Your next president is not a smart man.
Rupert keeps telling me not to be so sure Obama’s going to win in November. I keep telling Rupert he doesn’t read enough conservative blogs and thus doesn’t realize how many conservatives are so tired of getting “poked in the eye” and “stabbed in the back” that they’re gonna take their “principles” all the way to nowhere on Election Day by sitting home or voting third-party rather than voting for McCain, which is the ONLY WAY to keep Obama out of office. But they’re just Na. Ga. Da. (not gonna do it). Because they want to “punish” the Republican party. Teach them a lesson!
Sorry, I know lots of you who feel that way are very wonderful people who I really do respect, but I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: I think your plan is shitty. You’re going to get Obama elected, you realize that right? If you’re cool with that, more power to you, but I for one will NOT welcome my new Dumbass Overlord Obama. There are two new reasons for that today.
First: He has no fuckin’ clue what Memorial Day is for.
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
That’s via Hot Air, where you can also see that when McCain pointed out the error, this was the response:
Obama’s camp declined to hit back, with spokesman Bill Burton saying “Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation’s veterans, not a day for political posturing.”
Jesus on a battlestar. We have a whole holiday to honor veterans; it’s called VETERAN’S DAY. Memorial Day is for the ones who died while serving, and it’s a pretty simple concept, and you’d think presidential candidate would be capable of making that distinction but you’d be so wrong.
Second, via Ace of Spades, on the same venerated day:
…Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz…
Oy. I wonder how the Russians feel about that, seeing as how they’re the ones who liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans. Maybe Obama identifies so deeply with the Red Army that he has conflated things in his wee little brain.
Here’s a thought exercise: imagine Dubya making blatant factual errors like these two quotes. Imagine the headlines about how he was disrespecting the memories of fallen servicepeople and how he was such a pompous moron to ignore and belittle the overwhelmingly massive contributions of the Russians in WWII, who frankly had more to do with defeating the Nazis than America did (in my relatively knowledgeable opinion). Oh god. The accusations of dumbness and chimp-like brain power would be coming at you like a tsunami.
Whatever. We’re done with Bush now and we’re getting a new president. And it’s probably going to be Obama because so many people who otherwise could prevent that outcome simply won’t do it because McCain doesn’t say what they want him to say about whatever their pet cause is. It doesn’t matter to these people that there is no “Reagan” waiting in the wings to take over after Obama pulls a Jimmy Carter on the country.
I generally avoid saying much on this blog that I think would piss off or otherwise displease the bulk of my readers, but this is one case where I truly don’t give a shit because I genuinely believe that anyone who disagrees with me on this is flat-out wrong. I believe it with all of my heart and soul and I believe that history backs me up on it, and that emotion should have no place in a decision like this. I don’t give a flying fuck that McCain is more liberal than we would like and that he’s basically an asshole, because I’m operating with the awareness that he’s still better than Obama by about a hundred orders of magnitude.
I do not believe you’re going to teach anyone a “lesson” by sitting this one out or writing in Fred Thompson or Sunny Lucas. I believe that way too many people are ignoring the forest for the trees and that in doing so, they’re going to have a hand in electing Obama. Some say that’s fine because if the country’s going to be “ruined”, better that it’s ruined by a Democrat, and somehow magically we’ll come up with a fantastic, “real” conservative in 4 years even though there is no one like that on the horizon and everyone knows it. Like I said, I think that’s a super-crappy plan.
Usually I don’t want to be wrong but I sincerely hope I am on this one. We’ll find out in about four and a half years, and if I’m still blogging then, I’ll post a great big “I’M A GODDAMN MORON” post and all of you who sat this one out or voted third-party can point and laugh at me as smugly as you deem fit. I actually hope that happens, but I don’t think it will.
Seriously. Kevin Baker is still right:
I have no respect for the “McCain’s not conservative enough so I’ll punish the whole country” types. They are taking action which they believe will harm the nation in order to be proven correct and pure enough to choose our next President.
And save the “choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil” crap. If you believe McCain is evil you’re an idiot. I despise Hillary and Obama and don’t even think they are evil. If you (I mean, they, not you, Wachel) see evil afoot this election you’d better just go ahead, wet yourself and crawl under the covers, because you have no clue what real evil looks like.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:35 amESTIt’s true. Kevin Baker is right.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:35 amESTRepublicans choosing Obama (or Hillary) over McCain just to send a message will get all of bad stuff McCain is rumored to be planning to do, along with so much more Liberal claptrap. If they’re willing to accept open borders, socialized medicine, onerous taxation, and Lynn Stewart on the Supreme Court, why won’t they just bite the bullet and vote for McCain?
Perhaps we should form a blogger alliance — “Shit Sandwich Republicans for McCain” (Maybe he’s a schmuck, but he’s our schmuck!). An Obama presidency terrifies me; that’s why I’m supporting McCain.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:42 amESTTo the “no one waiting in the wings” bit: Bobby Jindal.
Assuming we make it to 2012 with President Dumbass.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:54 amESTBARR ‘08: LIBERTY FOR AMERICA
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 amESTI do believe that Sunny Lucas should fire you as her campaign manager. You probably lost her at least four votes.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:59 amESTI’m with you, but I don’t think this is going to happen. Conservatives who say this kind of thing are going to wake up and smell the Starbucks in time, for the most part.
And of course it’s the political middle (or, more likely, the politically mostly-uninterested) who decide elections - and given the mounting series of gaffes and other problems, I just don’t think they’re going to go for a severely-liberal, inexperienced cigarette smoker with a funny name.
I’ll be a little less certain if Obama cleans up his act and starts thinking a bit more before opening his mouth, if he mounts a serious and effective general-election campaign, if the Clintonistas get behind him, and if the McCain campaign suffers some scandal or McCain chooses his running mate badly.
Otherwise: Obama’s not electable. No way.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 amESTIt’s one thing if the negative consequences of an Obama presidency stopped as soon as he left office. Unfortunately, we’d be stuck for decades with whatever Supreme Court justices he could appoint, to name one example. 30 years later, we’re still dealing with the effects of four years of Jimmy Carter. What’s worse, even Carter had more experience in business and government when he took office than Obama.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 amESTDead
Right
ON!!!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:15 amESTI’m with you one hundred percent, Wachel. I can’t stand McCain, but by God, better him than Obama. Hell, at this point, I’d rather have Clinton than Obama. I think a lot of it is just whining self-pity (lord knows I’ve felt it), and most will wake up before election time.
Lets not get ahead of ourselves and pile all our hopes and dreams on the man. Let him focus on cleaning up LA first, and prove he’s got the stuff before we anoint him anything. I like the guy, I think he does have it, but let him prove it and give him a chance before we hem him in.
My hopes at this point rest on the Hillary die-hards pulling this stunt on the Democrats.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:19 amESTAgree with you on the voting thing. And add that some Congresscritters are facing election/ejection as well.
Wrong place and time… Perhaps a great-uncle (and a different KZ), since he has no US uncles - and his mom’s generation was too young.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:20 amESTMy gut is telling me that Barack Obama will be the next George McGovern. Clear-thinking Republicans will come out and vote for McCain because they’ve figured out by this point what a disaster Obama would be.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:20 amESTIt is the height of irresponsibility to “sit ‘08 out” or to vote for Obama. On the other hand, I know numerous Democrats (many of them family members) who WILL NOT vote for Obama. For some of them it’s racial - they’re from Mississippi and would never vote for a black man. For others, it’s the Rev. Wright controversy. Some will sit the election out, others will vote for McCain.
These are “yellow dog” Democrats. They ALWAYS vote for the Democratic candidate, regardless of qualifications.
The Democratic party lost their vote in the Presidential election this fall by nominating a multi-racial man who spent the first part of his life being raised in Indonesia (attending Catholic school and going to mosque with his step-father), then being raised in Hawaii by his white grandparents (his grandmother whom he threw under the bus), then attended Ivy League universities. And yet he and his wife complain about the lack of opportunities here in America.
If conservatives just get off their a$$ and vote for the lesser of two evils - McCain - it will deal a devastating blow to the Dems this fall when counted with all the Independents and Dems who will be sitting it out or voting Republican. Is John McCain the perfect candidate? Obviously not. Is he the best we’ve got this year? Of course.
Consider - he’s strong on national defense, strong on fiscal conservatism and “traditional” values. His primary weakness is the support of comprehensive immigration reform before securing the borders.
I don’t like that, but I can live with it much better than the disaster Obama would bring. Obama will make the Carter years look like a walk in the park by comparison and we, as a country, may never fully recover.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:22 amESTI’m also hoping for Bobby Jindal in 2012. He’s got a 70% approval rating here in LA. Booyah
May 27th, 2008 at 11:25 amESTI’m not Johnny Mac’s biggest fan, but he’s head and shoulders above He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Spoken or Der Hildabeast. No comparison, we don’t agree on a lot of issues but I think he puts the US first on his list. I think the other two only do that when it’s time to find someone to blame. Me, I’m fine with blaming states 51 thru 57.
Locally, I have a do-nothing democratic congresscritter that I want to see gone. I’m actually attending local political meetings, after a lifetime of saying ‘that’s es-stupeedo’. Don’t know if we can shift that unmoveable object but it’s interesting to be on the side of irresistable force for a change. Literally.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:32 amEST*giggle* That is funny. And so very true.
I think McCain is the least nutty candidate. I don’t agree with him on everything but at least he’s halfway fiscally responsible (and a paragon of savings compared to the other two) and cares about our security and standing up to the bad guys. Obama doesn’t even know who the bad guys are!!! He thinks it’s us. Sheesh. He’s such an idiot.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:34 amESTJust 2 points Wachel. 1) Maybe his uncle was in the Red Army when it liberated Auschwitz. T really would not suprise me. I could better imagine him there then in our army. 2) To bUD: I will vote for anyone, to include Stalin before I vote for a former ACLU stooge who represents the smoke pot party. I have no problem with people smoking pot, I just don’t want a President who thinks it is a ok. After all what would they do in the Oval?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:35 amESTThe more I see, the more I realize I will have to vote for McCain. We have two communists and a liberal in the contest. I’ll take the liberal over the communists any day.
BTW, Rachel, maybe you should cross post in the asshat category. Fits Obama to a “T”.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:37 amESTRachel,
Even if McCain selects his Mistress (Lindsey Graham) for V.P.
Would you still vote for him?
I mean, that would be one hell of a turd sandwich to swallow!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:44 amESTIndeed it does….
To those fools in the “teach them a lesson” category: Don’t you know that what is done cannot be undone? Sure, teach the GOP a lesson and vote for the other guy. Once universal healthcare is established, try telling the recipients 4 years later that they can’t have it anymore. You can bet your sorry ass that they’ll vote for the dems for the rest of their life, and guarantee libtard control of our government for the next 20 or so years.
GROW UP, morons! There is more at stake than your petty squabbles.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amESTI agree with this 100%. If he keeps doing what he’s doing in Louisiana for the next four years, he has my complete support.
On the one hand, I almost look forward to seeing Obama as president just because I think he’s a complete idiot with no substance behind his supposed charisma (which I don’t get at all), and I can’t wait to see just how badly he’ll screw up. On the other hand, once you start with all the social programs-healthcare, etc.-it’s nearly impossible to take them away, and that is frightening. I’ve lived in countries with socialized medicine, and it is my biggest fear that we’ll end up with that kind of healthcare too. No thanks.
So, I’ll be holding my nose, and voting for McCain, and I’m hoping he comes up with a decent running mate.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:49 amESTThere was only one thing you said that made me sit up and take notice. That Obama is a modern day Jimmy Carter.
I’m sure we could handle a mediocre President. Bush has proven that. I don’t think we could handle another Jimmy Carter.
Also, Obama is so young, that he’d literally be able to run around for decades after being president. Doing the same stupid shit that JC is doing now. And he would have legitimacy because he was once the president of the US.
You’re right. We have to show up and vote for McCain.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:50 amESTI have no problem with people smoking pot, I just don’t want a President who thinks it is a ok. After all what would they do in the Oval?
The last time we’re sure a joint was blown in the Oval Office, nobody mentioned pot.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:54 amESTI’m very lucky that I live in NY… I don’t have to vote for McCain since Obama will win this state no matter what.
Oh, and Rachel, you missed the best part, noone can figure out what ‘uncle’ he is talking about. His mother is an only child, and his father was Kenyan.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pmESTI wonder if folks have taken the time to note that whatever relatives of Obama’s served in the US military, it was his racist WHITE relatives (because you’re racist by default if you’re white), not his black Muslim relatives.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pmESTDear Wachel,
I have been looking at the Democrat polls lately and have become less concerned about the Obamanation becoming President. All the evidence says that there will be more Dems staying home in November than Republicans, in protest of “their” person not being nominated.
I’m still going to go in and hold my nose for McCain, because I can’t stand the thought of the damage that Obama or Clinton will do before enough outrage can build to stop them.
My prediction: overall turnout will be in the low 40s percent of eligible voters, and that McCain will win with a fairly marginal popular vote count, but a respectable Electoral Vote margin.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pmESTI’m voting McCain. And I loathe him with a white-hot loathing that could melt alien spaceship hulls.
There is no “lesson” to be taught by voting 3rd party or a write-in. Any one who thinks so should grow the hell up.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pmESTPerhaps a great uncle? His white grandfather’s brother, perhaps. I’m sure he only “misspoke”, as he is wont to do.
Personally, I think this is BHO’s Tuzla moment to try and garner some of the Jewish vote. He knows his association with the anti-Semitic Wright has done some damage. He’s hoping his WHITE great-uncle “savior of Auschwitz” moment can give his some cred with [rich, white] Jews.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pmESTI’m not sure why so many people are up in arms about Obama’s seeing dead people in his audience. He’s a Democrat from near Chicago, dead people have been voting for him for years, I wouldn’t think he’d bat an eye at talking to a roomful of dead people.
Sheesh, get a grip people. Focus on something important, like whether Britney has underwear on today or not. Don’t you read the papers anymore?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pmESTI taught George H.W. Bush a lesson by voting for Ross Perot. Boy, did that ever work out well. I, for one, am not going to make that mistake again.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pmEST“There is no “lesson” to be taught by voting 3rd party or a write-in. Any one who thinks so should grow the hell up.”
Amen, Bonnie!
I have a question for those folks who believe this - exactly what kind of “lesson” are we supposed to learn from staying home and not voting for John McCain.
Do we deserve to lose a few friends or relatives to terrorist attacks when all of the loonies crawl out of the bin in order to test our new Utopian-Dreamer-In-Chief?
Or do we deserve to give up a certain percentage of small businesses - and the jobs they have created - when tax hikes take their toll?
And is their anyone who believes that even if these events happen in the fourth or eighth year of the Obama administration these events won’t be blamed on George W. Bush?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pmESTNot surprisingly, the Shit Sandwich voters have come out of the woodwork again. I fully understand your position, Rachel, as I used to feel that way myself. In fact, I accept my part of the responsibility for the continued leftward drift of the GOP these last [unsure how long] years. I continued to vote for Republicans because I knew that the Democrats were worse. Then the next election came again I voted for a still more liberal GOPer because, hey, he’s not as bad as the other guy, right? And the GOP leaders took that as a sign that they could do whatever the fuck they wanted and I’d keep voting for them. Unfortunately for our erstwhile leaders on Team Elephant, I’ve had my fill. If I had wanted higher spending, greater government growth and still more entitlements, I’d have voted Democrat in the first place. I didn’t, of course, but that’s what I got.
I survived the post-Watergate debacle of a Democrat dominated House, Senate and President. Ditto for the first two Clinton years, although the House and Senate contained some at least marginally conservative Democrats, who retired en masse once they were no longer in the majority. What I learned from those two experiences is that Democrats will, in general, royally screw up when given access to unfettered government power.
Here’s what I see happening after this year’s election:
1) Obama wins and the Democrat majorities increase in both the House and Senate. Whatever cockamamy legislation the Democrats dream up will get almost uniformly opposed by the GOP. Unless the Senate gets 60+ Democrats- a possibility, I admit- this fall, filibusters will be the order of the day. Nothing much good happens during the first couple of years and the GOP comes back stronger during the mid-term elections, when the opposition party typically gains some seats in Congress.
2) McCain wins and the Democrats increase their congressional and senatorial majorities. McCain is the one who proposes some bullshit legislation that President Obama would have suggested, and the GOPers in the House and Senate go along with it because Maverick is the de facto leader of the party. So he possibility of some craptastic piece of legislation becoming law is, in my opinion, greater under a McCain administration.
3) Regardless of who wins the presidency, there is pretty much zero chance of getting through another Alito or a Roberts. Obama won’t nominate them and a Democrat controlled Senate will never vote for them. Also, the most likely SCOTUS members to retire and/or die during the next 4 years are all left-wing activists. Replacing them with other left-wing activists leaves the court as it is now, a narrow 5-4 slightly conservative majority. Kennedy is, of course, the fly in the ointment there. Regardless, I cannot envision a way in which a leftist Senate would vote for anyone reliably conservative or liberarian for SCOTUS, so I’m not certain how things would get better or worse with either of the two candidates.
4) McCain has mentioned that he’d like to go for McCain-Feingold part 2 if elected president. Obama wants to bring back the UnFairness Doctrine. Either way, someone gets to try and abridge my right to free speech. You can make an argument that Obama’s policies in this regard would be worse, but you’ll have difficulty convincing me.
I’ve got a lot more that I could say on this subject, but I’m pretty much done with arguing. I understand perfectly your position with regards to voting for the lesser evil as I’ve done it too often. However, all you raving jackasses who want to call me stupid or retarded can go eff yourselves. I thought long and hard to get to this point; it wasn’t something I dreamed up while drinking a 6-pack of barleywine. I will assume that you reached your decision similarly and aren’t voting for McCain because you’ve got a brain parasite. I understand and respect your decision, but I disagree with your conclusion. It would be helpful in this discussion if you afforded me the same understanding. Also, calling me a dumbass doesn’t endear you to me or make it more likely for me to come around to your way of thinking.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pmESTObama is averaging three gaffes a week, ranging in magnitude from slip-of-the-tongue level (1 on the moronometer) to outright-fucking-lie level (5). He’s a drooling moron and proves it with frightening consistency. Kind of fun to watch, really.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pmESTnoone can figure out what ‘uncle’ he is talking about. His mother is an only child, and his father was Kenyan.
His great-uncle, Ralph Dunham. Drafted May 1942. His grandfather Stanley Dunham enlisted in June 1942. Don’t know if his g’uncle was actually in Patton’s Third Army, which liberated Buchenwald.
BothONE of the two Third Army units first on scene at Buchenwald (83rd Infantry) also landed at Normandy on D-Day, an event one would think deserved a mention on Memorial Day if one had kin involved.The main camp at Buchenwald was taken over by prisoners after the Nazis fled, a couple of days before the 6th Armored, Third Army actually arrived. The 83rd Infantry liberated one of the smaller Buchenwald satellite camps. Units of the Third Army (11th Armored?) also liberated the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camps in upper Austria, the last camps to be liberated by Americans.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pmESTOooh, good point, ErikZ! A post-Obama presidency will be even worse than an Obama presidency, the Carter presidency, and the post-Carter presidency put together! I shudder at the thought.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pmESTWell said, physicsgeek. Very well said.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pmESTRight now, I won’t vote for McCain, but please, stop lying through your teeth coming up with reasons we won’t vote for him.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pmESTConservatives are not reccommending voting for Obama. Conservatives are not talking about walking away from the Repub party. We are saying work in your local elections to get the most conservative person running and elected to Congress and other elections.
If McCain wins the election we fear he pushes the whole party to the left. The Repubs (stupids) may feel that they can keep running RINOs and they will win elections. It won’t happen. Repubs win elections, I’m thinking Congress here, when they run on conservative platforms. When they don’t, they lose seats in congress.
It is expected that the repubs will lose 4 to 8 seats in the senate and maybe up to 12. If McCain wins and the repubs turn left, they can expect to keep losing seats. What happens to RINO John when he faces a veto proof congress? He will probably ‘work across the aisle’ for all the Dem issues. We are screwed that way. The press will blame the repubs for everything, since McCain would be president. Don’t expect to get filibuster ability in the senate until 2018 or after when we have a Dem president. What misery will be inflicted on us by then by the people pushing the repubs to left?
McCain on immigration? The bill was called McCain-Kennedy and would ok 12 to 20 million illegals in the country and allow them to bring in 30 to 70 million (3.5 each) relatives legally. Add additional illegal immigration and what does our country look like?
McCain lead the gang of 14 to block some judges. Why don’t repubs fight? I Don’t know, but I’m not voting for them if they don’t. McCain is likely to work across the aisle and get some ‘Souter’ types nominated. He didn’t like Roberts or Alito and will not nominate their equals.
Is there any good in the man? Yes. But he will finish off the Repub party, from what Bush has done. then finnaly make his big switch to the Dems, as he has wanted to at other times.
This is too long, so I’m ending here. Lie away if you want.
Rachel, your overly-simplified version of the reason why some folks won’t vote for McCain (”to teach the GOP a lesson”) is not mine. I would never frame my argument that way. There is a myriad of more legitimate reasons, covered here, there and everywhere ad nauseum that “punishing the GOP” is the least among them. I understand the general temptation to dumb-down the very valid arguments against McCain, but I tend to expect more from you.
I know you say don’t give a flying fuck what we think, but I think you’re fair enough to give us a little more credit than that.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pmESTphysics geek Says:
Not surprisingly, the Shit Sandwich voters have come out of the woodwork again. I fully understand your position, Rachel, as I used to feel that way myself. In fact, I accept my part of the responsibility for the continued leftward drift of the GOP these last [unsure how long] years. I continued to vote for Republicans because I knew that the Democrats were worse. Then the next election came again I voted for a still more liberal GOPer because, hey, he’s not as bad as the other guy, right? And the GOP leaders took that as a sign that they could do whatever the fuck they wanted and I’d keep voting for them.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I second what Physics Geek said about respect for various positions regarding how one casts their vote. Please do not think that those of us not voting for Sen. McCain arrived at our position lightly or with any less consideration of the issues than you did.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pmESTRachel, I feel your pain and frustration. I was about to post some thoughts about the whole thing, then read what physics geek posted and he did a much better job that I would have. Its simple, Obama wins, the House and Senate republicans fight tooth and nail ever single piece of “progressive” legislation that comes their way. McCain wins, pushes the same legislation, and it becomes law. McCain’s only redeeming quality is his stance on Iraq… Obama swears on a stack of Korans that he’ll withdraw the troops when he’s elected, but I’m positive he’ll come up with reasons why he won’t start withdrawing the troops once he’s elected, sort of like the way LBJ did with Vietnam.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pmESTExcept with Obama (or Hillary) in office we can count on Republicans in Congress to fight tooth and nail against anything they try to do. With McCain in office they would let amnesty, gun control, global warming alarmism, and more just pass right on through out of pure party loyalty.
I’m not sure why this is a good reason to vote for John “Gang of 14″ McCain.
So you vote for slow socialism instead of fast socialism. Gotcha.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pmESTI’m thinking I’m gonna vote for McCain simply because EVERYONE will be unhappy if he wins.
It’ll be awesome.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pmESTWhile I wait for my other comment to be rescued from moderation:
I realize that Rachel is perfectly capable of defending herself, but I thought I’d swat at this one anyway.
TomJW - you really should hold accusations of lying back without proof. Also, you should really look around a bit more before doing so. While not a complete list, the reasons Rachel cited HAVE definitely been arguments conservatives have been using for reasons not to vote for McCain. You can look over the comments of numerous threads at RWN, or even the ones here on this site about McCain to see that.
Again, look around. I have seen several Conservatives proposing to walk away from the Republican Party and found another party. And some of the ones who want to “punish” the party are indeed advocating voting for Obama, so that the mess that will result will be blamed on Democrats and not Republicans.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pmESTA sign of the end times: some people responded favorably to something I wrote. None of those people are related to me.
I’ll second what Redhead Infidel and Just Plain Bill said. The commenters here are pretty smart overall and generally polite. Let’s not devolve into Kos type squabbles.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pmESTOkay, show me one (1) real conservative (emphasis on “real”) who has advocated voting for Obama.
I am a regular poster on RWN and I don’t recall a single conservative who advocated voting for Obama.
So what? Conservatives have been saying that for years.
Show me one.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pmESTI think you’re correct Rachel that Obama’s going to win. In fact my pet theory is this one:
1)Enough angry conservatives stay home or vote third party in vital swing states like Ohio (which Bush barely won) and Virginia.
2)African Americans in those states vote in unprecedented numbers-which I almost can’t blame them for.
3)”Racists” in states like West Virginia and Kentucky give McCain huge margins.
Which all adds up to Obama winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote. At that point I laugh until I cry when I hear all the sob sisters in the media who screeched and mewled for poor Al Gore do a 180 and praise the electoral college as the wisest system ever devised.
Of course the election’s still over 5 months off, a lifetime in politics.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pmESTWayne, the point that I was trying to make earlier to Rachel is that of all the incredibly well-written, intelligent, and legitimate reasons why people have said they won’t vote for McCain, she picked the dumbest to rant on. It’s a strawman - an easy point for her to score, but is by no means representative. Sure, some folks have said they won’t vote for McCain to “punish” the GOP, but far more have raised serious concerns, posited valid arguments, and waged intelligent debate. That, unfortunately, is all brushed aside as idiocy while a relatively minor reason is touted as the MAIN reason.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pmESTWe get accused that we will vote for Obama - that is a lie.
We’re idiots for calling McCain evil - what is pushing this country to left with a McCain election? Will you be happy when Hillary switches party and becames the nominee, because conservatives and repubs always vote Repub? How bad does it have to get? Will you wait for worse than now.
And don’t duck on the congress possibilities over the next decade. Do you see the constant lose of seats that always happens when the Repubs don’t run on conservative issues? How does voting for McCain support conservative issues? He is the second least conservative senator. Pick someone else or we get a veto proof congress down the road for a good long time.
So do you see amnesty as not becoming undone, then don’t vote for McCain. Then maybe, just maybe blue dems and repubs will fight Obama on it. It’s not much to hope for, but with McCain it’s a done deal.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pmESTphysics geek:
Great points on the domestic side — I’ve been weighing the destructive potential of Obama with a Democrat majority vs McCain with a veto-proof opposition.
But what about foreign policy? And what about the troops on the ground right now and the mission they’re trying to complete?
Please to enlighten?
Meantime, I’ll just be figuring out how the heck I’m going to keep that sandwich down — sigh!
May 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pmESTMc Cain vs Obambi?? Let me think about it… McCain is painful but Jimmy Obama? Not twice in my lifetime!
May 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pmESTRedhead Infidel, I tried to steer around your comment, because I know there are other reasons you folks aren’t voting for McCain, but I get REALLY pissed at people who call someone a liar when they have no evidence, and that’s what TomJW did. Just because not EVERY Conservative is saying it doesn’t make it a lie.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pmESTOkay, show me one (1) real conservative (emphasis on “real”) who has advocated voting for Obama.
Only because it’s fun to find the one….
Rush Limbaugh urges vote for Obama
Of course Limbaugh was urging Democratic superdelegates to vote for Obama, but hey, a vote’s a vote! And every vote should count!
Of course if any others turn up, you can always claim they’re not “real” conservatives. Escape hatch, eh?
And what felicity said. When you choose a position, you OWN the results of the position. BOTH sides, the good AND the bad. To me, McCain would be considerably less bad than Obama.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pmESTI agree that sitting out or a third party is one of the dumbest political moves imaginable. I cast my protest vote in the primaries, when I voted for someone who had dropped out, now let’s keep Obama out of office.
2 points:
1) Jindal 2012! (or 2016, if McCain is elected, I doubt he would get primaried) There are also a few other Republicans in the wings (i.e. Paul Ryan), but Jindal is the closest to a run at the White House
2) I wonder how many Republicans can go through with not voting McCain. If Obama had merely been the talking suit he appeared to be early on, I could see a lot more of that happening, but as people see how dangerous he really is, more people *may* see the light. Please?!?
May 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pmESTI just don’t see why everyone gets so worked up about some conservatives’ choice to not vote for McCain.
Lets face it, the reason that there is a dearth of good conservative candidates is that there is a dearth of conservative voters. Welcome to the margin everyone!
When you get down to it, the fiscally conservative, small government types that tend to populate this blog are very close to a statistically insignificant demographic of the voting public.
The GOP has come to the realization that to win elections, it needs to sway moderate or independant voters. Make no mistake, the people running McCain’s campaign know full well that they can’t count on conservative voters to back him up. They simply realize that to make libertarians and conservatives happy, they would lose independant voters. Independants represent a much larger voting block than conservatives do, so you do the math.
While I can’t get worked up about some people refusing to vote for McCain, I do question what they hope to accomplish. Lets face it, the whole country is swinging to the left, not just the GOP. If McCain loses this election, I’m betting that the next GOP presidential candidate will be FARTHER left than McCain, not less. If the GOP loses in ‘08, it will convince GOP strategists that they need to do more to grab those wonderful swing voters, not more to make conservatives happy.
You want to change that sorry state of affairs? Your vote isn’t anywhere near enough. We need to change the very demographics of this situation in order to affect the next presidential election.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:52 pmESTIvan, if you and the GOP are right, then McCain will win in a landslide WITHOUT conservative voters. You don’t need conservatives, do you? So no one should care one whit how we vote. Since we’re so “marginal”, then no harm is done by voting our conscience. Right?
It’s quite a gamble for the Republicans, what with abandoning their base to try and pick up a new one, and we’ll all see how that works out for them in November.
PS: don’t overlook that MANY of those new Independents you’re so confidently counting on are actually independent CONSERVATIVES like me.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pmESTOK, I can’t prove that any “real conservatives” proposed this, partially because I’m just not going to spend that much time searching, but mostly because I am not going to try to prove who is or is not a “real conservative”, so I’ll retract that one.
Now you’re taking me out of context. My quotes in this section were not related to voting for Obama. They were specifically regarding accusations of Lying. Also, I went back and reread Rachel’s post, and SHE didn’t mention anyone advocating voting for Obama. That was ElvenPhoenix.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pmESTI’m with TomJW, Redhead Infidel, and Physics Geek on this one (if I understand what they’re saying): I can’t in good faith vote for McCain, nor will I ever vote for Obama or Clinton. While I am a registered Republican, McCain is just too far away from what I believe, so he won’t be getting my vote. I just came to this realization about twp weeks ago, and it surprised (and saddened) me. It is not to “punish” the GOP, nor is it to wait for the promised “Return of Reagan” in 2012.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pmESTI will be voting in November; I haven’t missed a single election since I turned 18, even while serving overseas. It’s too important to miss. My vote won’t be “wasted” even though I may not be voting for the winning candidate. I can say I voted for the person who most lines up with what I believe, the one who I think would lead the country the way the constitution directs. It won’t be the candidate that offers me tidbits from the country’s coffers or the promise of a grand change and a new way of governing things.
Pipe dream? Maybe, but I won’t have compromised my morals to be on the winning side. And since I know our political system is set so that no independent candidate can ever win a Presidential election, I will still have to deal with the fall-out of a McCain/Obama/Clinton term tied to a Democratic majority in Congress.
I second Felicity’s comment. What about foreign policy?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pmESTAs I commented on another blog to someone who said he’d vote for Bob Barr in November as the only real conservative choice (and if I may paraphrase a bit what I said), a vote for anyone but McCain in the general is a fool’s vote.
I was once one who said there was no way I could or would ever vote for McCain. Time and prudence have changed my mind. While I hardly embrace him (and pointedly voted against him in the Indiana primary well after making my decision to hold my nose and vote for him in the general), he’s still the best choice for any conservative who doesn’t want to be marginalized by an Obama administration.
Who do you want choosing Supreme and Appeals Court judges?
Who do you want prosecuting the war in Iraq?
Who do you want protecting the homeland?
Yeah, I’d prefer Reagan, too. But last I heard he’s not running this time around. So we’re stuck with McCain, folks. Live with it. Voting your “conscience” for Bob Barr makes no sense if it means four years of Obama in the White House.
And damn it, say what you will, but he has got a very hawt daughter. I’d rather look at her than Chelsea or Michelle for the next four years.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pmESTI’m a conservative who was planning not to vote for McCain until the reality of an Obama presidency finally registered in my mind. That assbag scares the absolute hell out of me.
Can you imagine Iran going nuclear with Obama as president? Good Lord.
I may not care for McCain’s politics, but as a disabled veteran who remains hawkish he has far more honor and the aptitude to confront our enemies than weenie girlie boy Obama and the man-thing beast he calls his wife.
Conservatives, wake up. Stop being petty little bitches and consider that staying home might indirectly result in some of our cities going up in nuclear smoke in the not too distant future. We’re not invincible, so please don’t be responsible for destroying this country by handing the election over to a chocolate Jimmy Carter.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pmESTTime for us to just take a big mouthful of violets and jump into the nearest tar pit?
Edit: It’s precisely that sort of marginalization that prompts Conservatives, me amongst them, to consider abstaining from voting for the top spots, and focusing on the ‘down ballot’ candidates this time. However, for reasons already stated, I just can’t bring myself to do it.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:15 pmESTOk, that right there helps make our point.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pmESTI suppose I should just keep my mouth shut, but I have been a Libertarian since Jimmy Carter. I had a renewed respect for Republicans because of Reagan, but their record has simmered back down to about the level of Dems since. At least the Dems tell you what they are going to do, hell they campaign on it. Republicans are supposed to be the opposition party to Democrats. Do I need to define opposition… as in ‘opposite’?
The playground allegory I see is that even though all the politicians are on the same side of the teeter-totter bending the equipment, ‘conservative republicans’ seem to think Obama will break the equipment. I say let it break. Sure it will cost us more to get new equipment, but the teeter-totter is being misused. It should break from the misuse and then people may see that we do indeed need new equipment instead of letting it sit out there bent and useless.
That said, I would not vote for Obama to help that happen, I am keeping my own faith and voting Libertarian, even though some of our views are way out there too.
Interesting how this election may turn on the number of Dems who really will vote Rep vs. the number of Reps who really will vote Dem.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pmESTfelicity said:
Here is what I think:
1) Obama wins. Regardless of what he says now to win the presidency, I will be mighty surprised if he actually follows through on a pre-emptive Iraq/ Afghanistan pullout. Sometime after the inauguration, he will suddenly “discover” some heretofore unknown-to him- rationale why we should stay in Iraq, albeit in reduced numbers. Since we’re already scheduled to draw down numbers some, I don’t believe that we’d notice this too much.
2) McCain wins. Pretty much the same result.
Why do I think that Obama won’t do what he says regarding Iraq? Call it observation of Democrats. I haven’t noticed the Pelosi group doing lots of what it said it would accomplish. The war is still funded and we’re still in Iraq. Despite the caterwauling of the usual suspects, the Democrats are doing what they do best: staying elected. You might have noticed that the leftist crazies have been in full batshit mode because of this.
Update: I see that Redhead Infidel responded to Lincoln before I did. Let me reiterate: you’re not winning any converts to your cause by being a pompous jackass and insulting us. When Bill Whittle weighed in on this blog in the comments, he was impassioned AND polite. Something to think about before you deign to talk down to us dumbasses who will cost you THE. MOST. IMPORTANT. ELECTION. EVER!!!
May 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pmESTPhysics Geek.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:49 pmESTExactly, the war is too good of a platform stance. If it is fixed, it will no longer be a ‘point in their favor’. In Wisconsin there was a taxpayers bill of rights setting some limits on tax and fee hikes. When there was a clear majority of Republicans it could have been passed, but they hemmed and hawed because in reality it was too good of a talking point.
Voting for crappy RINO candidates is how we got in this position. I mock blacks for voting for crappy democrats who treat them like dirt. Now, conservatives are being told to vote for the crappy RINO candidate who treats them like dirt. It’s amazing that some people are turning their venom on conservatives when it should be directed at McCain. We are free to vote for whomever we want, and if we don’t want to vote for the crappy RINO, then so be it. For some conservatives, McCain is one bridge too far and I respect their choice.
Between McCain and Hillary, I would sit out the election. Between McCain and Mr. Stanky Feet, I would vote for McCain. I have spent some time with my “peeps” who think like the lunatic rev Wright. They really, really, believe that our gov assassinated MLK and put AIDS in coke machines. Obama is just the polite version of a hater. Its scary that Obama and his crazy, bitter wife, Evita Michelle, could actually win. They are my bridge too far.
Now, my game plan is to support strong conservatives to stop whatever lib wins, including McCain. There are very good and honorable reasons not to vote for McCain. To dismiss these legitimate concerns is ridiculous. And frankly, my country is stronger than that frackin Freak, Obama, and his bitter, crazy wife. George Bush has insured that the terrorists won’t risk another attack on the US any time soon. In the unfortunate event that the Obamanation wins, I can sit back and watch him become the black Jimmy Carter. For fun, I can watch unknown yutes burn down Europe.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pmESTMy mistake. I guess I assumed that when you wrote “some of the ones who want to “punish” the party are indeed advocating voting for Obama” you actually meant that some conservatives are indeed advocating voting for Obama. Apparently we’re now living in a parallel universe where words mean different things.
I sure don’t want John “Gang of 14″ McCain choosing them.
Gen. David Petraeus. Sadly, he is not running.
The US military. I doubt that will change regardless of who wins in November.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pmESTWelcome to Para’s world.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:14 pmESTYep. As this blogger wrote, “Hold your nose and pull the lever. The alternatives are truly frightening.”
May 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pmESTYeah, I’d prefer Reagan, too. But last I heard he’s not running this time around.
Bingo.
In the unfortunate event that the Obamanation wins, I can sit back and watch him become the black Jimmy Carter.
Because THAT didn’t hurt the country any worse than another Ford term woulda!
I taught George H.W. Bush a lesson by voting for Ross Perot. Boy, did that ever work out well.
Well, in retrospect it did contribute a bit to the ‘94 House revolution. And when something like that happens the majority loses more because they have more to lose, but it’s not much of a betting strategy.
I do urge everyone to vote for whomever they please. Do try to remember that even downballot voting for someone who can’t win the general doesn’t do much good.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pmESTI’m pretty sure the bumper sticker exactly sums it up for me… F^*k it, I’ll be voting for McCain - but I understand and sympathize with those who will not or cannot.
And PhysicsGeek - I seem to recall that Bill Whittle had a complete melt-down of a freak-out on this issue and was not-so-polite in his words reserved for those who disagreed with him.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:54 pmESTIt seems to me that were it not for some very narrow opposition, neither might be the case now. Last time I looked, Webb, Murtha, Kennedy, et al were still trying to attach timetables and withdrawals to every penny of funding, not to mention meting out that funding in as unhelpful a way as possible.
Will a filibuster alone be enough to fend them off? I doubt it, especially as the numbers needed for a filibuster may not be there! (OTOH, as I have acknowledged, that would also mean a veto-proof majority of Dems opposing McCain — bah!)
Also, even if we’re to grant your premise that the current conflict is essentially a done deal (which I’m not sure I buy), what about the stench of weakness? BHO fairly reeks of it, and I can’t imagine the likes of Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Co. not salivating at the prospect!
May 27th, 2008 at 5:04 pmESTWell that’s the thing about having been president of law review at Harvard Law: it tends to immunize one against charges of being “dumb as a chimp.” (An unremarkable term at HBS, which you got into based on Daddy’s connections, isn’t quite the same thing, now is it?) Also working in Obama’s favor: not having a decade-long record of saying spectacularly stupid things on a regular basis.
Maybe Obama identifies so deeply with the Red Army that he has conflated things in his wee little brain.
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought I’d stumbled across the blog of someone serious. Obviously you’re nothing but an hysterical GOP hack like Ann Coulter. Only not famous.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pmESTfrigger, that’s true. And then when random people jumped on Whittle’s bandwagon is when it got ugly. Perhaps physicsgeek is recalling the people responding to Whittle’s comments (including himself) who remained respectful.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:18 pmESTWhat point would that be, that you are in fact a bunch of petty little bitches who would see the premature ruin of our country for…. what… general principle?
And Physics Geek, no offense but suck my ass. At this point if people cannot see the rationale in voting against Obama despite his alarming and incredibly dangerous policies, we’re beyond reasoning here.
I always knew whiny women and girlie men would be the end of America someday, I just didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pmESTMarkCi: Never thought I’d see a guy express penis envy at a woman running a popular blog, but there it is. Thanks for making my day.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pmESTBlackredneck: I have to agree, were it between McCain and Billary, I would have sat out the election (would still vote in the locals though.)
But the Obamamessiah, praise be his name, has made me seen the light.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pmESTWhen I contemplate the 2008 presidential candidates, part of an old Alan Parsons song starts echoing in my head:
Am I dreaming/
Will the nightmare just go on/
And never end?
Someone, please wake me up. Please?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pmESTLincoln, your method of…er…”reasoning” is undeniably effective, just not in the way you think it is.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pmESTMarkCi -
Welcome.
I would have to correct you here, just a little.
In the last twelve months or so, Obama has said spectacularly stupid things, now part of the public record. And with far more frequency than President Bush. Unfortunately, this seems to be indicative of a long habit - spanning at least a decade. The difference is, in this past decade, Obama has not been in the public eye as much as the president, so his utterances of stupidity just were not documented. But they’ve been comin’, fast and furious, ever since this election cycle bagan.
But since, like the New York Times, you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (why cover the front page, and even more on interior pages, with more than a few large color pictures of Bush’s choosing of the wrong exit door after a speech?) That’s not news…unless you’re the New York Times on a suicide mission designed to guarantee plummeting sales.
President Bush is not articulate. But he certainly is not stupid. He had better grades in college and possesses a higher IQ than Al Gore. You folks on the left have enjoyed and exploited every little misstep and misspoken word on the part of the president. Don’t be surprised, and spare us your righteous indignation when we right-wingers point out the lies and gaffes of your Democrat nominees.
I can’t remember which of the 57 states Obama was in when he claimed his uncle liberated Auschwitz. Can you tell me?
And Rachel is serious - though she infuses nearly every opinion with sarcastic wit.
Hysterical GOP hack. hah! If only you knew…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pmESTWhich (since you obviously aren’t here for the dialogue) accounts for your decision to post how exactly?
May 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pmESTWhoa there now folks.
NO NAME-CALLING AND I FUCKING MEAN IT. Even if you are “taking my side”, you don’t get to call those who disagree with me anything other than “those who disagree with me” or something like that.
It’s just not that hard to say that you think people are completely wrong without calling them shitty names. I did it myself in that post up there and I’m no genius so it must be pretty easy.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to wipe the coffee off my keyboard after spewing it in a fit of guffaws after reading MarkCi’s assertion that I’m a hysterical GOP hack. Oh, MarkCi. You really don’t know how to use archives, do you?
May 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pmESTI’m not voting.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pmESTAnd no I’m not walking away from the Republican Party it walked away from me, rapidly and to the left.
McCain for McPOTUS ‘08 — would you like lies with that?
Yup. Voting for the bastard.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pmESTSure they are, because they know their proposals will be defeated. It allows them to ACT like they’re against the war without having to suffer the consequences of actually ending the war. If anyone ever asks why they didn’t end the war, they can say “Well, those darn Republicans stopped me!”
May 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pmESTEvidently you have never been to Harvard.
LOL That one made me chuckle.
Yeah, Obama doesn’t have a decade-long record of saying spectacularly stupid things on a regular basis. Instead, he’s opted to cram a decade’s-worth of spectacularly stupid sayings into one election cycle.
I’ll take this as an “I have nothing constructive to contribute to this discussion”.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pmESTClearly you are a man interested only in reasoned and thoughtful debate.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pmESTHow long before Hillary exposes that the only way Barry got into Harvard was as an affirmative action student? I mean, I’ve seen kids on that Foxworthy show know more about American history than he does.
Here’s a post that sums up Barry’s glaring misunderstanding of history, and the article which inspired it. At least this wasn’t the first time he’s shown how ignorant of history he is. Consistency…
May 27th, 2008 at 6:50 pmESTIt’s an amazing blog you run here Rachel. It obviously has the affect on new readers in that it makes them think they can figure someone out by just reading one post.
A-maz-ing!
May 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pmESTI’m more than a little disappointed that the headline wasn’t some form of “I see dead people.”
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pmESTEvery once in a while there is a story about some loon who decides to punish his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/pet goat by cutting his own Johnson off so that she/he/it will have to do without.
Those people are going to vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pmESTWhy?!? Just say what you want to say! Keeping your audience too much in mind gives us the idea that we have a right to tell you that your Rupert vacation is over and you should get back to blogging.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:40 pmESTSorry, Rache. Sometimes ya hafta let the cancer grow big enough to cut all of it out. I disagree with your conclusion that BamBam will win - but if McVain is elected. never again will a real conservative be nominated by either major party, as he will have shown that pandering to the LCD* is the road to the White House. I was gonna write in my buddy H. Jablowme, but I think I’ll vote for Sunny instead.
* LCD - Lowest Common Denominator
May 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pmESTI don’t reason. I make fun of people, gives me more satisfaction. I leave the reasoning up to those who still have their sanity.
Damn you woman! Damn you to California!
May 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pmESTI’m not crazy about McCain (his penchant for creating laws with left-wingers like Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy) but I sent him lots of money and I’ll vote for him. It’s too important. If Obama wins the presidency, then Islamism in the US is just around the bend.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pmESTAs you can probably see from my blog, I went to Georgia Tech. However, I lived for a time in Cambridge and know a great many Harvard grads. I also know (and you apparently need to look up) what admission stardards are like at Harvard Law, and that president of the Law Review is one of the highest honors attainable there.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pmESTA+
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pmESTREAGAN WAS NOT A PURE CONSERVATIVE :
1) He granted Amnesty to illegals in 1986.
2) He appointed 2 moderate SCOTUS justices (Kennedy and O’Connor) amd just 1 conservative (Scalia).
3) He raised income taxes, after first lowering them.
So, all in all, Reagan did the same things people worry McCain will do.
The idiots who keep waiting for a ‘Reagan’ don’t have an accurate picture of Reagan at all. He was not a pure conservative, NO PRESIDENT EVER WILL BE, NOR SHOULD BE.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pmESTI must say the “anybody but McCain” crowd did really well with George Bush in 2000.
Now that Bush has redefined Conservative to mean “spendthrift Christian moron”, no one is going to elect anyone of that description until some time passes. It took almost 50 years to go from Hoover to Reagan. I hope this isn’t quite so bad.
McCain is on the right fiscally, militarily and with respect to foreign policy. Much less so on the social and non-fiscal domestic issues. So what?! He’s not going to tax capital gains as income, undo the FICA cap, fund Hamas, give Iran the bomb or put commies on the Supreme Court. All of which Obama will likely do.
I really don’t see the issue at all.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:23 pmESTRacheal, you just made me do something I never thought I would do. I just sent the McCain campaign $1,000
May 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pmESTI am unpersuaded by your logic.
I don’t like McCain, Obama, or Hillary and will not vote for any of them.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pmESTThe lady is right. Absolutely right. And I am tired of sore loser cry baby conservatives and libertarians who seem to think that losing elections is some kind winning strategy. Obama is an idiot, anyone who is not a member of his cult can see that.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pmESTAnd it has nothing to do with liking people. This is not highschool for Chrisake.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pmESTI will not vote for McCain.
We’ve had 8 years of a quasi-Republican in Bush.
The only way to fix the party is to move RINOs off the stage. That this means 4 or 8 years of Democratic White House is unfortunate, but at some point you have to take your medicine. (And I don’t believe there will be that big of difference between a Democratic White House and a McCain White House.)
So no vote or money for the Republican Party and McCain in 08. See y’all in 2012.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pmESTIf you still think sitting out the election or writing in a name is smart, I have ten words for you: UP TO THREE NEW SCOTUS JUSTICES NAMED BY BARACK OBAMA.
By 2012, you won’t recognize the country or the constitution.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:38 pmESTIt’s a shitty plan, but it’s all I’ve got.
Any Third Party ‘08!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:41 pmESTI don’t particularly care for McCain, either - but I’m going to vote for him. And all of you people who “just can’t bear” to vote for such a liberal republican (when you want a “real conservative”) had better not hold your breath waiting for that opportunity if hussein gets in (or hitlery, for that matter). If the obamassiah gets in - there is a better than even chance that we have seen the last free election held in this country for one hell of a long time. So why don’t you just quit yer bitchin’, suck it up and do what is best for the COUNTRY!! Get off of that old party-line bullshit and think ahead to what can happen to this country if you let the socialists have the country in this election. [and don't try to pull that democRAT crap about "Don't blame me - I didn't vote for him." We will blame you if you don't do your part to help keep this country from becoming a 2nd-world socialist/islamofascist cesspool.] A lot of your arguments for not voting for McC are well-reasoned and well-thought-out — but they suck.
Just try to man up and do the right thing.
And, MarkCi — I’ve read your blog. You have no room, whatsoever, to call anyone a hack.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pmESTReagan voted for amnesty as part one of a 2 part deal that involved closing the borders. The way he got screwed is why we won’t buy it again.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pmESTYeah, we gathered.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pmEST. . . highly sarcastic humor, that it flew right over your dear head — which, firmly wedged as it was, was perhaps not all that high at the time!
Kind of begging the old question there, aren’t we? Famous as I’m sure it is!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTWell Mark, I think you’ll find that if you move your mouse to the upper corner of your web browser and click on the little red box with an X on it, all the bad words will go away.
Sure you do. Everybody’s an expert on the internet.
Yeah, right. That must be why the average Harvard score on this civics test was 69%.
Sorry Charlie, but all the Harvard degrees in the world won’t change the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is a moron.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pmESTGod in Heaven, people. I don’t much like McCain either, but at least he didn’t have his political bar mitzva at the home of a couple of fucktard anti-American mad bombers like Obama did.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pmESTTood:
Reagan made a point of putting amnesty in the bill. He insisted on it and if he were here today half these people bitching about McCain would call the man Ronaldo and demand his impeachment.
And Obama supports drivers licenses for illegals.
The real problem with conservatives is that they eat their own. When Bush was riding high and had coat tails and actually helped the Republicans win a majority in Congress, he was alright. But by God when things got difficult…screw him. Now they are going after McCain before he can even win. With an opposition like that Obama does not need so many supporters.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pmESTI agree even if some people maybe don’t agree. Jeff Goldstein who is a lot brilliant maybe doesn’t agree. He should explain that again. It has something to do with not having a horse in this race. But for real getting McCain out of the Senate will be really gratifying. I’d walk on hot coals to vote for that. Unless it hurt.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pmESTAlright, I’m one of those evil Conservatives that will write in Fred Thompson. But, just for a sec, let’s assume I vote for John and my single solitary vote takes him into office. How will that differ from Obama or Hillary?
The war: With the massive gains coming to the Democrat party in 08, how the hell do you think McCain will come up with a budget to support the GWOT? Iraq will be defunded regardless just Vietnam was by Kerry and Kennedy.
McCain will pass McCain/Kennedy legalizing all existing illegals and welcoming their families. He is already backing off building the fence and now says we need to treat illegals as “God’s Children”.
As for SCOTUS – do you really think any even remotely conservative judge stands a chance? Do you remember the gang of 14? Rather than confronting the Democrats in an environment the Republicans were guaranteed to win, he turned his back on his party and worked a little back room deal.
As for taxes, as early a January McCain was backpedaling on tax cuts. Congress will be able to enact anything they wish.
How about cap and trade on CO2?? It will add anywhere from $1.5 to $5 per gallon to the price of gasoline. It will come close to destroying our economy.
He is adamant about joining the Kyoto crowd – this in the face over 30,000 scientists signing the Oregon Petition and new NASA findings showing the planet has not increased in temperature for a decade and has actually decreased for the past 7.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pmESTI really don’t want to sit this one out or vote third party. I’d really like to vote Republican again. But every time the Democrats and their media subsidiaries convince me to vote for McCain, he does something to make “none of the above” a viable option. McCain-Feingold remains the worst piece of legislation I can remember. The gang of fourteen still has a majority of judicial nominees bottled up. I have no idea where McCain stands on amnesty as his position is almost as fluid as Bill Clinton’s morals.
Is he superior to Obama? Yes, but in the same way a filling is superior to a root canal. Maybe he can convince me before November but he hasn’t tried up to now. It does not take a Democrat to make horrible Supreme Court nominations. Remember Ford appointed John Paul Stevens and the elder Bush appointed Souter. I know a Democrat guarantees bad justices but a Republican does not insure the opposite.
I will wait to see. If McCain offers the Vice Presidency to a conservative and Obama makes his expected far left choice, I’ll give it another look. If McCain picks Lindsay Graham or Chuck Hagel I don’t think I’m going to be convinced he’s serious.
It probably doesn’t matter anyway. If McCain is competitive here in California he’s going to win regardless. In a normal year no Republican can overcome the half million fictional voters here.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:56 pmESTNo Vote No Money:
Who gets to decide who the RINOs are? Personally I think the RINOs are the people who are refusing to vote for the Republican nominee. They are apparently Republican in Name Only.
Besides, McCain won fair and square, if certain conservatives could not come up with a candidate to beat him then obviously they are not the huge majority in the party they think they are. The rank and file wants him because they think he can win. That is why they picked him.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pmESTW Keller:
McCain is not going to drive up gas prices as much as the Democrats will. Count on it. McCain will pick better judges. McCain will not bail out on the war. McCain is not a dumbass who does not know who liberated Auschwitz.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:00 pmESTI do not for one minute think that McCain will add $5 to the price of a gallon of gas. That is just ridiculous.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pmESTSorry, my closing didn’t post. Given these things, what do we gain with McCain? I am so stinking tired of being hammered into submission just because our guys suck less. McCain barely eeks of a point or two above Obama. Barely. The coming administration, regardless of who is elected, will be dangerous and ruinous, regardless of who is elected.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pmESTNOBODY EVER SAID HE WAS.
If John McCain had as few flaws as Ronald Reagan he would be the best candidate we’ve had in a long time.
I don’t remember Reagan voting for gun control, global warming alarmism, or restrictions on freedom of speech.
McCain’s supporters keep citing Supreme Court appointments as if it were a reason to vote for him.
Hello? Gang of 14 ring any bells?
Because Reagan didn’t have the utter failure of the 1986 amnesty to reflect on. I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Bullshit. Conservatives were criticizing his spending and big government policies long before that. Just because you weren’t paying attention doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
Sounds fine to me.
If you want to be a tool of the Republican Party, you go right ahead.
Incidentally, if I’m a Republican In Name Only, does that mean you’re a Conservative In Name Only?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pmESTSays who?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pmESTWell your own link points out that that was the highest score of any college tested. And of course Harvard Law is not at all the same thing as Harvard College, but that’s apparently too sophisticated a thought for you
Sorry Charlie, but all the Harvard degrees in the world won’t change the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is a moron.
Sorry Charlie, but when anyone gives a particular damn what you think of Obama they’ll probably ask.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pmESTI must agree. McCain wasn’t my first or second (and perhaps third) choice (I liked Rudy, even though I’m a 2nd Amendment NRA-er, and Rudy’s a gun-controller…go figure). But he’s the best choice left–by far–and while I will continue to disagree with McCain on CFR and Global Warming, among others, my disagreements will not keep me from voting for him and continuing to press for McCain to move in my direction.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pmESTConsider this:
We all know what kind of background Obama is from. Chicago politics. Here is the reason I will pull the level for McCain: Consider who will be riding Obama’s shirt tails into positions of power within the federal Bureaucracy. Do you want one of Obama’s pals in charge of the BATFE? IRS? Obama approved lawyers in the Justice department? Obama approved head of the CIA?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pmESTI’m active duty Navy, and I don’t believe the DoD would survive an Obama SecDef. I came in during Clinton’s first term, and I recall painfully well how much his presidency sucked.
Therefore, with great reluctance, and with an industrial sized clothespin in place, I will vote for McCain.
I like the way that libertarians are now telling us how stupid and absurd it will be to not vote for McCain, especially after telling us in ‘04 how they were not sure they could support Bush.
McCain is NOT a conservative. The only way to end the leftward trend in the Republican Party that he represents is to abandon it at the polls, not reward it!
May 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pmESTМожет быть, товарищи… O, I am sorry. Perhaps, comrades, Comrade Obama’s great uncle DID serve in heroic liberating Soviet Army, eh? We will have to see if in FSB archives there is record of this. Perhaps now you believe the Organs of State Security are still quite… potent?
Enjoy your Obamanation, comrades. You are in the vanguard, now!
Слава Обаму!
May 27th, 2008 at 10:09 pmESTFunny I heard Rush Limbaugh say a few weeks ago that if not for McCain and the gang of 14, Alito would never have made it through confirmation. Even Rush, once in a while, can find something good to say about McCain.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pmESTmighty:
When Bush was popular conservatives liked him well enough to help him when a second term. It was not until things got tough that they really turned on him.
Then we had the hissy fit over Harriet Miers. The meltdown over Dubai when people acted as if Bush was going to sell our ports to terrorists so that they could kill us all. Then of course came immigration debacle with certain hardliners using rhetoric that was not only disrepectfull it was just plain bizarre. And what did it accomplish? Did ranting and raving about the issue help in 2006? Hell no.
So if it is true that anyone who votes for McCain is just a tool of the party, then what do you care what the GOP does or says? After all he is the one who got the most votes. How dare they?
There are certain people on the right who have forgotten that they do not represent the whole damn party. The Republican party is a political party, if it is going to win elections it has to represent enough people that it can win elections.
If the purity brigade can not deal with that… Then they can sit home, thumbs planted firmly up their butts and bitch.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:14 pmESTNeither are libertarians.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pmESTI don’t remember being able to vote against someone; I can only cast my vote for someone. Quite frankly, I cannot in good faith cast my vote for any of the three stooges that are running for president.
As for the war, at least the Iraqi government has access to cash via their oil fields. The RVN was totally dependent upon our funds to keep an army in the field and we royally boned them. If Iraq is stable enough by the end of the year, they’ll at least have a chance.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pmESTHmmmm.
“It’s a shitty plan, but it’s all I’ve got.”
Yeah that sums it up right there.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pmESTI don’t do battered wife particularly well and that’s all I’m hearing: You’d better stay with that lying, no good, corrupt Republican leadership because you have no where else to go and things will just be worse for you if you leave. Ya don’t know how good ya got it, bitch.
To which one can only say, “Goodbye.”
May 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pmESTI’d so much rather get poked and stabbed in those places and vote Republican than take it somewhere else on a regular and painful basis by voting Democrat …
May 27th, 2008 at 10:24 pmESTAll of you thinking of sitting this one out and letting Hussein really screw the pooch ought to consider that there is no absolute guarantee he won’t be re-elected. You want to chance 8 years? Not me.
Hold the nose, vote for McCain, vote the most conservative candidate for every other local,county,state and federal office. McCain if he wins is a one term guy. The main thing is that the genuine conservatives in Congress treat McCain like he was the opposition’s winner. That is where your votes and money come in. Remember third parties gave us two Clinton terms. Third parties nearly got Carter re-elected. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Sitting it out is moral vanity. There is going to be an election and a president will be elected. Let us pray it isn’t the communist.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pmESTMcCain is NOT a conservative.
[Neither are libertarians.]
Exactly. That is why they just love McCain.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pmESTI don’t owe McCain a gaddamn thing, who’s taken every opportunity to take a big dump on conservatives/libertarians in this country. Nor will McCain be winning or losing my state by one vote. So I might as well stay home or vote my conscience.
My vote’s for Barr.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pmESTImpassioned pleas for F.I.M. are not part of the F.I.M. movement. Might as well say F.I.O. for the tiny baby step it is from F.I.M.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pmESTI’ve been all over with my thinking on this election. Like many others I REALLY don’t care for McCain. But he’s the nominee. So I started thinking I won’t vote, but just can’t do that. then thought if it’s Hillary v. McCain maybe I’d vote for HIllary and hope for a strong showing from a minority oppostion. But I voted for Perot and that clever protest vote ended up not being a good thing. So no more protest votes for me.
But Obmessiah scares the hell out of me.
F$%K it - McCain 08 (Though if he picks his good buddy Lindsey for VP - I’ll have to rethink this again.)
May 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pmESTDidn’t know she was running.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:40 pmESTFinishing the job that we’re well on the way with in Iraq particularly, and vigorously prosecuting the GWOT more generally, is the one issue that eclipses all others for me in this election.
We can choose McCain, who risked his political career to push a Surge that even some republicans were running away from, but where he proved to be absolutely right, and who is a staunch and steadfast supporter of the GWOT, or we can choose Obama, whose publicly declared intention is to gift the US with a second even worse Vietnam in Iraq, and who would in my opinion stand down on the GWOT generally, with devastasting global consequences to the US.
I dare not risk handing over the US Presidency to a half-term Senator from the corrupt Chicago political machine whose friends include unrepentent domestic terrorists, a black racist preacher, and a Lebanese bagman. For one thing, I could not bear seeing all the Hamasistas on the tube doing a post-9-11 happy dance.
If the purity trolls among the conservatives are willing to accept the absolute worst because they cannot vote for pristine perfection, and are willing to take their toys and stay home, or vote for fringe candidate Bob Barr (who, as a private attorney, defended Klansman and National Alliance member Chester Doles), out of petty domestic political spite, they will be sorely chastened when Obama goes to their house and takes their toys, then lets the hoodies from across the bay throw a schimtar party in their playground.
Plus, Obama would make McCain look like Lou Dobbs on immigration (that dripping sound you hear is saliva dripping to the ground as the Democratic Party counts their new amnestied immigrant votes). I can hear Obama in the Oval Office now, after his Rose Garden ceremony mandating a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the conditions on the ground, solemnly declaring that “no human being should be illegal.”
For the sake of the safety and security of this nation, I am forced, after duly considering the dire and catastrophic alternatives, to do my patriotic duty and pull the lever for McCain.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pmESTI’d write deep and meaningful crap, but I’m like you. Every time I even think of Obama as president, I can literally feel my blood pressure rising. I’m just like a lot of people; McCain sucks - but he sucks a hell of a lot less than the alternative!!
May 27th, 2008 at 10:45 pmESTSorry, folks. I’m one of the sit-home conservatives.
I remain uncommitted to that plan but not yet convinced to ditch it.
McCain will break this country’s back with new taxes and bogus economic limitations for ‘greens’ sake. He will also spend more time with Dems than with his own guys, claiming credit for ‘getting things done’ when the question should be ’should we do it?”
He has no respect for how wealth is generated and no understanding of economics. He thinks the rich get too many tax breaks.
On all but the war, HE IS A LIBERAL.
And the war might well be almost over by the time he’s elected, judging by how the Islamists are complaining on their own websites about having lost Iraq.
McVain is a major jerk and dangerously uninformed. He will be so helpful to a Dem congress, he might as well be one. I see less difference between him and Obama every day.
The stuff he says that sounds conservative is blatantly kissing up to us, is not sincere, and makes me angry all over again.
Tell me how, other than the war, we’ll be better off with McCainez than with Obama.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pmESTOops. It’s a HE. Forgive my gaffe.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pmESTbtw, consider his claim to be a careful on spending guy, hating earmarks and all, in light of his plan to strip this country of trillions in wealth because of bogus environmental panicking.
Not a fair trade. I’ll keep the earmarks and ditch the global warming crap. that will be better for our economy, for our future, for the poor, for liberty all over the world, for everything.
Keep earmarks, ditch global warming taxes. Vote no on McGreen.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pmESTAccountability to the Republican party, hopefully, because the ultimate goal of every first-term president is “four more years.” But then again, we may be right in the same place in four years. Sigh.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pmESTI fear that this election will zonk us with the bullet we dodged in 1945. For those of you looking for a historical analog to Barack Obama, the answer isn’t Jimmy Carter, it’s Henry Wallace.
Wallace was FDR’s vice-president from 1941 to 1945. He was a well-intentioned man, but he had little intellectual depth and was given to far-out beliefs (theosophy and Sinister World Conspiracies, for two; were he alive today, I think he might have been a Troofer). He was quite “progressive” … occasionally in ways that most here would approve (he was outspoken in his opposition to Jim Crow laws) but also in ways that would horrify us today (he thought Uncle Joe Stalin was a good guy and American conservatives were the bad guys, and advocated closer ties with the Soviets).
Roosevelt reluctantly dropped him from the ticket in 1944, bowing to pressure from Democratic conservatives (yes, there used to be such creatures). But had FDR stood his ground, or had FDR died a year earlier, Wallace would have become President.
Wallace ran for president in 1948 on the Progressive ticket. Fortunately for us, he only received a few percent of the vote. With the fall of the USSR and the opening of the KGB archives, it was definitely established that two of his closest advisors, Laurence Duggan and Harry Dexter White, were actual Soviet agents. If Wallace had been elected, they would have been Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury.
Imagine what might have happened if Wallace had become President. Imagine what might happen if Obama becomes President. I’m going to hold my nose and vote for McCain.
As Poul Anderson once remarked, there are no returns at the history counter.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pmESTThe Republicans who excoriate Conservatives for voting third party do so in desperation. They gambled that they could put up the most anti-Conservative R candidate since Hoover, and force the loyal Conservatives to accept it as a fait accompli. Now they choose to double down on this wager, and heap scorn on men and women of principle and vision.
If they were wise, they would turn to Sen. McCain, and beg him to appoint as many conservatives as he can in hopes of reconciling with the justly offended political force. This might allow the R’s to win, but the true meaning of events is a purge of conservatism from the R party. And thus to admit they were in error would in their view make the whole exercise pointless.
Liberal R’s have the fantasy that this purge will not lead directly back to the days of the 70’s when the R’s consistently lost. Or worse, they are willing to accept being losers as long as those unspeakable conservatives are disenfranchised.
And for the benefit of the nation, it would be best if conservatives are purged, for it to be clear what happened. That way, conservatives can start over, and rebuild better.
If you are a horrified liberal Republican, or a moderate Republican like our esteemed hostess, then you need to ask yourself which is most important….the destruction of the conservative wing of the R’s, or electoral victory. If you are afraid of Obama so much, then turn to your liberal R friends, and say ‘we made a mistake’, and turn to John McCain, and say ’stop kissing up to La Raza, and start kissing up real hard, and not fakey-wimpy like at the conservative conference to the party’s base.’
If you don’t, then one is justified in wondering which you fear more….Obama or the Typical Three-legged Conservative Voter.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:54 pmESTI’m just wondering why John McCain is the Rebublican nominee if the majority of Republicans are conservative. Why isn’t there a more conservative nominee?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 pmESTmightysamurai, thanks for responding way back up there.
I still think your take that the Republicans in Congress will fight an Obama administration is mistaken, but I hope it’s not. I still believe that the best hope we have will be for McCain to be elected, and to bitch to hell and back every time he sticks a toe out of line, because I have no faith that the Republicans will find a backbone until it is screamed for in every district with even a strong Conservative minority.
Now, if somehow Clinton pulls off the nomination, all bets are off, because that woman can stir up more hate than I ever saw. Still, with the kind of lunatics in Congress right now, having Democrats in control of both houses of Congress plus the White House is just too much.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pmESTI’m voting for McCain with no qualms. There is just NO REASON not to. I’m so terrified of of Clinton and Obama becoming president that I’m willing to compromise my principles somewhat.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:09 pmESTI’m just wondering why John McCain is the Rebublican nominee if the majority of Republicans are conservative. Why isn’t there a more conservative nominee?
Because the system of primaries and caucuses has evolved to (usually) give a definitive result, but not necessarily an optimum result.
In my humble opinion, we would do far better in selecting candidates if we switched to approval balloting — a system in which each voter can vote for as many or as few candidates as he or she pleases, to indicate which candidates are “acceptable” and which are not. At the end of the process, the candidate with the highest vote total is the most “acceptable.”
May 27th, 2008 at 11:09 pmESThere is my thing…
McCain has served…
McCain’s son is currently AD in the USMC.
So who TRULY,REALLY knows about the military and what the implications are of Iraq?
Ding,ding we have a winner and it isnt Osama or Commrade Clinton.
But noone thinks of that.
Goes without saying VetsforFreedom is circulating a commerical that discusses that Osama has not been to Iraq in AWHILE.Dare we also mention the YouTube clip of him vowing to get rid of missles,and halting any progress towards our weapons.
Rachel,I myself as an Active Duty Military Spouse…that is comforting.To know Osama vows to make sure my husband is not protected by the greatest weapons our military has.
I cant even comprehend everyone who is like a lamb being led to the slaughter with no clue…and they dont see it.They dont see the empty promises…that he has no experience…that he hasnt served in the military,and thus cannot possibly understand the military.His obvious Muslim background…and he considers the call to prayer a very beautiful sound…(wtf??? trust me,at 4am or whatever the hell time in Israel I will call bullshit on that.)
I could write a friggin book.
McCain ‘08!!!!!!!!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pmESTIf you are conservative and don’t vote for McCain, you are punishing America with at least 2 seriously liberal, legislate from the bench, Supreme Court justices. That lasts a heck of a lot longer than 4 years. If you don’t like Amnesty, don’t like big government, don’t like Global Warming junk, make sure you vote for the right people for Congress. Don’t muck with the Supreme Court and with Iraq. Don’t do it just because you want to take your ball and go home.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:40 pmESTTerrye
Sorry, I have principles, and they are not shared by John McCain. If most Republicans share his principles, he has a shot. Personally, I don’t believe that’s true and I don’t think he has a chance. I’ll be pleased to see him shuttled off the national political stage. Hopefully a number of similar thinking Republican leaders will be shown the exit with him.
I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Party left me.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:40 pmESTI was just about to post a comment on how approval voting could deliver us from the perpetual cycle of electing the lesser of two evils and nearly fell on the floor when I refreshed and saw that someone (Mike G) beat me to it!
Let’s put it this way: until we switch to approval voting, we will always have mediocre office holders, super-close disputed elections, negative campaigning, expensive run-offs, and the same two parties dominating the two-party system no matter how out corrupt and of touch they become.
At the end of the day, approval voting literally gives voters more votes. More votes for voters mean more power for the people to determine the make-up of government, which in turns means less power for government.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:41 pmESTThe only way to fix the party is to move RINOs off the stage.
What is it about dogmatic conservatives that they think they are a freakin’ majority of anything, even the GOP?
Because “fixing” the party that way means permanent minority status at best. Little Tent. You’ll have a “pure” party–which will hold almost no offices. Reagan knew this, and put the GOP back on top with it, capturing the “Reagan Democrats” to erect the Big Tent. And the party immediately began squandering that majority by abandoning ANY ideals, not just conservative ones.
Now, this isn’t rocket science. You can not win and hold Congress or the White House without the middle. That. Freaking. Simple. Hoping that the Dems will swing so far left as to alienate the middle and get them more disgusted with the Dems than with the GOP is past gambling, it’s wishful thinking. “It’ll happen because we really want it to.”
Heh.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:43 pmESTI live in the swing state of Ohio, and most likely will cast my ballot for John McCain, because I think the War in Iraq is too important to leave in the hands of Obama. If it wasn’t for that, I’d be sitting at home too.
I can definitely see why some consevatives aren’t willing to vote for him or any other RINO. Gang of 14, global warming, out of control spending, etc. etc. But the way, I have not seen any conservatives advocate voting for Obama, or against true conservative congressmen and women for that matter.
I do find it interesting that some posters on this site have resorted to calling those consevatives stupid or petty. Obama supporters call you a racist, if you don’t vote for him. Clinton supports call you sexist. Insults are always a great way to convince people to vote for your candidate.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:47 pmESTWhy is there this idea that the GOP will “fight” Obama and the rest of Congress? Are they fighting now? When was the last time that the GOP actually fought to win in Congress? Any time that conservative principles showed up in Congress in the last few years was when we conservatives held GOP feet to the fire. Any surviving GOP Congress critters are just going to keep their collective heads down. There will be no fighting. Especially if there is a Dem President. Its easier to fight if there is a hope of a veto, even a symbolic one. There will be posturing, and declarations of heroics, quotes of “I want to pass that law, but, the mean ol’ dems won’t let me. So I need your help. Send money…” and then they will post a Dem lite bill that makes everyone happy. Because its the electorate that wants these things. The American populace has learned that it can vote itself bread and circuses…
May 27th, 2008 at 11:53 pmESTMcCain is a holding action until a conservative can mobilize enough of the populace behind him to get voted in. Yet, there is no guarantee of that. It is the conservatives mission to educate the populace like it did after Goldwater lost. But this time we don’t have a Reagan or a Buckley on our side.
Even if McCain is as bad as the worst description of him, he is still the only one that makes sense o the GWOT. You won’t vote for him because “he’ll break the Party.” Got news for ya, the party has been broken. By the Republican voter. “He’s screwed us too many times.” Yep. And if you don’t mind even a bigger screwing, don’t vote for him. Because sometimes one HAS to choose the lesser of two evils.
Yes, that would indeed be cool! I wonder if the powers-that-be in the party would be willing to permit such a process?
Are the Libertarians listening? BATF? If the foreign policy argument didn’t faze you (not surprising — foreign entanglements, etc.), that should!
I understand protest votes — voted for Fred here in the Virginia primary — but Barr=Barry!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pmESTWe’re stuck with McCain.
Tully: magical thinking was more accurate. Magical thinking bordering on the hallucinatory.
yours/
May 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pmESTpeter.
I believe they could be convinced, both of them. To the Dems all you have to say is “Ralph Nader.” To the Republicans, all you have to say is “Ross Perot.” Approval voting eliminates spoiling because voters are free to vote for both the candidate they really want AND their preference between the frontrunners.
yours/
May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 amESTpeter.
Given the fact that I come from a runaway blue state that’s pretty much guaranteed to go to Obama by a huge margin and keeps reelecting Patty “Osama Mama” Murray and Baghdad Jim McDermott to the senate and is probably going to elect another similar moonbat to congress in my district, I’m pretty sure my vote is pretty much worthless at this point anyway. About the only thing that would keep me from voting third party is the fact that the Losertarians are even worse than any of the alternatives.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:05 amESTHopeless Tully. How much are conservatives supposed to give?? We are now down to ONE issue, the war in Iraq. One issue. One. Everything else is now off the table. Honestly guys, why not just cross over to the Democrat party? Hell, the Republican Party has moved so far left, after 40 years as a Republican I don’t even recognize it. Let’s be clear here, the fall election results are squarely in the RNC’s lap. They build the platform, they focus the direction of the party and they reap the results - period!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:07 amESTBobby Jindal. Condi Rice. I’m disappointed in my fellow conservatives. If you want to feel good about yourself for supporting a minority candidate simply for being a minority, you’re in the wrong party.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:12 amESTBy the way, for those who suggest conservatives are on the margins in the Republican Party, you appear to be wrong.
In 2004, John Kerry won Idependents 49% to 48%.
Kerry won Moderates 54% to 45%
Bush won conservatives 84% to 15%.
Without conservatives (34% of all voters in 2004), we would be witnessing John Kerry’s re-election campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
May 28th, 2008 at 12:16 amESTFrankly, I actually like McCain a lot more than I did 6 months ago. For me, Iraq and the WOT is the single biggest issue.
Also, the fact that McCain irritates the RINO ‘conservatives’ who insist on writing in/sitting out is a plus for me. They were people who lied about supporting the WoT, and thus I find them to be phonies.
Writing in the name of a candidate not on the ballot appears to be the same thing as whiny, small-penis conservatives who act tough on anonymous comment boards. The psychology is the same.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:21 amESTJindal’s minority status is the least reason to run him for President. Hell, if he succeeds in reforming Louisiana’s government, the Republicans would be insane not to run him.
yours/
May 28th, 2008 at 12:22 amESTpeter.
BTW, the job of a political party is to win elections (which usually means getting 50% of the vote).
The GOP nominated the candidate most likely to get 50% of the vote. The Democrats, remarkably, may have screwed up even that basic step for themselves.
Again : THE JOB OF A POLITICAL PARTY IS TO GET 50% OF THE VOTE. THE JOB IS NOT TO ADHERE TO IDEOLOGICAL PURITY OF ONE FACTION OF THEIR PARTY’S COALITION. That is what the Democrats have tried to do for 40 years, and it got them only 3 wins in 10 elections.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:24 amESTFifth district here, Brian Lutz, and I’m flying in to Seatac in the morning for a Biotech conference in Hellevue…
I wish this state would send the “mom in tennis shoes” packing. McMorris-Rodgers seems to be doing an adequate job for us farmers, at least:
“I am supporting this Farm Bill because it is long overdue and it is important to creating a strong farm policy and safety net for Eastern Washington farmers and ranchers so they can meet the food and fiber needs of the American people,” McMorris Rodgers said.
Sorry, I don’t know McDermott’s record well enough to comment. Just enough to know that I am sorry for you all on the west side.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:25 amESTNow that right there is funny.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:55 amESTBill. Clinton.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:57 amESTBwahahaha!
Point 1: Foreign policy isn’t just about the war in Iraq. Even if Obama doesn’t pull the plug on January 20th, the fact remains he is the candidate of the Michael Moore America-is-the-bad-guy wing of the Democrats (maybe most of the party now). If elected, he will be the face of America to the world for at least four years.
Point 2: For those who say “I can’t vote for McCain but I won’t vote for Obama”, one of these two people will be taking the oath next January:
John McCain
Barack Obama
No other possiblities. Not Bob Barr, Fred Thompson, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul or none of the above. If you really think it makes *absolutely no difference* which of the two is elected, then by all means sit out. If you think that some long-term gain will accrue to the country if Obama is elected (e. g. the Republicans moving to the right and regaining power in 2012, or 2016, or …) then say you’re voting for Obama without shame or embarrassment.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 amESTWaaaay late to the party on this one.
I’ll be holding my nose and voting for McCain
for the simple reason, that he is marginally
less destructive in his desires for the Nation.
Well that and I just would never vote for a Dem while the party stands so clearly for Socialist Marxism. I cannot NOT vote either I have friends and relatives who fought and died for my right to be able to vote.
So as Rach said. Fuckit, McCain in 08
May 28th, 2008 at 1:25 amESTI only wish I knew more people like Rachel. Argue until you’re blue in the face about teaching certain parties a political lesson. Hypothesize about sending messages and really getting “the sheeple” to finally open their eyes. Go ahead. Drop dead from asphyxia.
One of two things will happen in November. This is an ironclad binary choice. Either you get Obastard for a minimum of four years, or you get McCain. There is no third outcome. Choosing not to vote, especially in a swing state, is not a choice without consequence. Either you exercise your franchise or you do not; either decision will have an effect on the outcome of the election. If you would rather subject America to four years of Carter Squared than “RINO” apostasy, you are not a patriot. Why? Because you put party before country. You would rather have an excuse to blame others than do what is best for the nation. Patriots put their country first. I don’t know what to call someone who wants to see the nation suffer for FOUR YEARS in order to serve a fatuous dream that this suffering will make the rest of us yearn for… what? A faction that was willing to throw the nation to the wolves? As if abandoning the nation in such fashion would convince the rest of us that we need you? Could we trust you after you helped usher in “the greater of two evils?”
And anyone who actually thinks that there will be no substantial difference between Obastard and McCain as President has less power of reasoning than a planaria flatworm. Period. At this point, if someone can’t tell the difference between B. Hussein Obama and McCain, there is no point in discussion. Sometimes a blockhead is just a blockhead.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 amESTFor all the Real Conservatives™ moaning about McCain.
Its the Electorate stupids.
You want a more conservative candidate? Move the electorate to the right. Otherwise you are blowing in the wind.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:41 amESTI’m pretty libertarian oriented. No matter how conservative the rest of the party you can’t win elections without us. We are the margin between victory and defeat. The Rs have done nothing but shit on our faction. Nothing.
Med-pot is a plus for 70% to 80% of all voters. What about a sop in that direction? We get crap.
So why am I voting for McCain?
Its the war stupid.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:50 amESTWe have men in the field whose lives depend on who you vote for President.
People’s lives depend on who you vote for. People’s lives depend on your voting vs. staying home.
Who would see innocent men and women condemned to death to prove a political point?
You over there. You?
Not me.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:01 amESTRachel - I have to believe in the “McCain only wins when he’s the underdog” doctrine. Although I am a “real” conservative (Limbaugh fan ‘n all), I would get a kick out of watching McCain take the prize without the hardcore base support. I’m with you on this one!
May 28th, 2008 at 2:39 amESTAlso, it appears that the Republicans have announced that McCain has about 10 million dollars more to spend than Obama.
The Republican Party will have to underwrite McCain’s campaign, but then it appears that Obama will have to underwrite the Democrat Party.
I am basically libertarian, but that is sadly a minority viewpoint, so I aim for the next best thing: divided government.
You have to go back to Truman for the last example of single-party rule producing good governance. JFK (unified government) nearly got us into nuclear Armageddon; Johnson (unified) saddled my generation with the Great Society, out from under which we are still digging; Nixon (divided) was rightly run out of town; Carter (unified), ’nuff said; Reagan and Bush 41 (divided), worked out pretty well; Clinton (unified for the first two years) almost socialized medicine, then (divided for the next six years) oversaw great prosperity with which, unlike Monica, he was unable to fuck; and Bush 43 (unified) has been a debacle for liberals and conservatives alike.
So when Obama talks about unity, I say “blow me”. Unity is a recipe for disaster. If the Democrats are going to control congress, I want a non-Democrat in the White House. And that means I’m voting for McCain and I’m not apologizing for it. And you should too.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:08 amESTRachel, I think you’re exhibiting some short term thinking (and so is the guy who pointed out that thirty years later America is still dealing with the fallout from Carter). I also think that this election is not the time for a purely symbolic abstention on the part of conservatives. However, come January 2009, there had better be a major grass roots movement to establish a truly conservative political party to replace the RINOs. Otherwise, in the long term (i.e. by the time your future grandchildren start voting) America will be screwed and will bring down the rest of the world with it.
http://tinyurl.com/5ezqz7
May 28th, 2008 at 3:35 amESTIf “the base” screws us this election, where’s our incentive to back their guy in 2012?
I wish someone more conservative were on the ticket, but if you had that much pull, then one would have crept up. Seems to me that the base, you know…those who actually voted in the primaries, made their choice. Sit at home if you like, but one of two things will happen:
1. Obama becomes President and we’re screwed, especially in the GWOT.
2. McCain becomes President w/o conservative support and can then REALLY stick it to you b/c he made it w/o you.
Those who think Obama won’t pull out of Iraq are taking a big risk with a shaky proposition. And if he does pull out, all they’ll say is, “Shoot, I guess I was wrong.” I mean, it’s not like any of THEM are going to have wasted their time fighting in Iraq for a cause that someone else will give up. It’s not THEIR friends who will have died in vain. But by God, they’ll feel better about themselves!
I fought in OIF-1. I’m about to go back. I beg you not to react like a child and remember those of us who are hoping America doesn’t give up on us when we are making progress in an enterprise - counter insurgency - that usually takes upwards of 15 years to successfully accomplish.
If Obama gets in and pulls us out, with everything that goes with it, I, for one, will never forget the stab in the back that “conservatives” will have given us.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:45 amESTI disagree with the claim that there aren’t any good Republican candidates on the horizon. There are; they are just crowded out by the RINOs and big-government conservatives.
I don’t just care about who is President in 2008 — I care about 2012, 2016, 2020, and so on for decades to come. The Democrats are *always* going to run some left-wing idiot; they’ve done it every years since before I was born. Am I expected to smile and eat whatever shit the Republicans send my way just because the Democratic candidate is awful? I don’t accept that. So long as we accept the “at least he isn’t quite as bad as the Democrat” logic we’re never going to have anything but shitty Presidents — just like we’ve had every year since Reagan left office.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:52 amESTIf i get another ‘happy Memorial Day’ email i may just ‘check out’. There are no Democrats that have my email address.
It aint about a party, this country has needed a spankin for about 40 years. It’s about to be delivered.
Now i respect McCain’s spending time in a POW camp, dont think i would have survived. He has been a senator for a long time and i have found myself wanting to write him and vote against him for that long. U can ALWAYS tell those that dont offer elected officals advice. They dont complain about the ‘contact forms’. McCain says he does not understand the markets, that has not stopped him from trying to run things. He shoula resigned right after he found out what he didnt know.
I have voted with republicans since 1970. I send the rncc a response to their ‘begs’ evertime they send one. They cant say ‘whocouldanode’ i told em. Did U?
I might coulda voted for newt or fred, at least fred had a good attitude. newts gone over to the dark side.
If u think america cant survive bambi or hillery just what makes u think it’ll survive john???
Keep doin whatcha always done, u will keep gettin whatcha always got. how the hell u think we got here??
lol, i actually think the sob will win!
i aint votin fer him tho.
ya caught me ona good day. btw i saw somthin way back ‘up’ there about the farm bill. anyone know whats actually in it?? FOOD will NEVER be this ‘cheap’ again. jus wait.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:52 amEST@Dan — I respectfully disagree. Republicans have done a lot of damage to the GOP brand (K Street Project, Medicare Part D, etc), and to conservatism by association.
John McCain is the most conservative Republican who could actually be elected in the current climate. We are not coming off four years of Jimmy Carter; we are coming off eight years of George Bush.
In 2009 you can have John McCain standing between Nancy Pelosi and your money, or not. Your call.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:16 amESTHere is another post about how I have to vote McCain because Obama is worse. I support the republicans and I get candidates and policies and spending I’m opposed to. Your solution is to continue to support them.
I’m not voting 3rd party to punish the republicans or because I’m thowing a snit or because I’m not getting my own way. I’m voting 3rd party because I oppose both candidates on principled grounds. With the global warming crap I moved to active opposition to McCain. If you vote for McCain because you oppose Obama you are not opposing Obama, you are supporting McCain and all those positions of McCain’s. They are both worse.
Voting 3rd party is the only way I can let the people in Washington know where I think the country should go.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:00 amESTI don’t find the political middle any more uninterested in the out come, candidates or policies than conservatives or liberals. Both liberals and conservatives can be just as uninterested. Just follow the crowd without thought or analysis. Maybe more so, than those in the middle. Those in the middle are usually in the middle because they are torn between issues or principles from both sides that they feel strongly about. Otherwise they’d be on one side or the other.
What I do find is those in the middle are not usually as involved as activist because that means they must usually advocate for principles or policies which they feel strongly about at the cost of other principles or policies which they also feel strongly about. So they don’t advocate as stridently. They constantly choose between who they think will do the least harm on one side of the scale while maintaining, adding or at least not losing ground on the other side of the scale.
This is why activist tend to be of the extremes. Not because those in the middle are any more or less interested in the issues or the outcome than conservatives or liberals. After all how often do you hear the term RINO and DINO thrown around to describe those who are interested, pay attention to the options and the ramification of the outcome, have strong opinions but don’t align well with one side or the other.
You are correct though. Neither conservatives or liberals can win without convincing those in the middle 3rd who swing from election to election, that they are the least bad choice this time. They are used to looking at the issues at stake and choosing compromise candidates. Doing so election after election after election.
Real conservatives and liberals just whine more about having to do so… and I think are possibly more prone to taking their toys and going home rather than just sucking it up and choosing the least bad choice this time. Not losing too much ground this time all the while hoping for a better choice next.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:17 amESTYES! To the Democrats!
Any vote other than for McCain is a vote for Obama.
Have any of you ever heard of a strategy in the military where we allow ourselves to lose in order to win sometime down the road? No, because it doesn’t work.
So, your plan is to give Obama the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court all at the same time? Yeah, that’s a fucking g-r-e-a-t plan. Do you think they’ll leave a door open in 2016 for a Republican to be elected.
Keep dreaming. At least ya’ll got your “principles”.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:25 amESTImagine the headlines about how he was disrespecting the memories of fallen servicepeople and how he was such a pompous moron to ignore and belittle the overwhelmingly massive contributions of the Russians in WWII, who frankly had more to do with defeating the Nazis than America did (in my relatively knowledgeable opinion).
Well there’s that little matter where the Soviets allied themselves with the Nazis in order to partition Poland and Finland. The Soviets were the major enablers of Hitler and got what was coming to them when Hitler stabbed them in the back.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:00 amESTGood luck getting me to believe you can thinking straight by voting for McCain. You have the mannerisms to the tee though - kick the conservative.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:13 amESTTry answering my question about how losing senate and house seats as the Repubs move to the left will help your cause - without name calling if your capable.
Rachel,
I have to agree strongly with you. We vote for who we agree with the most in the primary, and-in this case-who we disagree with the least in the primary.
To the teach a lesson types: Do you really want to damage your country in the hopes that people will be disgusted enough to vote in your guy next time?
How about this: Let’s get a real conservative who’s an appealing candidate and runs a great campaign. Then we won’t need to have another Jimmy Carter to lift him in to office.
The Presidential election is not for teaching lessons, it’s for electing the best schmuck we can, that’s going to strip away the fewest of our rights.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:18 amESTA unique president of the Harvard law review in as much as he never wrote an article. How dumb is that? Oh, Obama doesn’t have a decade long record for anything. This campaign is certainly showing how many dumb things he can say though.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:21 amESTHere is my theory …. All 3 candidates, Hill, Barry, Juan, have the same socialist goals. The only difference is timelines and methods to reach the end point.
McCain’s goal is to flood America with newly legalized immigrants from socialist countries. Once they are made citizens, they vote for socialist candidates. In the meantime, McCain will continue shredding the Consistution. Its a long term plan.
McCain is the most dangerous of the 3 candidates because he will be effective. Barry With No Middle Name will be pathetically ineffective. Can you imagine Hillary and McCain helping Barry in the Senate? Nah … ain’t going to happen. McCain will back-stab Barry continuously, even worse than he did for W.
Bottom line …. McCain as President is the worst thing that can happen. Barry With No Middle Name is the best of the worst.
I’m voting for Barr.
PS - I’m a gun guy. We were promised that helping W in the election would be good for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It hasn’t been. W and Republicans gave us gun confiscation in New Orleans, a promise to sign the renewal of the assualt weapons ban, an agressive ATF that is driving gun dealers out of business, and a solicitor general that argued “shall not be infringed” means the government can regulate and even ban guns. Sorry, the Republicans have stabbed me in the back too many times.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:23 amESTRachel: I totally disagree with those who disagree with you on this.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:27 amESTAlso, my dog agrees with you, and she also totally disagrees with those who disagree with you on this. As you know, she is extremely intelligent and right about everything. Plus she serves up one helluva dog fart, which is more than just a resume filler in the qualifications department.
Start thinking in a new way. Not centered about yourself. It’s called a compasionate viewpoint.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:29 amESTWe won’t lose on election day. We already lost during the primaries. We won’t vote for anymore lefties.
You may not agree with, that’s not demanded by me. You still need to stop the childish name calling and making up reasons for how I act. I certainly only get more stubborn in defense of my position with your attacks.
Ask yourself, how would a politaccally savy person persuede someone? Don’t know?
If conservatives hate McCain so much, why did they vote for him instead of Romney?
May 28th, 2008 at 6:43 amESTI hope the Repubs and blue Dems fight too. That is the problem. The country club Repubs and RINOs now running the show have little stomach for a fight. They keep going left and losing seats in congress. In everyone’s exictment to vote against Obama, no one considered the outcome for another third of the federal government, the congress. Repubs will lose seats this election. If their most liberal senator becomes president, I don’t believe they will have the sense to follow conservative issues in later elections. They will lose seats and give the Dems a veto proof congress. Who cares if the president has an ‘R’ by his name then. Especially a RINO ‘R’.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:44 amESTSays a lot about so-called “higher education” doesn’t it?
Whereas McCain will appoint whoever the Democrats tell him to in order to “reach across the aisle”.
I still fail to see the appeal of a McCain presidency.
Repeating this over and over again won’t make it true.
Well no frikkin’ duh. There’s no absolute guarantee of anything.
Hell, there’s no absolute guarantee that the Earth won’t be invaded by Martians.
Exactly.
Not “accountability to the voters”.
Not “accountability to the conservative base”.
But “accountability to the Republican Party“.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:46 amESTThe problem is that grassroots bitching very rarely accomplishes anything. You and I can bitch and bitch and bitch for as long as we want but that alone will not stop McCain from “reaching across the aisle” to poke us in the eye.
What we want is for Republicans in Congress to bitch to hell and back every time the President sticks a toe out of line. And the best way to do that is with a non-McCain administration.
I’m sorry, but the last time I checked we were not living in a Heinlein-esque military dictatorship. McCain may be a veteran, but he is still a RINO.
As opposed to the 2 seriously liberal, legislate from the bench Supreme Court justices McCain would appoint?
I can’t understand why people keep citing McCain’s judicial appointments as though that were a reason to vote for him.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:47 amESTYou can’t win or hold Congress or the White House without your base either.
WTF are you talking about? A political party isn’t supposed to adhere to its own ideology? A political party isn’t supposed to appeal to its own voter base?
Are you high, sir?
Thank you.
Uh, yeah. Its called “strategic retreat”.
Honestly Para, I know you have trouble with the proper meanings of words but I assumed you would at least know that.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:47 amESTSo how do we correct the course of the Republican Party leadership then? I get the distinct impression that current Republican leadership is more interested in power as a minority than doing what it needs to do to be in the majority again.
The issue I have is that if I vote for McCain how is he going to know that my vote is qualified? That he has my vote only by virtue of not being an overly obvious Democrat? And what do I do when he goes off the rails as I fully expect him to do? Is someone ready in the wings to provide a primary challenge to McCain in four years? Or has the Republican Party completely forgotten about candidate development?
May 28th, 2008 at 6:52 amESTShannon asks if conservatives hate McCain so much, why did they vote for him instead of Romney?
Answer– the early primaries are OPEN primaries. It was LIBERALS who voted for McCain, to give him momentum, and in the early primaries that aren’t open, Romney won…
But the important ones are all open primaries. By the time the primaries got to places like Texas, which would have gone 70% for Romney, it was already OVER. Conservatives never got a CHANCE to vote for ROmney.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:57 amESTOle’!
May 28th, 2008 at 7:21 amESTMaybe you sit out ‘08 types forget how we got the Clintons? “Read my lips, no…” ring any bells for you? Our dissatisfaction with Bush 1 had some of us voting for Perot (me for one, I confess), giving us 8 f’ing years of BJ Clinton and now Hillary in the Senate and running for President. How much of an Obama dynasty can you take? Get off your ass and get out the vote for McCain, and America!
May 28th, 2008 at 7:54 amESTCall it what you want, but I am a registered conservative that feels no responsibility to help elect quasi-liberals.
If the people of this country wish to politically move to the left, they can do it without me.
That said, if McCain chooses a “Conservative” for VP, I may grudgingly vote for his running mate.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:02 amESTI see that the name calling and ad hominem attacks actually stepped up since I last checked in. Just an FYI, though: that old saw about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar might be trite, but it’s still true.
I-and others- have presented our case for not voting for McCain. While I feel strongly about this issue, I’ve been pretty clear that I understand and sympathize with those of you who reached a different conclusion. Remember: I’ve been there before. I get it. I simply think that you are mistaken in this case.
Let me make one more point, which will actually tackle the weakest argument that Rachel made in her recent diatribe against us non-McCain voters. It’s the argument that we plan to “punish the GOP” by voting against McCain.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I feel somewhat responsible for the leftward drift of the DC GOPers in that I kept voting for them, regardless of how they governed, even when said governance was pretty much indistinguishable from what I’d get from the Democrats. Somehow, I was supposed to suck it up and try to reform the party from the inside AFTER the next election. Funny how that “next” election never changed anything. I’ll equate continually voting for politicians who govern against your wishes and principles with giving your dog a biscuit as a reward for shitting on your carpet. Not surprisingly, you simply get more of the same.
Now I’ll bring out an old Bill Whittle comment from one of his essays. I’m too lazy to look it up, so I’ll paraphrase:
I apologize for bastardizing the fine prose that Bill used, but I think you get my point. Instead of giving my dog a treat for shitting on the rug, I’ll smack his nose with a rolled up newspaper. My guess is that he’ll understand that his actions have repurcussions a lot better than if I keep rewarding him.
So what do I do? I dunno, but voting for McCain doesn’t appear to be on the list. For those of you who say “a non-vote for McCain is a vote for Obama”, I’ll simply say this: your logic skills and math skills need work. A vote for X is a vote for X, not a vote for Y, regardless of how the election actually turns out. Also, part of the problem as I see it is that people have fallen into the trap that there are only two candidates for whom you can possibly vote. I’m certain that the Whig candidate has something to say about that… oh wait, no he doesn’t.
One final thought: the reason a weak Bush candidate beat such a putrid specimen as John Kerry wasn’t his winning smile or his glib tongue. It had a lot to do with the leftists and MSM- but I repeat myself- over reaching severely down the stretch. Spoons was not going to vote for Bush in 2004, but the whole CBS/Dan Rather fictional National Guard memo pushed him over the edge, especially since CBS had planned to wait until the Sunday before election day to release that craptastic forgery. The only reason that it got earlier was because CBS didn’t want the NY Times to “scoop” them. I’ll reiterate what Spoons called CBS and the NY Times back them: they were(are) “enemies of democracy”. It remains quite possible that all of the Soros/Kos Kidz/Obamamessiah disciples will go so over the top freaky deaky that some of us non-McCain voters might decide to bite the bullet. As for me though, I guess I have to practice my ass-sucking skills, based on an earlier comment in this thread.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:08 amESTTO: Rachel Lucas
RE: Let’s See….
….you want me to violate my own oath of office—the one I took upon being commissioned an officer in the United States Armed Forces—to vote for a man who violated the exact same oath. And just so he can be the supreme executive in the land.
Sorry babe. I don’t break promises as easily as McCain does. Especially promises THAT important.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 8:28 amEST[Once a traitor, always a traitor.]
Luckily, blogs have almost no influence on the actual electorate, much less elected officials. Seems like this is a situation where we can be thankful for the general ignorance of the population.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:41 amESTTo the “no one waiting in the wings” bit:
Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska
Fred Thompson
Look, you want a long list? Give me a few minutes to type up some other names.
There are plenty of good candidates waiting in the wings.
McCain is no better than Obama.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:44 amESTHas any one of you McCain nose holders ever considered the conspiracy theoretic idea that Dems have purposely fielded gibbering fanatics because it fulfills their goals? If the entire spectrum continues taking harder and harder turns left, haven’t they already won?
All right, I do not think it is an actual plan either, but it is still the effect. The rallying cry for Bush’s second term was not ’support your republican’, it was ‘Kerry is scary’. Few conservatives voted in favor of Bush, they voted against Kerry. Now they are asked to support moving the spectrum again because Dems put up another scary guy? Where does that end for you Republican/conservatives? A big enough vote for alternative candidates does have an effect that I believe is overall a positive. Change is slow, but it doesn’t happen until enough people require it. As long sheeple led left don’t balk, they will continue to be led. The shepherds are politicians who want money. Money is to the left folks.
I think of the Hansel and Gretel Grimm’s tale. You are following the bread crumb trail and paying a dollar for each crumb they let you pick up. But those evil Democrats want to charge $1.25. Woo, big diff! And they all lead to the Gingerbread house in the woods…
I will continue to walk my own way, thank you.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:07 amESTPrinciples are for people who can afford them. Reading the reasons why conservatives will not be voting for McCain is truly an exercise in frustration. I can not seriously believe that people buy into the idea that McCain and Obama would not have different foreign policies. That’s what I care about. I could give two shits about the state of the republican party but I do care about the commander in chief. Seriously I don’t give a damn about your principals my brother is serving in Afganistan and it makes me ill to think of an Obama presidency.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:13 amESTTO: Kat
RE: Well….
“Seriously I don’t give a damn about your principals my brother is serving in Afganistan and it makes me ill to think of an Obama presidency.” — Kat
….maybe you [and so many others] should have been more active in getting Thompson to be the nominee.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Important principles may, and must, be inflexible. -- Abraham Lincoln]
P.S. Hence my stance of opposing McCain as an oath-breaker and traitor, vis-a-vis McCain-Feingold.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:42 amESTI can understand that some people say they have different views than McCain, hell , most of us have different views from our own spouses. But why such seething hatred of the man?
Jeesh, he’s only a friggin’ war hero and a public servant who NEVER been a yes man to anyone, never voted for pork.
I keep hearing severla big lies.
1) He’s not PRO illegal immigration or amnesty.
2) McCain-Feingold was about more freedom of speech, until the Dems got ahold of it. McCain isn’t trying to destroy free speech.
3) Find me any politician who is adamantly opposed to discussing climate change, ( which can mean global cooling BTW). McCain isn’t an enviro-nut.
Take away those three lies about him and the anti-McCain argument becomes more sour-grapes-I-supported-Ron-Paul rhetoric instead of an honest look at the comparison between the only two people who can be President.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:43 amESTIts Not Just Whose President!
Realistically the Republican party is going to take a bath this election. With out some restraining force in the white house the left will ram through more legislation in 4 years than you can imagine. For all of McCain’s faults and they are many the price of sitting home “to send a message” could easily be the roll back of all the headway we’ve made since Reagan. I lived through the Carter years and the congress went nuts then. It will be MUCH worse now. Also, don’t look for the Repubs to take back the house or senate in 2010 and restrain things like with Clinton, they will be rebuilding for at least another 8 years.
I don’t like it, but I’ll not only be voting for McCain, but working for him as well (something I would have considered unimaginable in January).
May 28th, 2008 at 9:45 amESTWhat an idiotic statement.
I’ll bet money you have never even read the bill. If you did, youd never make an assanine statement like that.
Go read the friggin bill, Pelto. Go read who added the ammendments that you hate so much. I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t McCain.
A traitor? You’re insane.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:46 amESTP.P.S. If you think it through….
…you’ll realize that with Obama as President, your brother will be OUT of Afghanistan and then it and Iraq will both go to HELL, i.e., be ‘damned’.
Later on, we’ll go through hell too. But I think we’ll recover.
Be that as it may, the blood of such hells will not be on my hands. It will be on the hands of those people who put McCain up as the nominee.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:47 amESTTO: Para
RE: Did…
“Go read the friggin bill, Pelto. Go read who added the ammendments that you hate so much. I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t McCain.” — Para
…McCain vote for it? Why is HIS name on the act?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 9:50 amESTP.S. I recommend you refrain from ad homs. They make you look ‘foolish’.
I was going to reply to Para, but his comment is self-Fisking.
Vis a vis nominating the candidate you/I/we/he/she/it want: would it be too much to ask to have closed primaries? As entertaining-at times- as the whole operation Chaos was, I think that the Democrats only should vote for who they think the nominee is. Also the Republicans. I have a liberal friend who voted in the Republican primaries in 2000 and 2008; he voted for McCain. I could have registered Democrat and returned the “favor”, but I think it’s pretty stupid. Not as stupid as the states having open primaries, but it’s close.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:52 amESTMcCain was my last choice in the primary but I’ll be voting for him in November. I love blogging but if Bloggers and their opinions actually mattered, Fred Thompson would likely be the nominee right now. We don’t reflect the rest of the country, not by a lot.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:58 amESTPerhaps McCain may yet garner a little more support from the base. There has been much talk over at The Corner about a one-term pledge.
If McCain were to choose a conservative veep, one we could support in 2012, and take that one-term pledge, wouldn’t that be preferable to setting up a possible Obama dynasty?*
So, will he do either of those things? And, if he were to actually pledge, would enough of the base believe him???
*Barry, Barry, Michelle, Michelle — Aaaaaaaaaaaaaugh!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:13 amESTUm, I didn’t mention Jindal because he’s a minority. How about him being 100% against abortion? An A rating from Gun Owners of America? The way he’s actually getting something done in the corrupt state of Louisiana? Or how about, from his wikipedia page:
Emphasis mine.
He’s a rock-solid conservative. (In some areas, he’s a little too conservative, to be honest. Like intelligent design… but that’s an argument I’m not getting into.)
May 28th, 2008 at 10:15 amESTDo you know how a bill becomes a law?
Please don’t tell me you’re ignorant to the process.
If you really want me to I can explain it to you, but it’s just embarassing that I’d have to explain how bills are introduced to congress, how ammendments are added after the bill is introduced, and how congress votes on the ammended bill.
Seriously, go read the bill. Look what McCain submitted, and look what the Dems added to it once it got out of committee. You’ll see very clearly that McCain is not the monster you make him out to be, or what was the ad hominem YOU used,…..traitor? Yeah, that’s it.!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:19 amESTAs for me and my house, we donated more than we could afford to his campaign — put everything we could into that little red truck! But the Huckster, with the help of Boortz and the FairTax people, kept splitting the conservatives. By the time our primary here in Virginia rolled around, the best The Boss and I could do was vote for Fred so that McCain would perhaps ‘get the message’ that his base needed securing. Not exactly working out so far!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:20 amESTI wasn’t hoping Romney would be on the ticket…but I live in Cook County and Obama scares the beejesus out of me.
Do you people have ANY idea how corrupt this place is? Do you understand how twisted Obama has to be to make it in a place like this?
I admit, I have admiration for Daley. Yes, he’s a rascal. But he is relatively effective and tries to keep the hive of wasps that are the city aldermen at bay.
Obama is just a rascal without the effectiveness–or the backbone.
I think most of Obamas pop vote comes from Cook (we vote early and often here). That alone should make you want to vote for McCain.
http://illinipundit.com/2008/03/25/obamas-popular-vote-lead
Seriously, the stories I hear around here you’d think we were in a 3rd world country. Aldermen have to be bribed…the dead returning to cast their votes…don’t get me started on Chicago Public Housing…
May 28th, 2008 at 10:25 amESTKarol, perhaps you might want to review the nomination process the Republican party used to nominate McCain. Many states used a winner-take-all open primary (Michigan for example) that allowed Democrats to flock to the poles and cast their vote for their candidate of choice - McCain.
You might also remember McCain’s use of McCain/Finegold against Romney in Florida as well.
Finally, read Newts latest book - “Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works “. The overwhelming population of the US is far more conservative than our elected officials.
McCain represents - to me - a final slide to the left that will require a failure on the level of Carter to recover from. Congress as a whole has also turned up their nose to those incredibly far-right ideas of the Conservatives of the country:
Secure borders
Low Taxes
Fiscal responsibility
Freedom of speech
National Security
Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution
Defending America’s immigration laws
These are FAR RIGHT ideas??? FAR RIGHT???
Folks, the leftward slide needs to stop. Now. Today. And, as far as the Republican party is concerned, it will with this election. They will be turned out in record numbers. Perhaps there will be enough ashes left to reconstruct a party that truly has America’s best interest at heart.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:28 amESTTO: felicity
RE: The Little Red Truck Campaign
“As for me and my house, we donated more than we could afford to his campaign — put everything we could into that little red truck!” — felicity
We did pretty much the same.
But….BUT….even my own damned state-level Party disenfranchised our county caucuses. Many votes not being for McCain.
Am I ‘pissed’? Three guesses…first two don’t count.
Thanks for reminding me of another reason I’m not voting for McCain.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 10:37 amEST[Let all of the poisons of the Earth hatch out. -- Emperor Claudius in Claudius the God]
Keller,
Is McCain against secure borders? If you think he is, I suggest you google his recent speechess on that very subject.
Is McCain against low taxes? He’s voted for tax cuts.
Is McCain for Fiscal responsibility? Well, he’s the ONLY on e who said it is irresponsible to have a tax cut during a war and to run up the defecit.
Is McCain for Freedom of speech? Hell yes he is. McCain-Feingold was supposed to be about free speech, rather than letting a few wealthy Democrats purchase all the advertising time before elections, instead, letting ALL voices be heard, even yours. The Dems messed it all up.
Is McCain for National Security. Yes, yes he is.
Is McCain supportive of constructionist judges rather than bench legislators? My guess is he’ll be much more constructionist than Obama or Bush.
Does McCain support our Immigration laws? Yes, he does. In fact he realized correctly that our laws are not being enforced, so he proposed a means in which immigrants would stop coming here illegaly and the one who are here would have to go home.
Of course, nobody but me has ever actaully read this bill, so it’s hard to shout over the hyperboic froth of the “true conservatives” out there who just want to believe what they want to believe despite the facts.
I DARE anyone to go read the bills ( McCain Feingold and Immigration reform) and PROVE ot me where McCain is worthy of all this scorn based on those bills.
I DARE any of you.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:40 amESTI was a McCain supporter back in 2000 and remain one today. Yes, I do not agree with him on everything. I even disagree on him on some foreign policy. But the main job of the president is to protect the United States (and me) from foreign enemies. And Obama strikes me the same as GWB struck me in 2000, as someone who is not capable of protecting me (and I do not blame Bush for 9/11 and admit that although Iraq turned out to be a screw up, he has protected us pretty well considering).
I viewed McCain as the only one of the major candidates who fit that bill (actually, I also considered Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, but they were not major candidates)
May 28th, 2008 at 10:43 amESTRemember Ross Perot? We got eight years of Slick Willie. ’nuff said
Now to read the 222 comments.
(Suggestion for new header: “Rachel Lucas–Hurting Your Brain in a Good Way”)
May 28th, 2008 at 10:54 amESTLet’s talk about the natural cycle of politics for a second…I know it’s boring and all, and not nearly as incendiary as all the name-calling and drama over those moronically principled conservatives, but there are some historical precedents and inconvenient facts about election cycles that no one is talking about.
There is a cycle and it’s very predictable. It is very rare for the party in power to hold the executive branch for more than 4 consecutive terms. I think it’s only happened twice, and that was following an extremely strong incumbent.
Usually, the balance of power swings back and forth between the two parties - that’s the way it’s always been. So far, the country has withstood the disasters and doom that was foretold by each side. I like to think America is strong like that.
Now we face a situation where we have an extremely unpopular incumbent, whose done an outstanding job of alienating his base. In any normal election cycle, it would be very obvious that Bush 43 is no Reagan to inspire his Party to vote for an insipid weakling like Bush 41. Instead, his successor-in-waiting is probably the most unpalatable candidate this Party has fielded
since Doleever. Bad timing.Add to those lose-by-the-numbers strategy a socialist, messianic opponent and you’ve just about guaranteed a loss in the BEST of times.
Luckily for McCain, these are not the best of times. They are quite awful. And that’s the only thing he’s got going for him - a mishandled and unpopular war that is slowly winding down. What a fuckin’ trump card.
He can’t even really tout the Supremes because of how he’s helped screw dozens of judges who’ve been waiting in the wings for 8-12 months and have never been approved. If Obama gets elected, three of the liberal judges will promptly retire, and Obama will replace them with three more liberal judges and we’re exactly where we are today - with a slim 5-4 moderate/conservative majority. That’s not optimum, but we’ll survive it just as we are now.
All other major issues seem to be off the table because McCain is on the wrong side of them or he knows squat. Border security, second amendment, economy (he admitted he knows next to nothing), environment/global warming BS…as far as he’s concerned, he knows what’s best and that’s that. That hardly sounds democratic to me - sounds like a benevolent dictator. People are sick of that insular governance from Bush, and you’ll be hard-pressed to foist an old crotchety coot who thinks he knows best on ‘em again.
So, yeah - don’t be surprised when, in this election cycle, the typical historical pattern plays out. Like it always does. It’s hardly rocket science. IN fact, it’s so predictable as to be boring. Sorry to rain on your drama parade (”the conservatives are stupid, the conservatives are evil!”).
McCain isn’t an extraordinary enough candidate within his own party to double up executive terms - nor is he lucky enough to bask in the reflected glory of a Reaganesque incumbent. His situation is bad enough without him going out of his way to screw his own party base. But since he seems hell-fuckin’-bent on proving how maverick-y he is, then he can’t be surprised when a segment of his supposed constituency comes to grip with their own inner Maverick.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:08 amESTHa. I had to correct my 7 year old on the Memorial Day vs Veterans Day issue, so now he knows the difference. But the Democratic Candidate for President doesn’t.
Great.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:24 amESTI really don’t have that much free time to go read it all.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:42 amESTI do know that after the bill went down, McCain said he ‘got it’ and would build the fence first. 700 miles of fencing was authorized. Can you tell me where all 700 miles of it is? Mostly still on paper. No increased patrolling for the sections completed. Oh, if you are a border agent and do your job, expect to go to jail with border agents Ramos and Compean. Here’s a web page explaining what his life is like now:
http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=1369
Is anyone going to hold the border for us while the Repubs are in office?
Sorry Para I don’t have time to research those bills, but I have a couple of Questions:
You said
It is irresponsible, but he voted for it. What is his position?
That is precisely what I hate most about republicans. They know and admit it is irresponsible, even as they commit fiscal irresponsibility.
I know how a bill becomes a law. The real Q that you ignored before in favor of pomposity was: If the bill morphed in to something totally alien to the founding principle, why did McCain vote for it in its finished condition? As he did vote for it, in its finished state can you really then say he is pro freedom of speech? Shouldn’t he have followed his maverick ideals and voted against his own bill and loudly declare why?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:47 amESTPara,
Look deeper sir.
Perhaps you should review McCain/Kennedy offering amnesty to illegals in the country as well as entry to their immediate families. Have you noticed that the fence building has slowed to a stop? Have you noticed that the Boeing electronic fence has been declared a failure and its implementation stopped. There is little to no movement on securing our southern board as the Mexican states fall into a drug induces anarchy. McCain offers NO solutions, especially the “fence”.
As they say he voted against them twice before he voted for them. As early as January 2008 he has been backpedaling on his no new taxes pledge.
Excuse me; the deficit came from an out-of-control spending of Congress. Medicare Part D, ridiculous ear mark levels, out-of-control Farm Bills, the list is just too long. The war is the least of our spending.
Be that as it may, the RESULT was a limit of MY free speech. But the DEMS messed it up?? Please, it is a bill that had no place even being introduced.
Finally, the ONLY thing I will agree on. How do you expect him to provide security with a Democrat party intent on our defeat in Iraq and their intention to ignore the GWOT? His whole history is that of walking AWAY from Republicans and TOWARDS Democrats. Why should I believe he will be any different in his administration??
Really?? Gang of 14?? When the Republicans had the votes to resolve the issue once and for all McCain deserted them and did his back room deal. Do you believe he will select conservative judges or pick from a pre-approved list provided by the Democrats of the judiciary committee?? Based on past history, I know the answer.
You are simply seeing what you want too. McCain has clearly said, as recently as 2 weeks ago, that illegals are “Gods Children” and must be treated as such. OK, SEND THEM HOME ON AN AIR CONDITIONED BUS. But stop using MY TAX DOLARS to support them. No incentives: No citizenship for children of illegals, no healthcare except in matters of life and death, no credit cards, no home loans, no in-state tuition, no savings accounts, no ability to wire money home. UNLESS they are here legally.
Actually I did. Not going to get in a peeing contest. Title II, section 201 sets the 60 day limit on advertising in a general election. ANY LIMIT on my ability to advertise in ANY way at ANY time is a restriction on MY free speech – period!
May 28th, 2008 at 11:47 amESTSo please, McCain is a left-of-center politician that has a “R” tagged after his name. Far left of center. Far enough that I will not vote for him.
Something about that whole “backstabbing the conservative base on a regular basis” seems to rub people the wrong way for some reason.
I guess we’re just old-fashioned that way.
You need to keep up with current events. McCain is singing the “comprehensive immigration reform” song (translation: amnesty) once again. After claiming for months that he had learned his lesson and he would only support a security first policy.
You must live on some other planet where restricting free speech actually encourages free speech.
Keep telling yourself that.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:49 amESTAnd liberals wonder why the Republicans required people to sign loyalty oaths.
Possibly. Depending on who the VP was.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:50 amESTYou mean like this one?
“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”
Ah, but that’s not all! McCain goes on:
“I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
You might want to do a little googling yourself.
So he was for them after he was against them?
And he was FLAT-OUT WRONG, wasn’t he?
Tax revenues went UP as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The deficit was caused by (among other things) high spending and 9/11-related economic problems.
So it’s okay to restrict someone else’s free speech in order to strengthen yours?
There’s a word to describe that sort of thinking. It rhymes with “schmascism”.
Until he decides he isn’t anymore and needs to “reach across the aisle” to please his Democrat collaborators.
Exactly. Your guess.
Yeah, and that means was called “amnesty”.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:50 amESTWe also got a Republican Congress, welfare reform, and the Contract with America.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:51 amESTChuck “blood of such hells will not be on my hands “
May 28th, 2008 at 11:56 amESTsanctimonious ass you can shove your principals where the sun doesn’t shine. boo hoo you didn’t get your nominee suck it up buttercup. Obama not ready for prime time and I am not interested in his soft power foreign policy. ideas shouldn’t be more important than the people they represent. and I can not believe that the people would be better under Obama than McCain. There is nothing wrong with being practical and pragmatic but no you would rather cling to your I’m right and your all wrong. Bitter much?
MightySamurai,
Umm, he voted for Bork, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, what more do you want? Do you think Obama would have voted for Bork and Thomas?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pmESTDEAD. ON. TARGET.
(peter jackson–I was trying to be kind.)
But Jason, they WANT to punish the country, for not giving them a more conservative candidate. Get it? Petty vindictiveness trumps the good of the country. We must burn the village in order to save it! Besides, the village deserves it.
Ideologues
don’tcan’t do electoral math, and yes, the Dems have a long record of snathcing defeat from the jaws of victory. But not always.Someone who gets it.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pmESTAh, more McCainite persuasion. That always works.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pmESTWhen you get your guy in and crack open the border, will you feel better. After all, that’s what liberals are about, their feelings.
I just tried to read all the comments and well, it’s just too depressing. Just add me to the pile of silly people who thought they would “teach GHW Bush a lesson” and I actually voted for Clinton! I remember friends of mine trying to talk me out of it, but since I was 25 then and thought I knew everything, I couldn’t be moved. People like me empowered the Clintonista.
I am holding my nose and voting for McCain.
Oh yes, and by the way, I love George W. Bush, may God bless that man. I am so sick to death of hearing him trashed. If only people like the aforementioned John McCain had backed him up more instead of trying to be the “maverick” all the time. It will be hard to pull the lever for him but I’ll do it. I’m not a moron like some of you seem to be. History is there for us to learn from.
Hopefully.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmESTThanks for rescuing my earlier comment from moderation, Rachel! It must’ve been my bad words.
Also, I’d like to amend this statement: “for more than 4 consecutive terms” to read: “for
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmESTmore than4 consecutive terms.”Here’s the problem with using the “would you vote on principle and damn our country”-argument for voting in favor of McCain:
1.) Explain to me, again, how Obama is going to destroy the country? Are we seriously of the opinion that he is going to do such damage in two years (until such time as a corrective Congressional election can be held) that the outcome will be irrevocable? Seriously? I would argue that those who argue McCain is going to make amnesty item 1 on his agenda have a more sound argument for long-term destruction (demographics is destiny) than folks who think Obambi is going to doom, DOOM us all.
2.) There is nothing wrong with not voting for a candidate on a matter of principle. Yes, McCain won. However, there is nothing that says, “Dammit, we won, you lost, now you’ll do what we say!” in the bylaws of either party. In general, I thought “get my own party loyalists energized for me” was part of the job description for nominee. McCain has decided to repeatedly tell the base to f-off, so I guess we’ll see how well that works for him come November.
3.) The man’s military service does not countermand his legislative decisions. As far as I’m concerned McCain-Feingold, as well as his statements since (”Some people may have to lose a little freedom…”) pretty much disqualify the man from sitting in the Oval Office. I’d rather have an inexperienced Marxist who will probably gaffe himself to one term than a sanctimonious a**hole who will reach across the aisle to repeatedly screw me over. Your mileage may vary.
4.) Finally, on national security, military service does not equal competence. Sorry, but Jimmy Carter was in the Navy also–and I’m still regularly amazed how people trusted him to be a dog catcher, much less President. Let’s not even get into such luminaries as Ford, Nixon, and Johnson. While I appreciate Senator McCain’s service and think it was an absolute crock that he was forced to endure torture as a POW, this does not mean that I agree with him _at all_ with regards to torture, border security, or future plans for military action. Is he as bad as Obama probably will be? No. However, that doesn’t mean that he should automatically be owed allegiance by every Republican.
Bottom line: Every individual is allowed to vote their conscience regardless of party affiliation. That people decide to continue railing against McCain despite his presumptive status as nominee simply means he’s done enough dumb sh*t in the past that no one trusts him. Not voting for him means that, yeah, people are _principled_ enough not to have their fingerprints on the ensuing train wreck.
Personally, I always thought it was one of the Republican Party’s foundations that people are free, thinking actors–apparently at some point the party became taken over by those who feel differently. The acrimony heaped upon those who oppose McCain by their fellow party members reminds me why I remain an independent.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pmESTTO: Para
RE: Why….
…don’t you answer my questions about McCain and McCain-Feingold?
[1] Why is HIS name on it?
[2] Did he vote FOR it’s passage?
Your obfuscational blather is not an indication of confidence.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pmEST[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.]
No CW Payne on the rosters of the 89th. No S Dunham or R Dunham on the rosters of the 89th. Expect new versions of the story from the obama camp–or a VERY uncomfortable silence.
Be ready for the next “explanation” from the Obama camp. The latest version of the “Auschwitz” remark has also been busted.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmESTTO: Kat
RE: Mere Bombast and Bluster
“….“blood of such hells will not be on my hands “
sanctimonious ass you can shove your principals where the sun doesn’t shine.
Is that the best you can do, you unprincipled person, you?
You’ll have to do a LOT better than that to raise my ire. I’ve been abused by the best. And you couldn’t hold a candle to the least of them. Go peddle your ‘panties’ to someone else.
Good-bye…
Chuck(le)
[You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.]
P.S. I’m speaking ‘intellectually’, looking at someone without principles; as she indicated earlier.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pmESTHe also described Alito as “too conservative”.
Preferably a candidate who hasn’t made a career out of stabbing conservatives in the back.
And you’re going to punish the country by voting for amnesty, global warming alarmism, gun control, and the gradual destruction of the First Amendment.
I fail to see how you hold any moral high ground.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pmESTI’m not going to punish the country for anything, Mighty, I’m going to vote for the available choice with a chance of winning that is closest to my own views. But thank you for confirming the “burn the village in order to save it” thing, and the petty vindictiveness angle. Ncely done!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pmESTI wish it made a difference to his supporters!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pmESTAt least the spectacle of his latest “explanation” should prove amusing — better than watching our side engage in cannibalism, sigh!
And in 4 years Tully and the rest of the flock will follow the RINO shepherds further to the left, because the new Democratic Presidential candidate will be further out there and the Republican will only be as bad as Obama is now. Hurrayyyyy!!!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pmESTGuys and gals,
Is it possible, even remotely so, that we can state our positions on this topic without ad hominem attacks and insults? If not, why not? I’ve been pretty clear about why I plan not to vote for the Maverick and I think that my logic is sound. I understand that people who disagree with me think that their logic is better. One of us is wrong in this debate. Calling that person on the other side a prick, an asshole, a minion of Satan, a fool, a schmuck, a deluded dick, or a fucking idiot isn’t likely to resolve this disagreement. Frankly, as sharply as these lines are drawn, and as passionate as some people are about it, I don’t see it getting resolved before the first Tuesday in November. But regardless of how it all plays out, I thought that we on the middle-to-right side of politics were somewhat better than the turds who float in the Kos, Atrios and DU punchbowls with regards to excommunicating people who disagree with the self appointed Annointed Ones (this goes for everyone, including those who agree with me). Based on the devolution of the tone in this debate, it appears as though I might have been wrong. In truth, that bothers me more than people’s stance in this matter.
I harbor no illusions that I’m pristine in this matter. I have a short fuse and tend to fly off the handle when pissed off. Check out my “blow me” comments in a previous thread. However, I’m getting a little burned out at the rancor in this debate, especially since I gather that most of us are, at worst, ideological cousins. It might be time to agree to disagree for now and resume the discussion come this fall. Who knows what might change between now and then?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pmESTOh yes you are.
If I’m “punishing” the country by allowing Obama to be elected, you’re “punishing” the country by allowing McCain to be elected. By voting for McCain, you’re voting for amnesty, gun control, stem cell research, coddling terrorists, restrictions on freedom of speech, and more.
You McCain supporters are the ones who started this “punishment” meme, not me. It’s not my fault that your position is inconsistent.
And when the GOP nominates an even more “moderate” Republican in the next election cycle, you’ll vote for him too. And when they nominate another one, you’ll vote for him too. You’ll do it again, and again, and again, and again, no matter how liberal the nominee is because “the other guy is worse”.
Yet somehow WE’RE the only ones engaging in a pointless exercise.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pmESTI believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face. I’m writing in Sunny Lucas for POTUS.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pmESTWell, I see this election as a contest to find out whose base goes to the polls the least. The Dems are vowing to vote against each other’s candidate, and the Reps are vowing to not vote for McCain. Again, I predict a record low turnout, and whomever gets the least support loses.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pmESTKeller:
Tilte II was McCain’s ammendment? Reeeealy? Go check again.
Obvioulsy NONE of you understand McCain-Feingold, how it was written, and what it was supposed to do BEFORE the Democrats loaded it up with ammednements.
Of Course McCain is going to vote for his OWN friggin bill. But to blame him ( and call him a back stabbing traitor) is dishonest and not accurate.
Good lord, I’ll be so happy when the Recruiter’s office clears me to go to Iraq in two weeks so I can just go away and forget you crazy people exist for a year.
John McCain is the fucking anti-christ yet you have no problem with the way Obama will Govern us?
Puh-leeeease.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pmESTGreat, the one elected president will be the one least hated by their own party.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTI think what you are seeing is that people are so hungry for a “win” they will simply set aside their core principals and tell themselves the story that “once we win, we can fix this”. As it becomes apparent that sure defeat is on the way, their voices grow louder. Trust me, McCain win or loss is not the major defeat coming down the road for the Republicans, it is the huge loss the they will face in the House and the Senate. It will be mind numbing.
The Republican’s willingness to set aside their party’s core values is precisely what got them into trouble during the 2006 mid-terms and the 3 losses since. The fact is that the conservatives are the foundation and core of the Republican Party. However those Republicans elected to office since 2000 have squandered the gains made by the “Contract with America”. Little by little conservatives have come to realize that their positions are of little value to those elected and that they are only important as members of the party when election time comes around. The Republican Party will pay a terrible price this fall.
And, that is the nut if it. Even the “mavericks” on this board recognize the defeat that is coming. Their hysterics will only grow louder as November approaches. Now, honestly, I expect McCain will be elected by unprecedented cross-over voting by Democrats. He is simply a Hillary in pants and the left knows this. And, that has been his constituency for over a decade. So we will have a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled Congress. Perhaps then the Republican Party will look at yet another “Carter-equesk” administration and grow a set for 2010.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pmESTPersonally I expect McCain to win in NOV.
It will be without my vote. I have no one I can support in this race, because the basics that I see are not articulated by any of them.
I do want Iraq to succeed, but I also believe that defending the Nation does not start in Iraq or Afghanistan, but at our Nation’s borders. Since 2003 the INTEL coming in from Mexico has been that of a number of organizations shifting in to undermine the old narcotics Cartels. Those organizations are generally richer and better organized than the cartels and have access to better armaments. With FARC going under slowly, that will diminish the power and funding from South America and the other sources will start to take hold, just as they have been doing and the violence is now getting higher in Northern Mexico than it is in Iraq. Already the Mexicans are complaining about how easy it is for arms to be shipped from north of the border and want the US to do something about it… fascinating, no? That not defending the US border is now causing problems in Mexico? That is not predicted by the ‘amnesty’ folks, and yet is becoming an outcome of their views.
These new organizations cited by a Library of Congress Report to Congress include some familiar names and some that folks aren’t familiar with. We all know Hezbollah and Hamas, for example, even al Qaeda. We aren’t to familiar with the various parts of the Red Mafia, and that is worrying. Each of the three candidates has ties to parts of the Red Mafia: Sen. Obama via Nadhmi Auchi, Sen. Clinton via Marc Rich, and Sen. McCain via Oleg Depripaska who bought influence via Sen. Bob Dole (ret.). The reason the Red Mafia are interesting is that one of the organizations within it have demonstrated capability in the field of natural gas and petroleum, currently under the Group DF monicker, which has ties directly to Semion Mogilevich who is now under arrest in Moscow… but who has put a set of ‘plausible deniability’ fallouts between himself and Group DF. Group DF has ties to Turkmenistan which, as luck would have it, supplies 5% of Iran’s natural gas. Turkmenistan has been playing games with Iran, as of late, with gas availability and pressure, claiming equipment problems… and wanting more money. Now, consider a Red Mafia group connected to the Golden Triangle trade with its own airline able to gain a foothold in Mexico… they have billions if not tens of billions of dollars to leverage that. What resource does Mexico have that is worth having? It’s petroleum industry. Who buys a lot of its output? Is there an extremely wealthy, petroleum using nation nearby? Why yes, yes there is…
So as Mexican violence ramps up, and we start to see IEDs and VBIEDs, along with the ever present AK-47 and RPG-7, do start to ask yourself if a long, undefended border with Mexico is really what you want. The Mexicans are already complaining.
Can I get a candidate to address this?
One who does seem to understand that playing nice with folks who have no scruples just doesn’t cut it? A bit of the old ‘rule of law’ and ‘uphold the law’ and ‘enforce the law of nations’?
Currently I have no candidate to back.
That is very troubling to me.
But then, I’m not a conservative.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pmESTThe key is Obama defeating the Hildebeast, which looks like is going to happen.
Hillary could whip McCain.
Obama cannot.
McCain will win in November, despite all the tough talk from the sit it out conservatives.
I DO recommend McCain select a solid VP. Starting one’s Presidency at 71 years old is not condusive to longevity.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pmESTDave wrote:
Shannon asks if conservatives hate McCain so much, why did they vote for him instead of Romney?
Answer– the early primaries are OPEN primaries. It was LIBERALS who voted for McCain, to give him momentum, and in the early primaries that aren’t open, Romney won…
But the important ones are all open primaries. By the time the primaries got to places like Texas, which would have gone 70% for Romney, it was already OVER. Conservatives never got a CHANCE to vote for ROmney.
Ok, let’s think about this for a minute. Suppose conservatives stay home on election day to “send the Republicans a message” and Obama or Clinton is elected as a result. You have four years to look for your Ideal Candidate — Bobby Jindal, or Sarah Palin, or Ronald Reagan reincarnated, or whoever. Then what?! The same flawed primary system that enabled Democrats to influence the results in open primaries this year in favor of McCain will still be in place, and Democrats will still cross over in an attempt to deny Mr. or Ms. Ideal Candidate the Republican nomination.
Conservatives couldn’t manage to nominate an acceptable candidate in 2008. What the hell makes you think things are going to be any better in 2012?!
In fact, it’s going to be more difficult to elect your Ideal Candidate in 2012 than it was this year, because the Democrats are hell-bent on reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine” to exclude conservative viewpoints in the broadcast media. After Ross Perot diverted conservative votes in 1992 and helped put Bill Clinton in office, voters reacted by unseating Democratic Congressional candidates in 1994 … but only because Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio hosts rallied conservatives and exposed the excesses of the left-wingers. Do you really think that would have happened if the “Fairness Doctrine” had been in place?
May 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pmESTGeez. Hate to sound like such a “fan”, phsyicsgeek, but well said. Again. Reasonable and adult.
I, too, am beyond weary of the friendly fire. I believe I’ve stated my case well enough over the months to be immune to the hysterical name-calling. But I am sick of the impasse. As I said above, there is an precedented and predictable cycle at work here and no amount of histrionics will change it.
Agree to disagree and DRIVE ON, people.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pmESTBINGO. That wins the thread for me.
I dunno what to do. I keep changing my mind.
Won’t a big defeat in the House and Senate be a wake-up call to the Republicans? If that punishment occurs, as I think likely, is it better to have Obama or McCain as president? I suppose if you don’t see a difference between the two, then, it makes sense to sit it out or write someone in. Still, won’t the loss of the House and Senate serve to wake up the Republican party? It’s not just the President who matters, after all. The congress critters and Senators royally sucked. That didn’t help.
I guess what I’m saying is that there is a rot throughout the Republican/Conservatives system. I include both Republican and Conservatives in that rot, because, if the true conservative base was so motivated, why didn’t the base work harder to get someone like Fred Thompson elected in the primaries? Okay, someone above said it’s because it was hard to get involved in the local Republican party and I think that’s right. I’ve tried in every state I’ve lived in, but, numerous e-mails and to state parties get unanswered; no one is paying attention to recruiting new people at the local level. I still don’t know about my Presidential vote, but I do know the local party system is just a mess. Maybe we lot can start there? Sorry for the rambling, just not sure…..
May 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pmESTTO: W. Keller
RE: Ends? Means? Who Cares?
“I think what you are seeing is that people are so hungry for a “win” they will simply set aside their core principals and tell themselves the story that “once we win, we can fix this”.” — W. Keller
I think you’re onto something here.
However, as has been noted throughout history, if you cannot be trusted with the little things, i.e., principles, you cannot be trusted with the big ones, as in defending the Constitution of the United States.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pmEST[They teach the morals of a whore, and the manners of a dancing master. -- Samuel Johnson]
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.
Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner’s 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.
The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.
What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.
No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.
Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.
Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.
The three leading candidates for their party’s nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.
One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.
Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.
Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.
Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.
We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.
The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.
Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.
Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pmESTAw shucks, Redhead Infidel. I’d blush, but I don’t embarrass easily. But thanks for the kind words.
Hey, I’m just trying to be reasonable in this debate. I’ve been a little pissy in the -very- recent past and I thought that maybe now would be a good time to clean up my act in this particular debate. While I’m certain to fly off the handle again in the near future, I’m fairly certain that this topic won’t be the cause. And yeah, I agree with the “friendly fire” comment. We don’t need to set up our own circular firing squad.
I read our lovely hostess’ recent post wherein she reiterated her belief that she’s correct, but that this discussion makes her brain hurt. I completely agree with the second part. Now I’m just waiting for the next Daily Dog post to cleanse my brain.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pmESTI don’t give a flying fuck that McCain is more liberal than we would like and that he’s basically an asshole, because I’m operating with the assumption that he’s still better than Obama by about a hundred orders of magnitude.
Fixed.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pmESTThis reminds me so much of 1992. I went to the polls disgusted with GHW Bush, and planning to vote for Clinton to so that the Democrats would have to take all the heat for the various idiocies that Congress was planning. Then sat there in front of the machine for 2 minutes and found I simply couldn’t do it.
Of course, in the end, Clinton managed to give Republicans control of Congress for the first time in my life, so there was a certain merit to the plan. On the other hand, as much as I disliked some aspects of Clinton (even in 1992), he was clearly to the right of the Congressional Democrats. The same is not true of Obama, so I can’t see myself even planning a similar move this year. But it is a familiar feeling.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pmESTYeah, you and me both.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pmESTWell we don’t really need to know, do we? We have it straight from you:
“McCain-Feingold was supposed to be about free speech, rather than letting a few wealthy Democrats purchase all the advertising time before elections, instead, letting ALL voices be heard, even yours. The Dems messed it all up.”
So going by your explanation, McCain-Feingold is about class warfare. Thank you for giving me even more reason not to vote for John McCain.
You realize I could just as easily turn that around on you, right?
Obama is “the fucking anti-Christ” to you, yet you don’t seem to have any problem at all with the way McCain would govern us. Apparently you have no problem at all with amnesty, gun control, emissions quotas, stem cell research, and coddling Islamic terrorists.
Or at least, you have no problem with those things when John McCain does them. But when Obama does them, holy FUCK he must be stopped or the country will spontaneously combust!
May 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pmESTTwo (and a half) things.
1 ) The primary system might change in that time. Given how unhappy conservatives are about the Dem crossover votes that gave us McCain, I think there’s a fair to decent chance that one or two states might just switch from open to closed primaries.
2 ) Just because they did it once doesn’t mean they’ll do it again. Remember, the Dems weren’t trying to deny conservatives their ideal candidate, they were just trying to get a “moderate” Republican nominated. But if McCain isn’t running again in 2012, who will they vote for? I don’t know of any other “Mavericks” in Congress, do you?
2.5 ) Even if there was another “Maverick” for them to vote for, how many times do you really think the Dems will be able to mount a concerted effort to derail the Republican Primaries?
Four years is a long time.
Was there anybody here who had heard about Duncan Hunter back in 2004? Didn’t think so.
Yeah, just like they were hellbent on instituting socialized healthcare in 1993.
Oh wait, it didn’t pass!
So Rush rallied conservatives to take both houses of Congress away from the Democrats, but if the Dems try to pass a new Fairness Doctrine he’ll just sit on his thumbs and watch his livelihood disappear?
WTF?
May 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pmESTTO: Para
RE: McCain for….
“Of Course McCain is going to vote for his OWN friggin bill. But to blame him ( and call him a back stabbing traitor) is dishonest and not accurate.” — Para
….suppression of the First Amendment. Thanks for proving my point.
McCain was not required to vote for an abomination. No one held a gun to his head. Furthermore, I do believe that he could have withdrawn his sponsorship of the legislation, once he realized it had been turned into a monster…..by the Democrats, if your understanding is correct.
However, he didn’t. That either means he’s a blathering idiot OR my premise, as originally stated, is accurate.
I appreciate your assistance with this matter.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pmEST[Oh what tangled webs they weave when they first practice to deceive.]
TO: Para
RE: McCain for….[Addendum]
If he HAD withdrawn his sponsorship of the legislation or voted against it, it would have been proof that he was abiding by his oath as an officer in the Armed Forces of the Untied States; to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.
However, as he did neither and, instead, voted for this abomination, he proved my point….he’s an oath-breaker and a traitor.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pmEST[In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. -- Thomas Jefferson]
For those wondering what McCain’s cap and trade policies would cost, here is a link to the bill (now Liberman-Warner) that is coming up for a vote next week.
Next week, the Senate will vote on the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade climate control bill. The proposed statute is a nightmare that would devastate our economy. The Wall Street Journal calls it “the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.”
One of the many nightmares supported by McCain.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pmESTIf you’re STILL saying you will sit out the election or vote third party here are 5 more words for you:
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY
May 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pmESTI’m just shocked at all the people with “principals” whose principals do not include giving our troops a CIC they can count on while they’re overseas fighting a war. Those are some snazzy principals. I wouldn’t want them.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pmESTTo: Chuck Pelto
From: Para
RE: How do you find the time to work when you post on hundreds of blogs every day? Business must be slow.
Goodness gracious, I Googled your name and I couldn’t find a blog community you weren’t currently annoying with your charm.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pmESTThird! Too bad Rachel’s so busy.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pmESTThis comment thread kept reminding me of this!
Also this.
This whole debate is beginning to suck. Nobody seems to actually want to convince anyone of the superiority or even validity of their position. All most of you seem to be doing is to be as smarmily insulting as you can to put down the viewpoints of those who don’t toe your line. That’s not debate. That’s teen angst.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pmESTTo the petulant little pussies who absolutely can’t stand the thought of McCain winning - and yet, don’t want their “fingerprints on the ensuing trainwreck”: go ahead. Take your toys and go home because the other kids won’t play exclusively by your rules - but you bear just as much burden for the ensuing chaos as the koskids, etc.,and there is very little - if any - chance that the mistakes will be corrected in 2, 4, or 8 years. You are all spoiled little snots. Live with it. You own it!
I have gained new respect for some of the regular posters on this blog because of what the have written and positions they have taken and held. Others of you, for whom I had a certain respect and admiration of your writing ability, have been substantially lowered by your selfish attitudes. For that, I am sorrier than you will know, but you have put your own interests ahead of this country. That’s not “real conservatism”. That’s selfish stupidity.
Chuck(le): you’re a supercillious asshole - and I have serious doubts about your service. You don’t know what you’re talking about; and you have all the earmarks of a leftard troll. What you write isn’t interesting, isn’t smart, isn’t edgy. It’s just trite.
mighty samurai said:
No, I’m voting for McCain to win in Iraq, to prevent socialized medicine, to veto earmarks and to nominate strict constructionist judges.
The shamnesty bill was supported by Bush, remember?
Gun control? That’s a Supreme Court issue.
Stem cell research? Do you mean embryonic stem cell research? Because skin cells do the same thing, it’s no longer an issue.
Before you speak for “everybody”, please know what you’re talking about.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pmESTI’m real sorry for that, Bill. I am. It’s a shame, too, because after the election we’re all going to be on the same side again - fighting Obama with whatever balls the Republican Party has left over.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pmESTTO: Chuck Pelto
RE: Pompous. Ass.
You are annoying me really, really, really bad. Is it so hard to leave comments like a normal person leaves comments? You don’t need to RE and PS and all of that, you really don’t. I would ASK you to stop doing it but I don’t have to. I can just delete the next one, which I will if it’s in this format. Just because it pisses me off and this is my blog.
Stop it now or get the ban hammer,
Rachel
P.S. To Redhead Infidel and Physics Geek, et al: I love you guys, I really do and I mean that in a purely blogger-on-commenter way.
I agree that this debate has a certain shitty quality that is most unbecoming, and I even have a whole post about that very issue that I’ll put up tomorrow. I can’t even tell you how much I respect the fact that those of you who disagree with me have for the most part been incredibly polite and respectful. That MEANS something and I don’t take it lightly. And I just put up another Daily Dog expressly for you.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pmESTEw. That’s awful. Would Kerry be SecState for Obama or McCain?
May 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pmESTRight back at’cha, Rachl. That means a lot!
Yippee! That’s our pork, baby! I’m off to look.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pmESTA Dem President, a Dem congress, a Dem Senate, three new dem scotus judges, and a dem press.
In 4 years you won’t recognise america.
But sit this one out. That’s smart.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pmESTYour very next sentence after this one:
“To the petulant little pussies who absolutely can’t stand the thought of McCain winning…”
What’s that old saying?
Throwing stones? Glass houses? Something like that?
On the contrary, the GOP owns it.
We (that is, conservatives who oppose McCain) said again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again AND AGAIN that if John McCain became the Republican nominee we WOULD NOT vote for him. We said it loudly and we kept saying it for years and years. Every time the subject of John McCain running for President came up, we said we wouldn’t vote for him.
But rather than listen to their base the Republicans went and let him get nominated anyway, presumably under the assumption that we would all heave a big regretful sigh, shrug our shoulders, and say “Well, at least he’s marginally better than an actual Democrat” as we all trot off to the voting booth to pull the lever for the Republicans yet again.
Well sorry boys, but you were warned. Many times. Now you’ll suffer the consequences.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pmESTI think that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, a lot of sane, middle-of-the-road (i.e., non-moonbat) Democrats will cross over and vote for McCain.
So McCain could very well end up winning the election even if conservative voters stay home.
Which is fitting, if you think about it.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:05 pmESTmightysamurai — I understand what you are saying, but SOMEONE must have voted for McCain. It is not like the old days when party leaders would sit around a hotel room and ask “who should we nominate?” Then again, I am a self described conserative libertarian and I supported McCain.
Thea-Logical — come on, Obama is not the anti-Christ, Pelosi is not the enemy. They are misguided and very wrong about most things, but America will always be America, constantly reinventing itself, lead by the people, not the government.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:10 pmESTSorry, but you don’t get “conditional votes”. If you vote for McCain, you’re voting for ALL of his platform, not just some of it.
As Jeffrey Ring said earlier in the thread, “If you vote for McCain because you oppose Obama you are not opposing Obama, you are supporting McCain and all those positions of McCain’s.”
Yeah, he supported it in 2007.
What were we supposed to do? Travel back in time and UNvote for him?
Bush’s public statements prior to the ‘07 amnesty bill indicated that he supported a guest worker program (which is another debate entirely) and rejected amnesty. Call it a change or heart or just plain lying, I don’t really care. Since Bush will not and cannot run for President again, I don’t see how his support for amnesty is relevant anymore.
Yeah, and if McCain is elected he’ll get to appoint 3 new Supreme Court Justices. You think he’ll appoint judges that will declare his gun control policies unconstitutional? I doubt it.
And BTW, it’s a “whole government” issue, not just a Supreme Court issue. The SCOTUS doesn’t get to just “decide” whether gun control is okay. In case you hadn’t heard, the other two branches have some small input on that as well.
Yes, obviously I mean embryonic stem cell research. The same embryonic stem cell research that John McCain supports.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pmESTYeah, a McCain administration would be a lot like that.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pmESTYeah, lots of liberal Democrats voted for McCain.
No, but they do exert a heavy influence over who is and isn’t nominated. They can discourage a certain candidate from running in their primary or endorse other candidates over him (as they did several times with David Duke over the years), they can cut party funding to a certain candidate, or they can (at least in theory, I’m not aware of this ever happening in practice) withdraw their official sanction from a candidate’s campaign and force him to run under a different party.
And I didn’t say they nominated him, I said they allowed him to be nominated. They knew that if John McCain were nominated the conservative base would oppose him. They KNEW he was ridiculously unpopular with conservatives. They could have told McCain not to run because he would cost them the conservative base, but they didn’t. They could have warned him that his candidacy would only increase conservative discontent with the Republican Party, potentially costing them even more Congressional seats, but they didn’t. They could have learned their fucking lesson from the 2006 election about what happens when Republicans govern like liberals and denied McCain campaign funds, but they didn’t.
The GOP let this happen. They don’t have any right to complain when conservatives stay home.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pmESTmightysamurai:
Yes, I also place a lot of the blame on the GOP leadership. I believe they are dominated by open-borders internationalists and have deliberately marginalized conservatives.
I’m deeply suspicious of the way they have conducted the primaries. Many of the early ones were in open primary states, where Democrats and independents were allowed to vote. This was no accident.
Open primaries are evil and need to be banned.
Sadly, I’ve come to the conclusion that Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan are rare exceptions. The majority of Republican politicians are Rockefeller Republicans, country-club Republicans, RINOs, or whatever you want to call them.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pmESTThanks for the Daily Dog fix, blog mistress. I needed it after this thread. And thanks for letting me tread around in your sandbox. The last time this subject came up, I let my temper get the best of me when responding to a nice, honest, disagreement… oh wait, I blew my stack at someone being a dick to me. Even so, it’s your blog and you deserve better than me being an asshole, so I’ve really tried to be civil this time. I simply appreciate you letting the discussion continue.
Oh yeah, one final thing: we here kind lurve you too in a commenter on blogger sort of way. Some of us-okay, me- were jonesing pretty hard when you stopped blogging. It was bad enough when certain elements forced you to close comments before. I promise not to be the one who causes that to happen again.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pmESTHeh… Probably my first comment here and it’s going to be made begging Wachel to nuke this comment section before my brain explodes.
Also Mr. Reagan did support a few gun control measures. Don’t remember exactly what, but I do remember some comment concerning the magazine (Personal term applied to tubular magazines) capacity of shotguns. Think the other was something to do with background checks or something.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pmESTWe need to push for closed primaries for each party. You register the party you want to affiliate with and are then permitted to vote ONLY that party for the primaries. This way each party is more likely to have candidates that they can get behind in the primaries and not have interference from those who would flip to screw with the other parties choices.
Once we get the primary process cleaned up then we can worry about ways to win general elections. Right now though clean primaries are a key to getting where we need to go.
The all those libertarians who don’t wish to side with either major party can then decide if they really want their votes to count, they can swing the general election but they wont be pissing on anyones parades in the primary.
We have The Obama-nation and McStinky because of crappy primary restrictions.
There is one good reason to vote for McCain instead of the Obama-nation and that is, McCain is probably not going to be physically healthy enough to run in the next General Election, where as, if the Obamanator gets in, he could be there a while.
And thanks again Rachel for the great site.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pmESTFolks, it’s a shit sandwich and no mistake, and there is no ‘good side’. But we need to be realistic about a couple of things that are being overlooked in the arguments.
1. If the Dems hold both houses and the White House, we can’t count on the GOP to oppose their plans, because of the race factor and the mainstream media. For all the talk of ‘post-racial candidacies’, we all know what the MsM is going to do, to say nothing of the parasitic hangers-on like Sharpton.
Any opposition to anything President Obama pushes will be treated as presumptively racially motivated and anyone daring to do so will be painted eagerly and without mercy by the MsM as an unreconstructed racist. The actual facts of the matter won’t be relevant, any more than they were relevant during the Valerie Plame pretend-scandal or the Clinton impeachment or any of the rest of the list.
A big swath of Republicans in Congress live in terror of the MsM now, the shiver at the thought of the kind of campaign of hate that the NYT or the WaPo can set in motion. The thought of being called ‘racist’ is enough to paralyze them with fright, and we’ve all seen this in action.
I don’t think McCain is so much a closet Democrat as he is an egotist. But he’s the best we’re going to get bar a miracle, and I’d feel a lot better with McCain and a GOP Congress than McCain and a Dem Congress. Same equation with Obama.
If it’s any comfort, part of the problem with the GOP is that most of McCain’s generation, [i]as a generation[/i], tend liberal on a lot of things. But the younger ones are not necessarily cut from that cloth.
Either way, though, we have to be prepared to face the full implications of this squarely. It’s just not safe to assume that the Congressional Republicans, in the minority, would dare oppose Obama.
On the other hand, if McCain does defeat Obama, there is one minor comfort: trust me, it’ll drive the moonbats to whole new levels of lunacy.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pmESTFamilia de Lukis,
May 28th, 2008 at 11:26 pmESTI have been in Seatshitle/Hellevue all day (WAZZUers, booyah), thus I turned on subscription to this post at 10:00 LAST NIGHT so I could follow everyone’s logic.
I had 152 emails when I finally got service at SeaTac. From. This. Site. (236 all together, sigh)
It’s going to take me the entire flight home to get even halfway through these.
So much insight, all wrapped up in one 114 lb package and her web presence.
Just … wow.
Oh, FINE. Someone has to do it. 300!
May 29th, 2008 at 4:22 amEST300?! Tonight, we blog in Hell!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:50 amESTRemember, McCain ran as a Centrist candidate in order to be able to take votes away from Hiillary then along came O! who overthrew the royal Queen. McCain and his Centrist voters were completely unprepared to handle the O!’s messanic rise to the top of the ticket.
In any case, the problem with running first towards the moderate, independent, middle-of-the-road voter is that the Centrist sits in the middle waiting to see which side appears more popular then votes according to such appearance; there is no loyality amongst those who are desperate to be popular.
Running for the Center first is a weak position which is why McCain makes no sense; he is running a popularity contest.
That said; Obama is the Democrat’s Carter while McCain is the Republican’s Nixon; both parties ended up screwing royally the American people by creating many of the problems we face today.
I am voting for the troops and their mission which means I am blackmailed into pulling the lever for McCain however if McCain loses the fault will be the American Center who is more interested in maintaining popularity than in what is good policy for America.
The fact is we are stuck having to choose between electing members of the worst, most corrupt Congress in the history of the United States; what was the Center thinking when they voted for these candidates?
May 29th, 2008 at 7:11 amESTTO: Para
RE: [OT] My Business
“How do you find the time to work when you post on hundreds of blogs every day?
Business must be slow.” — Para
I work for myself. I write computer code. I take breaks in order to clear my head. Engaging people on blogs is different from writing code but I don’t have leave my computer.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Do what you like. Like what you do.]
P.S. It helps to make money at it.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:32 amESTTO: Rachel Lucas
RE: Format vs. Content
“You are annoying me really, really, really bad. Is it so hard to leave comments like a normal person leaves comments? You don’t need to RE and PS and all of that, you really don’t. I would ASK you to stop doing it but I don’t have to. I can just delete the next one, which I will if it’s in this format. Just because it pisses me off and this is my blog.”
I use this format because (1) it is simple, (2) it directs comments to the people I am addressing on busy blogs, thus allowing people they are not addressed to to slid past them, (3) it is standardized so I don’t have to memorize the approach of each specific blog and (4) it’s simple to parse citations and replies.
Something 27 years in the infantry taught me, the KISS principle; Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Your ‘concern’ over my format is the usual approach of someone who doesn’t know how to respond to content. They whine about formating. And then, because they can neither (1) ‘celebrate my diversity’ nor (2) refute my comments, they resort to killing.
“Stop it now or get the ban hammer.”
Go ahead, dearie. I expected you to do it anyway because you did it before, when you couldn’t refute my comments about your grasp of christian ethics several years ago.
So. As I said. Go ahead and show your true colors. Kill me and prove that you’re no different the to so-called ‘Liberal’/'Progressive’ bloggers who despise anyone who can call them out and prove them wrong.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 29th, 2008 at 9:42 amEST[Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.... -- Matthew 5:10]
P.S. So….
….I’m being ‘moderated’ now.
How niiiiice. — Old joke about two southern belles at a class reunion.
P.P.S. Your blog is VERY awkward to work on. Very slow for typing. I suspect it has to do with the automated PREVIEW function. You might want to reconsider that.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:46 amESTIt’s clear that there is little mind changing going on here. All I would say is that you think of a few things: 1) What powers does the president have and can you do more for your cause by working for changes in Congress? (If Amnesty doesn’t get to McCain’s desk, he can’t sign it, as an example) Will not voting really do anything or should you actually put the pedal to the metal and try to work within the party for change? (Seriously, if the conservative base wants change you either have to form a new party or change the GOP from within. In order to form a new party that is actually viable, you need someone better than Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Pat Buchanan. You also probably need a serious issue that splits the party, like the expansion of slavery did to the Whigs. Not sure if illegal immigration is that policy. Maybe, but I doubt it.)
May 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pmESTTO: All
RE: THIS….
…., if accurate, is not just ‘poetic justice’, it’s absolutely a rhapsody.
According to THIS linked article….
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/29/mccain-ties-to-veterans-group-criticized-by-obama/
Senator McCain is being hoisted by his own petard, vis-a-vis McCain-Feingold, is he is accused—albeit by the Senator Obama campaign—of violation of his own statute, by an inappropriate connection between his campaign and a McCain-Feingold-Act 527 committee.
I’ve not corroborated the report and I prefer to wait on the 24-Hour Rule, but at face value, I would not put it past any politician, especially one how has violated his own oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” to do such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pmESTMy mother, who was a brilliant woman, had me to deal with way back in early November of 1968, when she gave me the best political advice I ever received. It was to be my first opportunity to cast a Presidential vote, and I was young and idealistic, and liberal.
The day before election day, I was at home visiting my parents.
Mom casually asked me at one point, “So, have you thought about who you are going to vote for tomorrow?” “Yes,” I answered with both celerity and certainty. “I’m going to write in Gene McCarthy.”
“Oh . . . That’s nice,” she said, smiling. “Of course, someone is going to win.”
And then she turned and walked away.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pmESTIt’s just my gut feeling, but I do not believe Barack Obama will be our next President. I think McCain is going to win it because I am of the opinion that the country has not gone quite all the way down the rabbit hole just yet…at least, not far enough to elect liberals like Cheshire Cat Obama or Red Queen Hillary.
And I have long felt that it will be the REPUBLICAN Party that eventually fronts the first successful Presidential candidate who is either non-white or non-male. I thought Condi Rice would have made a good choice, until she made known her true feelings on Middle East policy.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:25 amESTPosted & linked at
The Radio Patriot
May 30th, 2008 at 11:53 amESTI have voted republican since I could first vote in 1984 for Reagan. After voting twice for GWBush and getting crapped on by him and Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/losers et al, I will cheerfully vote for Bob Barr this year.
In fact, I will vote third party from now on. Oh, and I am a card-carrying member of the religious right - you know, the voting group that republicans can’t win without? There are thousands more like me.
John McCain is toast in november.
May 30th, 2008 at 6:39 pmESTTO: Radias
RE: Actually…
“There are thousands more like me.” — Radias
….as the ChumbaWumba song goes….
You see me.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pmESTYou hear me.
There are MILLIONS;
Think just like me. — Outsider, by Chumbawumba
Chuck Pelto:
Your first moderated comment was accidental. There were about a dozen of them, all from regular commenters, all snagged by Akismet and my moderation filter. Surely you haven’t missed all the comments by others saying things like “my comment got moderated! what did I do? oh noes!”
It happens. It’s the way Wordpress is. I usually apologize and immediately release the comment. But you immediately assumed you were banned and you called me “dearie” and that was just uncool. So I put you in permanent moderation on purpose just because I wanted to, because this is my blog and I don’t have time to argue with you. I don’t even really care about your formatting, and I actually completely get your point about ease of readibility and clarity. I really do. Also, I think you were right about the comment preview jacking up the typing speed in the comment box - I removed that plugin and sure enough, it’s better! Thank you.
I haven’t had enough time in the last few days to deal with all your followup comments, and I could see that you were dead set on being contrary about it, so I just blew it off until I had time to catch up on email and moderation filter issues and all of that.
I apologize to you for the FIRST one that was moderated, which I did not DO, just like I apologize to anyone else who gets moderated against my will - again, Wordpress does that. Ask around, it’s a fact. And it’s incredibly annoying to both me and the commenter.
Now that I have time to deal with the huge amount of backed up mail and other blog issues, I would be more than happy to take you out of the permanent moderation queue that I put you in for being a jerk and calling me “dearie”. But only if I can trust you to accept the truth, which is that sometimes your stuff will get moderated even when I don’t want it to, and you have to just be patient and let me get to it before you fly off the handle and assume I was serious about banning you, which I was not. I’ve only banned three or four commenters, and only because they were seriously deranged and/or threatened me or insulted my mama. (Who, by the way, has had TWO of her own comments snagged by moderation. It happens to everybody sooner or later.)
Again, apologies to EVERYONE who had a comment get stuck in moderation on this thread. It’s a pain in the ass but it’s the only way I can protect my site from actual spam. Anyway Chuck, I’ll work on getting all your NON-INSULTING comments cleared now. If you leave another that’s weirdly threatening or insulting, I will ban you and nobody in their right mind would see a problem with that. It is my blog, after all. Half this thread is people telling me I’m wrong - clearly, that’s not a problem. It should be pretty plain if you just read the whole thread.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pmESTI hate to get in the middle of this*, but:
a) I’ve always liked Chuck Pelto’s “memo” style of commenting. It’s a trademark of sorts.
b) Naturally, Rachel can ban anyone she wants for whatever reason.
(*But I can’t help it; it’s my nature.)
May 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pmESTOh, really? I call bullshit! Name them, and tell us why, specifically, the system might change in those particular states. Otherwise you’re just engaging in wishful thinking.
Ah, those benign, principled Democrat crossover voters! So you say the Democrat crossovers didn’t try to give Republicans a flawed candidate in 2008, it just worked out that way! And as for 2012, do the words “Operation Chaos” ring a bell? Republicans did it to Democrats in 2008; what’s to keep the Democrats from retaliating in 2012?
Only once every four years.
Ha! I had — I’d even talked with him on a number of occasions! (I lived in San Diego then, although Randy “Duke” Cunningham was the Congresscritter for my district. I was doing PR for a large scientific research organization.)
Here’s a clue for you: Although he’s a good guy with many good policies, Duncan Hunter wouldn’t have been a plausible winning candidate for the Republican Party in 2000 or 2004. He wasn’t a plausible winning candidate in 2008. And he won’t be a plausible winning candidate in 2012. Perhaps he might be one if the Republican presidential candidate were selected by political insiders in a smoke-filled room, and then they backed him with their full media relations resources. But he wouldn’t be one under the beauty contest/endurance trial/fundraising orgy system of primaries that we have now.
Yes, it didn’t pass — because the “Fairness Doctrine” wasn’t in place!
Right … because there’s this thing called an election that gives Limbaugh his power. If he has media access, he can rally his minions to defeat the Democrats at the next election. But if the Democrat-majority Congress, aided and abetted by the Democrat President and the Democrat mainstream media, pass the “Fairness Doctrine” first, in 2009, Rush won’t have that media access and won’t be able to influence the 2010 elections. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
Look — if you want your Dream Candidate to be the Republican nominee in 2012, don’t refuse to vote for McCain in this election to “send a message.” The odds are that even if he wins in 2008, McCain will be too old to run in 2012 anyway. Instead, work to reform the primary system. That means that you’ll have to become an active member of your state party organization, and you’ll have to contact and influence party insiders. It means you’ll have to define what a “better system” would be — closed primaries, approval balloting, smoke-filled rooms, whatever — and come up with arguments that will convince other people. And it means you’ll almost certainly have to spend your own money and a lot of your free time in the process of getting the changes though … with no guarantee that you’ll succeed.
On the other hand, it would be a lot easier to just pontificate on blogs about maintaining your political purity. Be sure to wash your hands afterward.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:17 amESTI’m a little confused with the panic that is going on here. Do people here really believe that the country is one presidency away from total catastrophe? That it avoids destruction only by few thousand votes every few years?
Sorry, but the idea that the USA is that fragile is ludicrous. If the USA was really so pathetically delicate, it would have collapsed long ago. (To say nothing of the fact that if one really believes this, the only way to protect the USA would be to abolish democracy, since American’s are obviously within a hair’s breadth of embracing self-destruction.)
There’s a particular myopia (more evident in the left with GWB in power), where one believes that the entire turning point of world (or at least national) history is *right now*, and if we deviate from the one true path, we’re doomed. GWB got in for 8 years, and funnily enough, the left’s predictions of total right-wing take-over have failed to materialize. If Obama gains power, the USA will still be here in 2012, and oddly enough, not that changed.
The course of the USA is only partially determined from Washington, and pretending that the next president will the difference between a sunny future and oblivion is historical arrogance of the highest order (as well as a shocking display of a one’s lack of confidence in the strength of the United States).
June 1st, 2008 at 10:05 amESTTom West says:
Oh. Then, please explain the modern history of the United States, following the election of Ronald Reagan back in 1980. I remember very, very well the “semi-oblivion” track one James Earl Carter had us riding on before he was sent packing, only to spend the next 28 years lying about, and belittling the accomplishments of other Presidents.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:57 amEST