin crawl.
300 million Americans, and these buttwipes are the best we could do for candidates for POTUS? WTF?
May 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pmESTNO shit, right?!
May 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pmESTIs there a write-in option on the ballot for “need better candidates”?
May 8th, 2008 at 1:01 pmESTI’m writing in teh Fred.
On another note, there is a 100% better chance of me coming to this website (as opposed to just reading it on my RSS reader) since you put up the Wachel tanktop picture. Tasty and Smirky, all at once!
May 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pmESTC’mon guys, we’ve been here before. Bush Sr. promised to suck and fulfilled his promise. But there’s no question he was better than the alternative. I’ve held my nose before, and I can do it again. Go McCain, rah, rah, mumble, mumble mumble…
May 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pmESTThe problem with Obama is that he’s a bait-and-switch candidate. He’s all Mr. McHopey-hopey-change-change up until the election, and then it’ll be say hello to the new boss. He’s just like the old boss. He’s not really going to change anything, he’s just going to TALK about changing things. And for this I should get a tingling in my pants?
The problem with McCain is that he’s NOT a bait-and-switch candidate. Unfortunately, he can be relied on to continue being the putz he’s always been. He’ll continue to seek approval from the media and the Dems and tell his own party to suck it. The only positive thing you can count on with McCain is that no matter how bad he’ll suck as President, Obama would be worse.
I never thought I’d say this, but these two make me wish GWB could run for a third term. (Or maybe just suspend the elections and take over like the nutters have always said he would.)
May 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pmESTHonestly? I don’t think ANY of the candidates will surrender in the WOT. Obviously McCain probably won’t surrender (unless he decides that surrendering is the most “bipartisan” solution), but neither, IMO, will Hillary or the Obamessiah.
We all know that Hillary’s first concern is her own political power. She WILL NOT knowingly do anything that will hurt her politically. That’s why she voted for the war in the first place, and that’s why she stood by her vote even though the anti-war left savaged her for it. Because she knew that the few anti-war voters she would lose due to that was much smaller than the number of pro-war voters she would lose if she chose the opposite direction. That is why I think she will not surrender in Iraq and risk being personally blamed for the inevitable genocide and instability that will result from a premature withdrawal. It would kill her chances at a second term, and if she loses that second term then she’s out of politics (and out of power) for good.
Now, a month or so ago I would have said that the Obamessiah would say “The fuck with it!” and surrender no matter what the consequences. But after the Rev. Wright debacle, it’s pretty obvious that the Obamessiah DOES take the political consequences of his actions into account.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pmESTHe was better than the alternative, but because of his bumblings we got two terms of Clinton in the 90s.
Do we really want that to happen again?
May 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pmESTThe phrase “President Barack Obama” should scare everyone in this country into shitting in their pants, getting cleaned up, and going to vote for John McCain.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pmESTI’m voting for First Lady Cindy McCain — a proud American — over Michelle Obama, a bitter, bitter woman who is not proud of America.
Oh, and she hates white people too.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pmESTHuh. Inspirational. Don’t you mean:
…going to vote
May 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pmESTfor John McCainagainst Barack Obama?I’m voting for Gaius Baltar. If we’re going to get dominated by foreign forces, I’d rather it be hot Cylons than terrorists.
(I kid. I’m voting against Obama… which means McCain. Feh.)
May 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pmESTIf I had reason to believe that Republicans weren’t going to lose their asses in both houses, and that at least one (most likely liberal) Supreme Court Justice would NOT drop dead or retire in the next four years I’d NOT vote for McCain in an instant.
I pray and hope for gridlock. I don’t believe the government’s here to help me at all and anything that gums up the works is, in my mind, a ‘good thing’.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pmESTRemember…Sunny has never withdrawn her candidacy. There is still hope for America!
May 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pmESTI plan to write in the Rachel/Rupert ticket. I know Sunny is running, but I’d rather see her as Secretary of Defense. Maggie can be Secretary of State.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pmESTI so yearn for another poll. Wherefore art thou, poll plug-in?
Assuming you are correct that Shards of Glass in White Gravy is going down the disposal, that leaves Shards of Glass in Brown Gravy and, of course, Turd Sandwich.
I should have been more precise when I demanded “Make Me a Sandwich!”
If McCain needs my vote, he’ll get it. But hell, if McCain needs my (Texas) vote, his bread is toast anyway.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pmESTThe problem I see, is us! We have allowed this travesty to happen. So now comes the ‘tough love’ part. It is time to take our lumps. To elect McCain will destroy what is left of the GOP. To elect Obama will damage the Democrats. To elect either will damage this country. So I have no choice. We deserve our punishment for having allowed the destruction of much that I hold dear. So I will vote for Obama and start working on rebuilding the conservative wing of the GOP.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pmESTMcCain beating Obama will be like escaping from a burning house only to step in dog-shit.
Chet
May 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pmESTI will probably vote against the Dem, but I already told our county chairman that I won’t be putting any of his signs up, unless he picks a real good VP, Bobby Jindal comes to mind first, but that probably won’t happen, so I will just put up signs for the local congressional candidate (Brian Davis), and skip the senator also,(Coleman), I guess that may make an easy year putting signs up.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pmESTI could care less about the Wright stuff, honestly–I think he’s an idiot, but I’m friends with crazy people, too.
My vote for McCain has been cemented by the way Obama has adopted stupid economic populist democrat talking points a la John Edwards–”big oil,” “corporations,” “two americas,” “fair trade,” and BS like that. He used to sound vaguely libertarian, now he sounds like a know-nothing gaytard populist threatening to pull out of NAFTA. Maybe that’s not what he is, but he’s willing to play the retard part to get elected.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pmESTRachel - last paragragh, second sentence says the exact OPPOSITE of what you intended regards the mathematical possibilities between who is better for the country. Missing a “not”.
I voted for McCain initially for one reason: Any other Republican was more likely to lose against the Democrats and I’d prefer a Republican right now who many Democrats might agree with. Time to reduce the stupid polarized bickering that is destroying our country. I figured he had the best chance against Clinton and Obama, the darlings of the Democrats.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pmESTOh gawd…that made me almost want to cry…because it’s the most likely scenario!
I vacillate between “no matter who wins it’s gonna suck” and “I’m voting against the Obamamessiah”.
I don’t know, I just don’t see any of the outcomes as a win, just as a “suck less”.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pmESTI never changed my mind. I intended to support the Republican nominee from the outset. Obama is a leftist (which means to me that hatred of America is a deep-seated part of him, and if you expect me to believe he sat under the teachings of Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and doesn’t believe Wright’s spewings, you’re nuts). And Hillary is an evil witch and a known, proven liar. McCain, though, is right on Iraq and Supreme Court judges.
Given what McCain went through, there ought to be no more staunch defender of freedom than he. But he’s been profoundly disappointing. His willingness to completely and blatantly thwart the will of the American people with regard to illegal immigration means he’s untrustworthy and bears close scrutiny–if he wins.
Thank you, Republican party.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pmESTI know a lot of people who are putting their attention and efforts into the down-ticket races - which is as it should be if one is discontent with the Presidential candidate. There is only one way to mitigate the damage either of the candidates can wreak on our country, and that is by trying to bolster the bulwark against them - the Congress.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pmESTI’m holding my nose and voting for McCain. Ugh! Why, oh why isn’t Fred our nominee?? *sigh*
Something the Dems should worry about:
My mother and uncle are both “yellow dog Democrats” - neither one of them have EVER voted for a Republican. Both are planning on voting for McCain over Obama, mostly because of the Rev. Wright imbroglio, but partially due to Obama’s Muslim upbringing in Indonesia and him throwing his white family under the bus in favor of his (absent) black family.
I have numerous other relatives that are…*ahem* racists *ahem*, who always vote Democrat. I can guarantee that NONE of them will vote for Obama. How many will cross over and vote for McCain, I don’t know.
Oh, and my mother loves black men - it’s only because of the time she grew up that my sister and I ended up as Caucasian rather than mixed-race. So it says a lot that not only won’t she vote for Obama, she is actively talking others into not voting for him.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pmESTCrap!! I know I said earlier that I will vote for McCain. I forgot that I live in Connecticut and it fuckin’ doesn’t matter who I vote for. Everybody here is in love with the Obamessiah. Crap!!
May 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pmESTNo, no, no, I will not vote for Senator McCain Feingold.
I will vote either Libertarian or Constitution party this time.
And I live in Ohio. My vote counts.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pmESTFor those of you who haven’t already read this (attributed to a Danish newspaper reporter, I believe):
May 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pmESTi have no love for mccain, but obama is the first politician to actually frighten me
if it were mccain v hillary, i’d probably vote third party
but the prospect of obama in the white house and socialists controlling the house AND senate…cripe
May 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pmESTVoting against the racist/Marxist in this fight, and that’s saying something since I haven’t voted for a Democrat OR a Republican for years, being of the libertarian persuasion. This Prince Charming is dangerous.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pmESTmaybe i’ll write in “no confidence”
May 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pmESTDamn it rocinante you beat me to the punch…
What he said.
But really, I will vote for McCain, holding my nose like I did for Bush 04. Because the alternative is just too distasteful to imagine.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pmESTI will be voting for McCain (simply because he’s the lesser of the evils). The thought of having Obama as President is enough to make me throw up a little bit in my mouth and want to pack up all my shit and move to Australia.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pmESTI was giving serious thought to the possibility of voting for McCain, but then he came out for amnesty again.
As compared to the “send more, give ‘em votes, driver’s licenses, and free medical care” candidate?
Lessee, on one side is a liberal lawyer married to a liberal lawyer running against a liberal lawyer married to a liberal lawyer. On the other side is a certifiable war hero married to a big-breasted woman who owns a beer distributorship. Yeah, that’s a tough choice.
Given that both House and Senate will still be in Dem hands, I’m voting for the guy most likely to veto the worst stuff Congress sends to the White House for signature, and most likely not to nominate another Ginsburg. That’s not Mr. PhonyHopeChange, who shows every sign of being a Welcome mat for every idiotic peice of moronic feel-good nationally-bankrupting legislation the far left can squeeze out of its rear chambers.
Word of warning, though. I believe Obama will get the nomination. But never underestimate a Clinton before they have been dismembered, the assorted body parts tossed on a pyre and burned to ashes with a stake in the hearts and garlic in the mouth, and the remaining ashes buried at a crossroads at midnight right before a Jimmy Hoffa Memorial Paving Contractor rolls over it with seventeen feet of holy-water-fortified steel-reinforced concrete.
I’m just sayin’.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pmESTI resigned myself to voting for McCain when he wrapped up the Republican nomination, reasoning that while I didn’t trust him to do the right thing, I knew for a fact that any of the Democrats would do the wrong thing, be it on the war on terror, the economy, health care, or anything else. Given the prospect of a candidate who is the creation of the Chicago Machine in the White House, it seems like the wisest choice. He’s as good a candidate for the office as any that has served in my lifetime, and better than many, and certainly better than HopeChange.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pmESTMay 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pmEST
Going with McCain. Not because I want to, but because the alternative can only be worse. So, I figure, I’ll hold my nose (and hopefully my stomach) while scribbling in the little box by McCain’s name, and hope like hell the Republicans left in Congress can jam up any voting on bills pertaining to open borders.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pmESTMcCain.
While all three may “fight terrorists” as mightysamuri said; I’ve got a hunch that the jihadis wouldn’t test McCain’s balls.
Hillary - less likely to “test” hers.
Obama - you KNOW the jihadis are gonna test his - Beirut ‘86 style.
I for one ain’t gonna contribute to a couple hundred flag-draped coffins - just to stick it to McCain. (Plus the thought of Barry and the Mrs working the photo op - all the while pleading “how can we make them hate us less??” is enought to give me shivers)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pmESTI’m looking at the Highlands of Scotland myself. Men in kilts should cheer me up.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pmESTYeah, given those two options, I’d wade through dog shit before sitting around in a burning house hoping that the searing pain of being burned alive would somehow be alleviated by the self-satisfaction that I get from refusing to leave.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pmESTthe sad thing is that even though McCain is the only altenative to the worst fascist government period in our history/future (which is saying a lot) … he keeps making it harder and harder and harder to support him. Just what is he thinking with his anti-American and anti-conservative bent lately?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pmESTObamamessiah and his bitter half have done what I thought to be impossible. They have made me WANT to vote for John McCain now, of course then I will go home and get blind stinking drunk. Ok, maybe not the second part but I will happily vote for McCain rather than the Obamamessiah.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pmESTYes, in fact, hell yes! Because there is no rational math by which an Obama/OtherSocialistFuck administration is superior to a McCain/Leiberman administration. We have failed over the last twenty years or so to build a strong party that is committed to things like fiscal conservatism and strong, secure borders, but the first step to fixing any problem is to limit, as much as possible, the damage that is occurring. If I find a leak in the pipe under my sink, I don’t leave the water on and let the kitchen flood just to create a sense of urgency.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pmESTAt least we could count on Republican Congressmen to oppose them at every turn out of sheer knee-jerk obstructionism. With McCain they’d just let it right through because he’s the head of the party.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:58 pmESTYou’re welcome here anytime, guys. Unfortunately, our political wusses are not much better..
May 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pmESTTo paraphrase Max Lerner, the lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL!
I cannot vote for McCain simpler because he is better than Obama. That’s the basic choice we’ve been making every election during my lifetime; which candidate will lead you to hell in a handbasket slower? Well, you know what? You’re still headed to hell in a handbasket!
I will never vote for a member of either party unless they are truly exceptions to the “spend more, spend more, then spend more” mentality that pervades Washington.
To me, voting for more of the same is far more of a wasted vote than voting for someone who can’t be elected, but you believe in.
The only reason third-party candidates are “unelectable” is that everybody continues to play the game by the Republican/Democrat playbook.
I’ll shut up now, but here’s a quote from the late Douglas Adams (I believe it’s from “So Long, and Thanks for the Fish”)
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they vote in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Aurthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
Jess
May 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pmEST“Here, too, Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other.
I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make.”
– John McCain, Wake Forest University, 6-May-2008
May 8th, 2008 at 6:52 pmESTAbsolutely, Rachel.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pmESTIt is not only about a Presidential nominee, but who will be replacing at least 4 SCOTUS judges who are 70+ in years. I would rather muck my way through 4 years of McCain, leave our military intact and deal with moderate to conservative appointees to the bench than to deal with either the Marxist (reparations, anyone?) or the Socialist (penalizing profits….sounds like an Ayn Rand book).
“Jess Mills Says:
I will never vote for a member of either party unless they are truly exceptions to the “spend more, spend more, then spend more” mentality that pervades Washington.”
As much as I dislike McCain, he is one of the few senators on the hill who has NO earmarks, and refuses to ask for/include earmarks in his budget requests. That one thing is enough for me to vote FOR him and not just against Obama.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pmESTAnd that opposition to earmarks will last up until the point when the Democrats want to float some of their own. Then he’ll sign off on them in order to “reach across the aisle”.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pmESTHopeChange. HopeChange.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pmESTWe’re not likely to have enough Senators to stop it. We might be able to get enough crossover to sustain a veto.
In any case, there’s more than one issue to worry about.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pmEST“mightysamurai Says:
As much as I dislike McCain, he is one of the few senators on the hill who has NO earmarks, and refuses to ask for/include earmarks in his budget requests.
And that opposition to earmarks will last up until the point when the Democrats want to float some of their own. Then he’ll sign off on them in order to “reach across the aisle”.”
Your proof is??
May 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pmESTLike we didn’t have enough Senators to stop Hillarycare?
His entire fucking political career.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:48 pmESTAlso, it’s important to remember that just because McCain doesn’t include earmarks in any of HIS bills that doesn’t mean he’ll reject any bill with earmarks attached to it should be become president.
Senator and President are two very different jobs. It’s easy to keep earmarks off your own legislation as a member of Congress, it’s a lot harder to reject every bill that reaches your desk as President because it has earmarks on it.
For instance, suppose a military funding bill loaded with earmarks were to reach McCain’s desk. Would he veto it?
May 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pmESTOh I swear to God, if I hear another one of you people trying to “punish” the GOP by not voting for McCain I will vomit so violently, that the vomit will enter my keyboard, travel thru the interwebs, and come out of your screen and hit you square in the face. I am almost certain some of it will go in your mouth.
You cannot “punish” the GOP or any politicians. The only person you will punish if you help in any way , elect Barack Obama, is………..ME!
Seriously, I have WORKED MY ASS OFF for the past 15 years to crawl out of embarassing poverty (read: homeless)to the point where I now earn a little money. In fact, I have worked to the point that (by Baracks standards) I am above middle class. His plan is to tax the shit out of me, so other people who are poor now, will get out of poverty for FREE, unlike me , who worked MY ASS OFF for my ladder out of the hole.
There is such a HUGE differece between folks like us and Barack Obama. Yes, there are some differences between us and John McCain, but believe me folks, McCain is at least on the same planet as we are. Those differences by the way, are mostly academic discussions, blown out of proportion by hyperbolic airbags who have too much time on thier hands.
Seriously, stop trying to look “cool” by prociaming to “hold your nose” and voting for McCain. There has never been a perfect candidate and there never will be, but there is the exact opposite of a perfect candidate, and thy name is Barack Obama.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:49 pmESTAs Mont said, I’m not voting for McCain, I’m voting against Obama/Clinton.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:18 pmESTThe last time I voted FOR a President was Ronald Reagan. This will be just one more election where I weigh my options and try and guess which candidate, McCain or one of the independents has the best chance of beating Obama.
I would like a ballot where I can vote against a candidate instead of for one, That way I could cancel out someone else’s vote for Obama without having to vote for some other asshat that I despise.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:21 amESTTo punish the GOP you would vote FOR McCain. His presidency would doom the GOP for a generation if not forever. Bush has almost destroyed my Grand Old Party. A McCain presidency would put the nails in the Coffin. We were the strong party in 96. But the RINO’s decided to act like democrats without the complicity of the MSM. So we lost. We must return to conservative and libertarian principles and restore the GOP; but McCain can’t and won’t. So I would rather have Obama. But I probably will write in NONE OF THE ABOVE.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:26 amESTFirst of all - no earmarks doesn’t mean you actually spend less. Or that you vote to spend less. It just means you’re not trying to funnel the money in specific directions. If you removed every earmark, the amount spent would equal exactly the same. Furthermore, earmarks add up to a fraction of a percent of the budget.
If you vote for deficit spending once, I have no respect for you. If you vote to raise taxes, when we already have the highest tax rates in US history, I have no respect for you. If you vote to increase the power of the federal government without regard to constitutional limits, I have no respect for you. Which yes, means I have no respect for virtually any members of congress or Senate.
To Para: I too have worked my ass off to get out of abject poverty, and am just now emerging into the “middle class”. I have no interest in “punishing” the Republican Party. I have no interest in the Republican Party at all, until they show they are willing to actually stand for the beliefs they espouse - small government, lower taxes, more freedom. I have watched both parties closely for the last twenty years. While their differences in rhetoric are vast, their differences in action are miniscule.
I will not “punish” a party. I simply will not willingly participate in a system that has time and time again only rewarded those interested in moving us further towards a socialist and totalitarian regime.
I do not expect perfection. But I will not reward betrayal, either.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:07 amESTTwo words, people: Meghan McCain. ‘Nuff said.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:47 amESTBarry is like Jimmy Carter lite, all the hope and change, half the experience. He seems to have the nomination in hand but I wouldn’t count the Hildebeast out. She will not willingly drop out before the convention and there’s an outside chance she can sucker punch O in Denver.
Another possibility is a brokered convention and a shared ticket, but in that path lies madness.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:24 amESTWell get ready to jam that finger down your throat, because I’m not voting for McCain for that very reason.
If you vote for McCain you’ll be sending a message to the GOP that they don’t EVER have to uphold conservative principles because you’ll still vote for them every time.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:20 amESTI am still holding out hope that McCain will pick a veep I will like. I don’t really like McCain because he is far too liberal - but on the war and on earmarks he scores highly. Still way too many issues that he stands for that annoy me - but I don’t want to revisit all those issues.
I read Michael Steele might be a potential pick for the VP. That would make me happily vote McCain. I might even skip to the polls, and like Tom Cruise in that dumb movie with Cuba Gooding, I’ll be yelling “I love black people!” I would so love the idea of the stark contrast between the two black men on the opposing tickets - at least that would remove the “racism” charges associated with the vote that would be absolutely inevitable otherwise.
Obama can win simply because we are surrounded by far far too many idiot socialist punks who think the federal government is there to give ‘em free stuff. You know, like food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. McCain doesn’t seem to disagree a whole lot with the liberals. American History (and its philosophical importance) has been lost to the ages…
Thank you, public education (liberals) for failing the citizenry so miserably.
Anyway, I think I am becoming more inclined with each passing day to vote McCain. Because of the one issue: the war in Iraq. So yes, time is having its effects on me.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:35 amESTThis is beautifully said. I’ve said something like this in many other threads on many different blogs, but never this succinctly and perfectly. This wraps my entire conservative Independent political identity into two awesomely kick-ass paragraphs. Very commendable, Jess.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:25 amESTHeh. My comment to Jess just went into moderation for the word “kick-ass”. That’s fuckin’ funny.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:26 amESTProblem is, they won’t have to. All they will have to do is sign the bill that Congress hands them defunding the troops, and that will be that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If there were any chance that the Republicans could take a majority in even ONE house of Congress, this wouldn’t worry me, but as it is, we’ll have a complete unholy trinity if a Dem wins the White House, and I believe that’s going to damage the country more than anything that’s gone on in the past 40 years.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:00 amESTI’m quoting Para because I think everyone needs to inhale deeply, wipe the smug, faux-enlightened smirks off your faces, hop off your impossibly high standard soapbox and slowly re-read this breath of fresh air again:
I won’t bother even asking for anyone to give me a thoughtful, logical explanation as to why not voting or writing in “none of the above” would serve any legitimate purpose. I won’t bother asking because there is none. I seriously question what la-la land some of you people live in where you truly believe that you’re making some sort of worthwhile political statement with these shenanigans.
Do you ever stop for one moment to consider the millions who have fought and died to protect our country so that we can exercise this truly beautiful gift of voting? I dare say not. To purposely, knowingly sit back and take one of these obstinate stands is abhorrent. It truly disgusts me to my core.
If you find this post offensive or hostile, that’s because it’s meant to be. Someone needs to knock some sense into you people. That person obviously isn’t me, because I become too impassioned and emotional when I see asinine behavior. But maybe my post denouncing this nonsense will inspire someone much more eloquent than me to reiterate what I’ve said. Because it needs to be said, and often.
The truth of the matter is that there are only two legitimate choices for voting this November–the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. A vote for anyone else does not make a “stand.” A vote for anyone else does not inspire “change.” If you really want to make a stand, if you really want to inspire change, hard work is required. Taking the pansy-ass way out and not voting or voting for a third or non-existent party is a spineless antic. Not voting for McCain because, “We must return to conservative and libertarian principles and restore the GOP” is ludicrous. Do you really think that change is caused by obstinate acts and temper tantrums?
I’m done. The amount of disgust I feel over some of these posts is palpable. I wholeheartedly apologize to Rachel if this post is just too offensive, but I couldn’t in good conscious sit back and read this tripe without saying anything any longer.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:02 amESTWhich, if they ever plan on being elected again in this country, they will not do.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:14 amESTFine, then we won’t bother to give you one. It’s obvious you’re not interested in thoughtful or logical discussion anyway.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:15 amESTHa. How typical. You’re the biggest blowhard on this board.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:23 amESTEvery time I think of “hopey changey” and look at those ears why does Howdy Doody come to mind?
See how good you feel about an Obama presidency when you think about these little problems.
Bolivia, Ecuador, Columbia if/when Hugo decides to invade.
Taiwan when mainland China decides to see if Barrack has any stones.
You can bet that the nut jobs in Lebanon and Syria won’t wait long either.
I’m confident that I can live through whatever domestic bullshit McCain screws up in 4 years. I don’t think we recover from 4 years of foreign Obamarama.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:51 amESTMy guess is that we all agree McCain would be a better candidate than Obama. My problem with voting for McCain is that he will continue the recent trend of Republicans supporting socialist positions. We know that the democrats are hard core socialists. If the Republicans support socialism (as GWB has done with spending he has approved/supported) then where do I go as a citizen who wants even more freedom than I have now, not less?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:52 amESTI love when people act like jerks and when someone responds in kind they go “Ha! That just proves you can’t answer my argument!”
I wonder if they even realize what they’re doing?
Well “Amanda”, you can call me whatever you want but it’s not going to convince me to vote for McCain.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:54 amESTHis entire fucking political career.
Translation: “I hate McCain past the boundary of rationality, though not past the boundary of rationalizing.” Why not just stick to that rather than throwaway lines?
If you vote for McCain you’ll be sending a message to the GOP that they don’t EVER have to uphold conservative principles because you’ll still vote for them every time.
Translation: “I’m an ideologue and I will attempt to destroy what I cannot possess–the party that does not dance entirely to my tune.” Or as some would put it, if you can’t always have the exact cake recipe you want for yourself every time, you’re quite willing to burn down the bakery so that no one else can ever eat anything you don’t like. That “My way or the highway” principle at work in local/state parties has led consistently to the obvious–the opposition winning the elections, and the people in office being even farther away from one’s desired place than the most renegade of in-party moderates. Because demands for ideological purity, demands that one faction of a many-factioned party must entirely control the agenda or they will take their toys and go home, reliably results in the most ideologically rigid and least electable candidate winning the primary–only to lose to the slightly less ideologically rigid candidate from the other party.
That’s a demonstrable empirical truth. To put it another way, those who take their balls and go home don’t get to play with the other kids. The other kids will go right ahead and play without you as you sit in your room and play with your balls alone. The game goes on.
Fine, then we won’t bother to give you one. It’s obvious you’re not interested in thoughtful or logical discussion anyway.
Look in a mirror when you say that. But I can offer Amanda one thoughtful, logical reason as to why she shouldn’t worry about it too much: those who are stupid/immature enough to not vote because of their personal miffdom confirm that they are in a nutshell not serious, rational adults, that they do not really deserve a vote anyway. Taking your ball and going home because you don’t get your way is definitively chilidish, but in the long run those are just the kind of people I applaud for NOT voting. Those who can not make a rational adult choice outside of “I get MY way, always” would if forced likely choose pretty poorly anyway.
Other than that, pretty much what Amanda said.
The goose-step knee-jerk ideologues do not OWN the GOP, much as they wish to. And the goose-step knee-jerk ideologues do not OWN the Democratic party, much as they wish to. Both parties are made up of assorted factions, all of whom have their own agendas, and historically the controlling party is not the narrow-united-kneejerk-agenda party. It’s the party whose factions learn to play well with others, not the party who factions take their balls and go home when the game doesn’t go all their way.
Or IOW for those who might not get the point: Big Tent partisanship wins a LOT more elections than Little Tent partisanship. Ideologues try to win elections by turning out the extreme wings. But for the most part, elections are won by grabbing the large middle ground, which is as large as either party.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:55 amESTOh, so I should just vote for the GOP like a lemming no matter how liberal they are?
Pathetic. I can smell the elephant brand on your ass from here.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:58 amESTWolfie–fun as it is to run down the Dems, there’s a WHOLE lot of Blue Dogs out there whose inclinations run more to the middle and even a touch right of center. We should be working on making the Dark Side of the duct tape less sticky for them, so they can break free.
Personally I’m providing some support for these guys. I don’t agree with all of their positions all of the time, but I sure as hell trust them to do their best for our nation a helluva lot more than I trust any of their opponents.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:02 amESTLMAO. Thank you for demonstrating my point so nicely, mighty.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:06 amESTTypical McCainite response to anything a conservative showing principle - name calling.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pmESTHow is that working out on donations to the party or candidate? I’m sure every repub candidate is swamped with volunteers so the conservatives aren’t missed.
When Hillary throws in the (maybe bloodstained) towel, MSM will drop on Juan MexiCain like wolves on an abandoned calf. He is having his honeymoon now and is not interested in conservative support or even the support of the 70% of Americans who don’t want amnisty. MSM and Soros will get their word out for Obama to most Americans. How is Juan going to do it?
Note: Yeah, I name-called old Juan. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. Those who are trying to persuede others to vote MexiCain should try persuasion, but don’t bother with the sky is falling if a DEM gets in. As we wait for that we know how bankrupt your idea is.
As I see it there are four choices:
1) Vote for Obama (or Clinton if she pulls off a miracle)
2) Vote for McCain
3) Vote for a third party candidate (Bob Barr or Ralph Nader)
4) Don’t vote at all
There are problems with all three choices.
1) A vote for Obama is a vote for a Carter-istic presidency with soaring taxes, inflation, and conflicts with China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and assorted other countries looking to take us down a peg or replace us as the world’s only current super-power.
2) Voting for a third party candidate the way the system currently works is just as good as throwing your vote away - but at least you can feel virtuous no matter who is in the White House that you didn’t vote for that _______ (fill in the blank)
3) Voting for McCain, well…he’s not the perfect candidate. He’s not even a great candidate. But he is adequate. He will not shirk from our enemies and he is a strong fiscal conservative. The border is an issue, as are some of his other positions. BUT he’s the best we’ve got at the moment. (For the record, I’m a Fred Thompson supporter myself.)
4) Don’t vote at all, abdicate any responsibility for what goes on in the country for the next four years. If you don’t choose to vote, fine. That’s your decision. But you give up your moral right to bitch about the results.
There they are. Make your choice.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pmESTOh, yes. I did mean three choices. For me number four isn’t a choice at all.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pmESTTully says:
Actually, this makes me feel a lot better. Thank you. I think I want to have your babies now.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pmESTObama is going to win because Democrats will not sit around repeating for the ten thousandth time “I will hold my nose and vote for Barack Obama.” (And could we euthanize that “hold my nose” phrase, which may have been clever the first time it was uttered but has long-since passed into mindless cliche.) Obama will be supported enthusiastically.
The Democrats have to do very little to build a case against McCain because Republicans are so admirably doing it for them, as demonstrated by the comments posted here. Fine. Don’t vote at all, or throw your vote away on some useless “losertarian” (as Medved calls them) party candidate. Wait for another election when the perfect candidate — by your standards — appears. Meanwhile, take your vitamins because you may need a long life span to accommodate the wait.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pmESTAnd what point was that? That you’ll vote for whatever idiot the GOP puts on the ballot, no matter how liberal he is?
Yes, I think I demonstrated that point very well. Thank you.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTHeh. I held my nose and voted for Bush in 2000. (Didn’t have to hold it in ‘04 quite so hard…)
I can’t stand McCain, but the opposition is downright vile.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pmESTVoting Duopoly was only going to happen if Ron Paul got the nomination, and after my 6 weeks of hopeful fun, I got off that idea. I’ll vote LP, but I may have to hold my nose even then (I could vote for Ruwart. Root, Barr? Notsomuch). If they really screw up, I may vote
May 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pmESTTheocratConstitution PartyTo ElvenPhoenix - a good thought, but here’s where we part ways.
To me, McCain isn’t adequate. Not close. Not even a little bit. On all the issues that I care deeply about, he is in direct opposition. As is Obama, as is Hillary. Big surprise.
From my point of view, voting for someone I oppose because I oppose him slightly less than the “only other” option - THAT’S throwing my vote away.
As long as people continue to believe in the two party system, we will continue these pathetic excuses for elections where you have to “hold your nose” and vote for the “lesser of two evils” because that’s the only “viable” option.
Will my candidate win? No. That’s not the only metric. I will have stated my opposition to the entire system, which is my only real recourse at this point.
You don’t respect that. Fine. But neither do I respect all those who believe that continuing to play the same game by the same rules will result in change.
We can have our differences, but keep in mind that just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pmESTYes, I think I demonstrated that point very well. Thank you.
The point that you place your own uncontrolled emotional reactions to anyone at all who fails to agree with you above any mature consideration of what might actually be best for the nation, mighty? The point that you’ll immediately devolve to (mistaken) name-calling when this is pointed out to you–which also confirms point number one? Bang-up job!
Fine. Don’t vote at all, or throw your vote away on some useless “losertarian” (as Medved calls them) party candidate. Wait for another election when the perfect candidate — by your standards — appears. Meanwhile, take your vitamins because you may need a long life span to accommodate the wait.
Bingo, BarbaraD. Subtitled “How Bush 1 lost in ‘92 and Gore lost in 2000.”
A third party candidate CAN swing an election, but they can’t WIN one. And when they DO swing elections, it’s always AWAY from the side they’ve splintered from. The biggest tent wins.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pmEST“Jess Mills Says:
You don’t respect that. Fine. But neither do I respect all those who believe that continuing to play the same game by the same rules will result in change.”
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I laid out the options as I see them. The fact is, for me, NOT voting isn’t a choice at all. And I truly believe that those who CHOOSE not to vote have no moral right to complain about the results as they chose to opt out.
You apparently don’t have a candidate out there that you are willing to support. Fine. But it’s a zero sum game at this point - there will be option O or option M in the White House next January, barring some unfortunate unseen event. If you choose not to participate in choosing which option it is, that is completely up to you. If you choose to cast a (protest) vote for a 3rd party candidate at least you are making your voice heard in some small respect. To not vote means that you are choosing not to be heard at all.
If you want the system to change start at the bottom up, not the top down. Get a viable Conservative (I hate that name - too many negative connotations for too many people) Party started locally, move up to state-wide - then have a chance at the national ticket.
As far as respect goes, respect is something earned, not given. As I do not know you I can neither respect nor disrespect you. You may be perfectly worthy of respect, or a true jerk.
Time will tell…
May 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pmESTActually, I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary. I may choose to vote for him as a write-in candidate. Or I may vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist. But who I believe in is not the issue here - it’s what I don’t believe in, which is the current two-party system.
Your statements all hold true as long as you accept that there are and can only be two parties. It is ironically the fact that so many people accept this (fueled by our incredibly biased media) that perpetuate the status quo.
The Libertarian Party (of which I am not a member) has been on the ballot in all 50 states every major election for the last 30 years or so. But they are shut out of every major debate. They’re usually not even allowed to buy ads on major media outlets. So they are dismissed as “non-viable.” That’s just an example.
The “biggest tent” mentality is only necessary as long as you only allow there to be two tents. Many other democratic countries allow multiple parties, then form majority coalitions on individual issues. The only reason we can’t do the same here is the vast majority of Americans hold blindly to one of the following options:
1)I’m a Republican, damnit!
2)I’m a Democrat, by God!
3)I’m an Independent! Of course, I will vote for either a Democrat or a Republican…
4)I’m tired of the game. I refuse to vote.
As I see it, all four options lead to the exact same result. Higher Spending. Higher Taxes. Higher Debts. Higher levels of Federal Power. Higher intrusions into our civil liberties.
The problem as I stated before is that both the Democrat and the Republicans talk differently on the stump, but then act virtually the same in office.
As for respect, I was not referring to myself, but my stated opinions, which you did treat with a great lack of respect. Don’t worry; their feelings aren’t hurt. But you lessen your own argument when you fail to take seriously another viewpoint (which I must admit your last post seemed to change).
The system may indeed change with a bottom-up approach. But I believe it has gone far beyond the point where change can be effected from the inside out. Change will have to come from the outside in.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pmESTI think l lot of people’s main objection to McCain is that he’s not Ron Paul.
No, no he’s not Ron Paul. But he’s not Barack Obama either, or George Bush for that matter.
But at the end of the day, you have to realize that either McCain or Obama is going to replace Bush in the White House. No, not YOUR favorite candidate, McCain or Obama.
It’s too late in the game to continue wishing for your perfect candidate, the DEMOCRATIC process, through your fellow citizens has fielded these two candidates. One of the will be President. period.
Now, you have a choice; One or the other. No, your protest votes won’t “send a message” because the time for message sending is during the primary. The message has been sent. McCain will represent the Republican party. period.
Do you want to be GOVERNED by Obama? Do you want his “change”? You do? Well then vote for him.
If not, vote McCain. Any other vote is essentially a vote for Obama.
What’s that? You don’t like McCain? Why? He’s not exactly what you want in a candidate? Well that’s unusual. That almost never happens.
Still I wonder, is McCain’s ideology CLOSER to your ideal of how you should be governed than Obama? I thought so. So vote for him, or you get someone who will be farther from your ideology. The ideology difference between these two is vast and clear, pick one that’s closer to yours and vote.
It’s simple.
And while we’re on the subject, I’ve yet to read anything from an informed person as to why McCain is so bad that HE’s the “line in the sand” the Repubilcans have been threatening for decades. I hear two main things: He’s soft on immigration, and he’s against “free speech”.( He’s not, but I digress, and would be more than happy to explain if you are confused)
I’d like to hear from someone who can explain (other than just those two catch-phrases) just WHY McCain is so bad that we should give the elections to the most Liberal candidate in history.
Can ya do that for me?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pmESTI can assure you my friend that it’s NOT Obama. Any vote other than McCain will guarantee Obama’s victory.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pmESTWow, Para. It’s amazing. Your reading comprehension is astounding.
Let McCain represent the Republican party.
I’m not a republican!
You think my vote is wasted? Bully for you. Personally, I think yours is.
But you know what? It’s my vote. And your vote is yours. Go on with your smug and confident self, and vote for McCain, because he’s not Obama. Yay. And then, should hell freeze over and McCain win, tell yourself how great he is as taxes keep going up, and the deficit climbs, and the dollar plunges, and we continue to bankrupt ourselves with our unsustainable empire.
Good lord. At least everybody else has climbed down from their high horses. Gallup off to victory, man. Have at it.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pmESTSo, who ya voting for Jess?
I’m wondering who you are going to vote for, ( that can win) that will LOWER your taxes, control earmarks, and what ever that emprie thingy is your’re refering to, Obama? ’cause he’s the only other viable candidate other that McCain.
BTW, I’m not a Republican either, I’m a Libertatiran. But I’m also a realist. Realism RULES, baby!
You should try it.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pmESTYeah, I do indeed highly recommend it. It might change your viewpoints about many things.
You assume once again that my only metric is who wins. Supporting a candidate merely on the basis of whether they win is not a very effective means of effecting any sort of political change.
I’m guessing you haven’t read any of my previous posts. No point in repeating myself.
We disagree. So be it. But to assume that anybody who disagrees with you can’t possibly have considered any of the incredibly obvious points you’ve brought up belittles your own intelligence as much as ours.
I’m not sure who I’m voting for yet. I’m certain they won’t win. But at least I’m not throwing away my vote to someone who doesn’t deserve it, merely because they might beat someone who deserves it even less. And if you can’t understand that, just watch the results of this election. And the next. And the next.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:42 pmESTOh, like you’re any different?
You’re sitting here casting aspersions on my intelligence and anyone else who shares my viewpoint simply because we don’t agree with you. We’re not voting for McCain, therefore we’re hurting the nation. You’ve embraced the very stereotype that liberals so enjoy applying to conservatives, that anyone who disagrees with you is evil and hates the country.
Actually it was your bestest buddy Amanda who immediately devolved to mistaken name-calling. And then you both have the nerve to complain when I respond in kind.
Hypocrites.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pmESTWhile I don’t agree with her support for Ron Paul, I think Jess makes a very good point here that Tully, Amanda, and everyone else should consider.
How do you propose we get the RINOs out of government if we keep voting RINOs into office under the dubious premise that they are “better than the other guy”?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pmESTOh, it’s not terribly important, and completely off-topic. But if I start posting here regularly, I should mention that I’m a guy.
I know, Jess is usually short for Jessica. Blame my parents. They didn’t feel like adding an extra “e” on the end of my name…
May 9th, 2008 at 7:14 pmESTI’m voting for Obama. There, I said it. (Let the verbal abuse begin.)
May 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pmESTAh. Sorry about that. : )
May 9th, 2008 at 7:46 pmESTMy prediction: This election will set an all-time record for nose-holding by voters.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pmEST“Jess Mills Says:
Your statements all hold true as long as you accept that there are and can only be two parties. It is ironically the fact that so many people accept this (fueled by our incredibly biased media) that perpetuate the status quo.
The Libertarian Party (of which I am not a member) has been on the ballot in all 50 states every major election for the last 30 years or so. But they are shut out of every major debate. They’re usually not even allowed to buy ads on major media outlets. So they are dismissed as “non-viable.” That’s just an example.”
I’m not sure (since it’s been years), but I believe that what happened re: the Libertarian party and the debates is that the League of Women Voters used to be responsible for the major debates between the presidential candidates, then the year that the Libertarian candidate made the ballot in all 50 states the major parties took the debates out of their hands to prevent the Libertarian candidate from being able to participate.
“The “biggest tent” mentality is only necessary as long as you only allow there to be two tents. Many other democratic countries allow multiple parties, then form majority coalitions on individual issues. The only reason we can’t do the same here is the vast majority of Americans hold blindly to one of the following options:
1)I’m a Republican, damnit!
2)I’m a Democrat, by God!
3)I’m an Independent! Of course, I will vote for either a Democrat or a Republican…
4)I’m tired of the game. I refuse to vote.”
Part of that problem is that most of democracies in the world are formed around a parliamentary system of government rather than a republic. You are aware that we are technically a republic, not a democracy, right? The founders were afraid of a straight democracy.
There is no requirement that we only utilize two parties, that’s just the way it’s worked out. And once we had two major parties, they kind of worked together to keep the “riff-raff” out. Like the Libertarians.
As far as our four choices, well, yes. We’re absolutely screwed. It’s just about how much do you want to be screwed at this point? I guarantee that Obama will take more out of your pocket and more of your freedoms than McCain.
Please understand that I believe McCain to be a deeply flawed candidate. But my number one issue is and has been the WOT. Obama will not prosecute that war at all, let alone even try to continue it or finish it. Our only hope on that issue at the moment is McCain. Let me know if there is a better bet out there.
“The problem as I stated before is that both the Democrat and the Republicans talk differently on the stump, but then act virtually the same in office.”
Virtually the same, not exactly the same. Most of the Republicans have been trying to open up ANWAR and the oil fields off the coasts - Democrats consistently vote against and block any movement towards those options. Their argument for the last, oh, 15+ years has been that it will take 10 years for production to impact our oil supplies.
“As for respect, I was not referring to myself, but my stated opinions, which you did treat with a great lack of respect.”
A matter of opinion. I have strong ones, as do you. Assuming that my having strong opinions means that I don’t “respect” yours is a stretch. You have a differing viewpoint, which I disagree with strongly. Am I not allowed to disagree without crossing some sort of line that makes my disagreement…disrespectful? I’m confused…
“The system may indeed change with a bottom-up approach. But I believe it has gone far beyond the point where change can be effected from the inside out. Change will have to come from the outside in.”
Okay. There are no problems, only solutions. So what is YOUR solution to this problem?
May 9th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTYou’re sitting here casting aspersions on my intelligence and anyone else who shares my viewpoint simply because we don’t agree with you. We’re not voting for McCain, therefore we’re hurting the nation.
No, I’m saying that the emotional “reasoning” itself is idiotic and juvenile and irrational. Who you vote for is a matter of indifference to me. If you don’t like that emotional “reasoning” being criticized as idiotic and juvenile and irrational, improve it. If you disagreee with it, show why it is wrong. The fault does not lie with the analysis.
You’ve embraced the very stereotype that liberals so enjoy applying to conservatives, that anyone who disagrees with you is evil and hates the country.
Show me where I called anyone evil. Plenty of people disagree with me all the time, and I argue quite politely (if vehemently) with them, without name-calling. Some are friends of long standing who have always disagreed with me–but they argue as adults, with real arguments, not with schoolyard slurs they can’t back up when they can’t even back up their own claims and reasoning. You can of course offer some kind of counter-argument to my own analysis, refute the analysis with a better argument showing that it’s wrong, and why. You haven’t even tried.
Actually it was your bestest buddy Amanda who immediately devolved to mistaken name-calling. And then you both have the nerve to complain when I respond in kind….Hypocrites.
LMAO. Saying such things doesn’t make them so, mighty. Amanda expressed strong opinions with which you disagreed. I don’t see where she actually addressed anything personally to anyone–that would be you, who called her names when she disagreed with your reasoning. As you did with me. See above. Try a rational counter-argument instead. C’mon, try! As Kinky Friedman said when he ran for Governor of Texas, how hard could it be?
How do you propose we get the RINOs out of government if we keep voting RINOs into office under the dubious premise that they are “better than the other guy”?
We must burn the village in order to save it? Is that what you’re saying? Do you sincerely believe that making thing worse actually makes them better? Because that’s where that reasoning leads.
If you want more conservatives in office, you should try to sell conservatism to a large enough number of voters that your goal is reachable. Then find candidates that can reasonably be sold as conservatives. Blaming the failure of conservatives to accomplish this on the voters (BUYERS) doesn’t cut it. The fault lies squarely with the sellers.
If the public won’t buy the whole package, you sell it in pieces. If they won’t buy the pieces, maybe they just plain don’t want the product. Insulting the buyers won’t improve sales. But if you can still sell pieces, then joining a co-op isn’t a bad idea. And that’s what a party is. A co-op of factions.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:45 pmESTFrom Jess:
The “political change” you speak of does not happen in the General Election. It happens in the primaries. The “change” we get this time ( unless the Socialists, er, Democrats win) is a more fiscally responsible President.
If you are going to live in the kind of fantasy that a single election is going to “change” everything you don’t like, you might as well go to the Obama camp, because that is his basic message.
But before you make that mistake, think back 30 years or so, when Jimmy Carter was the Prez. How much has really changed since then FOR YOUR LIFE? I’m guessing not too much, you get up, go to school or work, go home, love your family, sleep.
You don’t wait in line for groceries, you don’t hide out in bomb shelters, abortion is not illegal, evolution is still taught in school, and churches meet every Sunday, we don’t burn books, there is no military draft. All these things were promised due to “elections”, none ever happened.
The truth is life goes on and the President only changes things a little, and the same will be true for Obama or McCain. The question is, why would you allow yourself to step backwards even 1%?
I’m not willing.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pmESTChalk one up for McCain. Nothing has changed in my mind. Obama was a Marxist before “Reverend” Wright (I do not revere him) started flapping his racist gums, and Obama is still a Marxist. Only dumber, more naive and with half the conviction of our regular Democrat candidate. He’s worth zero ninety-nine on my shelf.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:41 amESTSorry, been working.
About to go to sleep. But to answer a couple of quick ones;
Yes, I know we’re not a democracy, technically. We’re (theoretically) a Constitutional Republic with Democratically elected Representatives. I know of no true “democracies” in the world, if you want to get that technical.
As far as the parliamentary systems - the differences between a parliament and a congress are semantic at best. Our legislative branch is directly modeled on the British Parliament, with the Senate being the House of Lords, and the Congress being the House of Commons. That is not really related to whether you could have multiple parties. There is absolutely no reason to be a two party system, other than inertia and fear.
As for what to do about it? The only thing that can be done is to convince a sufficient number of people to abandon both major parties to where they become obsolete. That way people can actually vote for people they believe in. Will your candidate win? Much less likely. But what we have now is a farce.
I’m not saying it’s likely; it’s much more likely that we will continue down this road until the entire system collapses, probably in about thirty years at this rate. But the system WILL crash, it’s only a matter of whether we abandon it before then.
As for Para; your assumptions AGAIN only work if you believe in the two party system. Change only comes in the primary if you continue to support the the two-party system - WHICH I DON’T!
You’re not choosing not to step backward 1%, you’re choosing to cheer and be happy about only stepping back 1% instead of 3%.
I refuse to believe in that false dichotomy. A step backward is a step backward. If I go backwards, I will have to be pushed, and I’m going to be facing the right direction.
If you truly believe that the president only changes things a little, look up the writ of habeas corpus, or signing statements. Or look at the federal budget over the last ten years.
I give up; you’re not going to even try to comprehend what I’m saying.
Okay, maybe that last was a bit rude. I’m going to sleep now.
May 11th, 2008 at 1:58 amESTOh, and I refuse to believe that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. And if you want to convince me otherwise, you’re going to have a fun time explaining the actions of the Republicans in both the Legislative and Executive branches in the last two decades.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:05 amESTJess,
My goodness.
If you think we have a two party system, would you please go inform George H.W. Bush and Al Gore, who both lost thier shoo-in elections due to third party kooks. It might help thier self esteem.
Ron Paul is nothing more that Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader is nothing moe than, well, Ralph Nader. If either of those guy carried the right message, they would have own. We haven’t had that guy or gal yet.
The problem with going away with the two party ( as you call it) syste isthat eventually we will elect leaders with 15% fo the vote, and piss off the other 85% who voted against it.
We need a playoff system.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:15 pmEST