Would you, could you, vote McCain?
Here’s some straight talk about John McCain from New Hampshire voters, via the Boston Globe. The voters’ main concerns: He’s a Ted Kennedy shamnesty supporter and he’s too old:
The Manchester Union Leader attacks Romney as a Johnny-come-lately on behalf of McCain–himself a Johnny-come-lately (and not a very sincere one) on immigration enforcement.
Uuuuggghh.
Allah is depressingly right about this:
I’m not looking forward to nine months of “well, he beats the alternative” posts next year, but then we’re pretty much guaranteed that no matter who wins the nomination.
Thomas Sowell also speaks for me:
None of the candidates looks truly inspiring at this point. I wouldn’t buy a used car from most of them, nor a brand new car from some of them…
… John McCain seems to be having a little resurgence but it is hard to believe that Republicans are so desperate as to support a man who joined with far left Democrat Russ Feingold to restrict free speech in the name of “campaign finance reform” and with Ted Kennedy to sponsor a bill giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.
…This nation has come back from unpromising times before. Let’s hope that we have not already used up all our luck.
Today’s MM.com poll question:
Would you, could you, vote McCain?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: “Never Surrender”
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Political Bits and Pieces
- Riehl World View
- NH Union Leader Assesses Mitt Romney « Blogs 4 Conservatives
- Publius Pundit
- NixGuy.com » Would you, could you, vote McCain?
- Voting For Ron Paul? — Pirate’s Cove
- Michelle Malkin » It depends on the meaning of “never”
- One Old Vet - It depends on the meaning of “never”
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » New McCain ad: It’s the jihad, stupid
- car ford part used
- No McCain : “7.62mm Justice” ™
- No McCain « PA Pundits
- Michelle Malkin » The New Hampshire verdict; NBC, Fox calls it for McCain
- GOP sources: Romney to suspend campaign - Page 7 - Debate Politics Forums
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%
Nobody here has yet answered the fundamental question – how is John McCain any better than any of the Dems. When they support the same stuff – the one in sheeps clothing is actually more dangerous than the one with big teeth showing.
Don’t get me wrong – Hillary would be horrendous for the country. Obama would be horrendous, Dodd – Horrendous, Biden – horrendous. Kucinich – good for mars? The RINO’s would also be horrendous. We can’t afford a RINO – they will get us to the exact same place as the dems doing it covertly – as opposed to explicitly.
Under no circumstance will I vote for one of the RINO bunch.
Like the wizard said…NO WAY, NO HOW!!!
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Never would I pull the lever for McCain. He may be right of Hillary, but they’re standing shoulder to shoulder, so it’s no difference which would win.
Never…ever.
God Bless John McCain for his military service. Beyond that, he’s just another RINO politico expanding the government and undermining our liberties. Everybody swears to uphold the constitution when elected, then immediately sets to undermining it through grotesque legislative processes, lobbying and corruption. Rep. Paul’s constitutional platform therefore is very appealing.
Not a chance.
Carter won in 1976 and in 1980 the Democrats were decimated and Reagan was elected. If we keep voting for lesser evils like McCain, the whole spectrum will continue to shift to the left, and the lesser evils will be farther and farther to the left.
Carter won in 1976 and in 1980 the Democrats were decimated and Reagan was elected. If we keep voting for lesser evils like McCain, the whole spectrum will continue to shift to the left, and the lesser evils will be farther and farther to the left.
What is ironic about it? 13% of people said they will stay home if he gets the nod. What percent of the 13% will complain if Shill is elected? Those are sure people I will have little tolerance for.
Like I said earlier, if for no other reason, go and cancel out a liberal’s vote. That will do the rest of us a favor.
I don’t think it’s a favor to the conservative movement (an entirely different animal than today’s Republican party) to allow someone wearing the cloak of conservativism to implement liberal policies so that conservativism can be blamed for the results and move us even further left. How are we supposed to come back from that scenario?
I feel the same way. If we keep voting, will that only encourage this type of politician? Or is it a case of, if we don’t vote, we can’t complain.
McCain was RIGHT on the war when all the Dems and many R’s weren’t. McCain says that he’ll tackle government waste by cutting spending – Dems say they will fix the problem by raising taxes. McCain says he’ll build the fence (he supported building the fence during amnesty, and HE wasn’t the one calling people against it ‘bigots’).
I can list all the things I dislike about him too. And I never thought I’d post anything positive about him, but the choices are terrible.
How’s this for a scenario. . . McCain/Bloomberg. That way McCain shuts down the concept of a Bloomberg 3rd party and he gets the resources of a billionaire for the campaign. He likely wins NY, FL, and CA and no Hillary.
I’m not saying I like any of this. . . it’s all political theater. Very entertaining.
Here’s the thing. Since the Republican Party knows that conservatives are going to vote for them no matter what, they’re not particularly worried about courting the conservative vote. Why should they bother sucking up to conservatives who are going to vote for them no matter what when they can adopt a liberal stance and possibly attract moderate liberal votes as well as the conservative vote.
The Republican Party will only return to conservative values when they start losing conservative votes. If voters start leaving the Republican Party for more conservative political parties, you can bet the Republicans will start asking themselves what they need to do to get those voters back.
Don’t believe me? The Democrats partly blame Ralph Nader and the Green Party for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Ever since then the Democrats have been moving farther left to try and bring those voters back into the fold. Its the same principle.
You want the Republican Party to ditch the RINOs and move back to the Right? Then vote but don’t vote Republican. Vote for whatever conservative third party candidate you can find who most closely matches your views.
Sure, we might wind up with a Democrat president and congress. So what? That’s the situation we had in ‘92 but we survived it and in ‘94 we got a Republican controlled congress with Newt Gingrich in a leadership position and the Contract With America.
Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only real conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, and the only candidate who can unite all three pillars of the Republican Party, namely, fiscal conservatives; national security and defense conservatives; and religious conservatives. The Republican party, given that the nation is divided, cannot afford to alienate any of these pillars, or they will lose in the general election, as a sufficient number of the alienated pillar’s constituents will simply not cast a vote for president when they vote. This is not an attempt to intimidate Republican voters, but merely a recognition that there are certain conservative voters who simply will not violate their own principles and vote for someone they have fundamental disagreements with, or do not trust. For example, Governor Romney, has not provided a satisfactory answer in the minds of many religious conservatives in his efforts to explain the change from pro-choice to pro-life. They want to know the motivation, and need to be convinced that it was not political. This matter remains unresolved, and thus alienates a proportion of religious conservatives who would otherwise support him as the party’s nominee – regardless of his own religious persuasion. Mayor Guiliani also has a similar problem with religious conservatives, given his personal position on abortion; and promising to appoint strict constructionist judges will not vitiate the conflict with pro-life constituents. Religious conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice Republican nominee – even if it means electing Senator Clinton president. They will not violate a moral conviction. They will simply adopt the attitude – God’s will be done, and maintain their conviction. Governor Huckabee alienates fiscal conservatives as a result of his tax and spend policies during his tenure in Arkansas. Senator McCain, terminally severed his relationship with a proportion of national security conservatives through his aggressive support of the proposed comprehensive immigration agreement, which failed as a result of a citizens’ uprising against this legislation; his opposition to the tax cut policy of the Bush Administration; and his opposition to aggressive interrogation techniques on high value captured terrorists.
Senator Thompson has none of the foregoing problems. He is strong on defense of the nation during a time of war, and has already committed to a substantial increase in the size of our military to fight the enemy threatening our survival; will seal the border, and reverse illegal immigration through attrition; will maintain the current tax policy, and reduce taxes by instituting his proposed voluntary flat tax system with only two rates, one at 10% with no deductions; and the other 25% maximum with current deductions maintained. He will also lower the corporate tax rate to ensure US Corporations are operating at the same tax rates as foreign corporations. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is the only candidate to assemble a plan to address the impending social security system crisis – the “third rail” of American politics. The Senator is acceptable to religious conservatives as well, given his strong and long-standing pro-life position, which explains why he was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization, and many similar state organizations. As to the “fire in the belly” complaint , which is preferable, “Fire in the belly;” or the following leadership characteristics? Personal integrity; moral conviction; courage; perseverance; boldness; humility; analytical intelligence; calm and deliberate; decisiveness; understands historical context and timing; commitment; and vision. In short, the Senator will show more than adequate “fire in the belly” when he demonstrates to those attempting to destroy our beloved nation a backbone of iron and the fury of an adversary who will unleash a conflagration, if necessary, to preserve our sacred liberty. One must guard against being deceived by cliché terms such as “fire in the belly,” in the middle of a media driven political campaign, when there are substantially more important, and higher priority characteristics needed in the President of the United States, and leader of the free world.
For Republicans to win the White House, they must be united and have a large voter turnout among all three of their voting pillars, that is fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives. Senator Thompson, is the only candidate not alienating any of these voting pillars, and thus can galvanize their support. Accordingly, he is the best hope for Republicans in the 2008 national election. Indeed Senator Thompson can win the general election, and rest assured the other party knows it for the same reasons articulated herein; to wit: he unites the Republican constituencies and assures a large conservative voter turnout in the 2008 election.
Rip: Normally I would agree with you 100%,but this election is far too important .Under no circumstances should any Conservative sit this one out.The stakes are too high;any Republican is better than what the Democrats have to offer.The Democrats already have a majority in the Legislative branch,we cannot afford to give them the Executive as well,even if we have to elect a RINO.
blues: There will never be a good time. Every election will be “far too important”. You’ll keep voting for Republicans and they’ll keep up their gradual slide into liberalism because you and voters like you will have given the thumbs up to them continuing to conduct business as usual.
The situation will never get better, it will only get worse and worse, until conservative voters force the Republicans to pay attention by shifting their votes to other parties. It is only when those votes are seen as being in play, i.e. up for grabs, that the Republican party will feel it actually needs to do something to earn conservative votes.
Did you bother to read my comment? I was extremely specific about what the irony is.
13%? Is that all you see? What is it you’re missing in the poll results? How about an additional 27% who would rather be waterboarded? How about another 2% who would vote for Hillary.
The reality is that nearly half of conservatives will NOT vote for McCain, and I’d predict the numbers are nearly as bad for Huckabee or Giuliani.
Again, read my comment again. It will be the very same people who nominated the fool in the first place who end up doing most of the whining about all the liberal decisions he’s sure to make.
If you don’t want to spend the next four years whining … then vote for the true conservative in the race and stop selling out your convictions.
Why the Hell would I want to do a favor for the morons who helped to destroy this country by nominating a complete fraud to represent us? All Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani supporters deserve exactly what they get, which will be a liberal President.
NO MATTER WHAT:
NO to McCain
NO to Rudi
NO to Fred
NO to Huckabee
NO to Mitt
NO to Newt
So far, Duncan Hunter is the only one still in it that I will consider voting for.
There are a few other names I’d seriously consider writing in, in the General Election, if Duncan doesn’t get the nomination.
But the RINOS of the GOP won’t get my vote, no matter what.
Who’s the Carrot – Who’s the Stick?
I’m not looking to be an old car tire tied to the neck of a fiesty donkey!
If I cannot be the worst nightmare of the
DemocratSocialist Party of the USA, the least I can do is let them know what I think of them.A vote for McCain or Rudi or Fred is a vote that says, “Oh Gee whiz, Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy, Bill Vacuum Cleaner Nose Clinton – [giggle giggle giggle tee hee hee] – you are just going tooooo fast for me! I swear! I do declare! [tee hee hee hee hee!]”
Good Grief! How could you ever go to heaven and face George Washington with THAT on your conscience!
AMEN! AND AMEN!!
You said it, Brother! I gawr-own-TEE!
Why should we make the idiots feel better for them sitting in the hull of the boat going after it with all their little old-fashioned manual drills, making holes as fast as they can all over the hull til it looks like swiss cheese, and they want us to stay in their boat and bail, so they can pretend that drilling holes in the hull 2,000 miles from any land or other ship is a wonderful party game.
But we are the party poopers because we want THEM to stop drilling holes faster than anyone can repair them!
No way I am sitting it out, but neither will I vote for a RINO, or I should say, a CINO – Conservative In Name Only.
I don’t care what party – but trying to vote for a Conservative DOES rule OUT the Dim Party, automatically!
I’m not stuck on a PARTY and am perfectly happy to vote for a WRITE IN so that county and district and state clerks have to stay up a few minutes later for each such vote and write down the name, and tally that column, and submit a list of the names of write-ins to the State Secretary, and the party leadership has to get a list of the write-ins and try to figure out, what does THAT mean.
Mickey Mouse doesn’t tell them ANYTHING – but Ann Coulter, Oliver North, John Bolton, Tom McClintock, Michelle Malkin, etc – those names SAY SOMETHING.
When those elections board members lose a little sleep over the returns, because they had to stay up later and compose that list of write-ins, then at least I will have made my vote count.
I ain’t got no lemming qualities, and I ain’t impressed with the GOP slate, or the GOP National Committee.
They are looking a lot donkey-faced, this year! And that don’t remind me of what I am looking for.
I’m going to the polling booth to VOTE – NOT TO THROW UP!
If the Republican Party knows so darned much, they ought to know what cost them the elections in ‘76 and in ‘96.
Robert Dole didn’t lose because of H. Ross Perto!
Perot’s votes were NEVER Dole’s to lose.
Ditto the amount of Conservative voters that Ford needed to have defeated a peanut farmer from Georgia that nobody had ever heard of.
If the GOP wants to spit on the Conservative voters, so be it.
But we’ve proven that this nation is NOT interested in TWO SOCIALIST parties. If the Republicans want the Democrat vote, they can have it – but they won’t get BOTH the Democrats and also the Conservatives at the same time!
And they won’t get enough Democrats to win the Elections, either!
AMEN! THAT IS THE PERFECT NAIL!
I’ve already turned many from voting for Fred by reminding them Fred the former prosecutor voted NOT GUILTY for Bill’s PERJURY, and now claims that is the FOUNDING FATHERS’ philosophy about it, too! And that HE was the PRIMARY PUSHER for the McCain Feingold, and was McCain’s 2000 Campaign manager.
They don’t even need a discussion. He is OUT OF THE QUESTION!
Butt*&$$#-( of both McCain AND Clinton!!!
Kiss my grits!
The question here is really very, very simple: if forced into an undesirable situation of two unwanted candidates, would you vote anyway and choose the lesser of two evils for the sake of the country, or would you not?
If your answer is no, then in my opinion your patriotism in in very serious question to say the least. When our soldiers have to go out on dangerous missions where the odds are against them and it’s more likely than not they may lose their lives – these desperate situations happen, sometimes – do they say, “no, the situation isn’t good enough for me?”. No, they do it for God and country. And sometimes they do lose their lives – everything they have on earth, forever, with no second chances.
It irks me to my core to hear people self-righteously supposedly stand on principle in the most spoiled of ways simply because their choices aren’t warm and fuzzy enough for them to be suitably happy.
Pardon me for saying the obvious, but life isn’t that snuggy-wuggy, and there are no epithets strong enough to use against those who act as though voting unenthusiastically for the good of the country is simply more than they can possibly bear. Tell that to our soldiers.
Despite my hasty Dr Seuss knock-off, above, if it was McCain or Hillary Clinton, I would absolutely vote for McCain. I would never vote for McCain in a primary in a million years, but in a general election? Of course. I’d be sick as a dog to do it, but we have a responsibility to our kids and neighbors and troops – and ourselves.
Wake up and smell the coffee, idealists. The world needs your practical involvement, not self-righteous moral perfection.
I keep asking – how is McCain better than Hillary. As far as I can see – they have supported many of the same things (by actions – not words).
Everybody says “this is too important of an election to just stand by and let the dems have it”…well please explain to me how voting for ANY of the RINO’s in the field is any different. You wind up with the same legislation, the same governing principles, the same moral decline, the same reduction in freedoms.
ACTIONS people – not words. I don’t give a rip what they say now…what have they done/supported in their public (and private) life so far? I’m not saying people don’t change – in fact, they do. Just please show me evidence beyond talk.
With that said – the R’s have ?generally? (at least in principle) supported our troops while the D’s haven’t.
Rather than let a Democrat get elected, I would have put my X beside McCain…holding my nose all the way.
I must admit I voted for McCain over Bush in the 2000 NH primary. His BS on the immigration issue was the final straw for me after he didn’t support the Bush tax cuts.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I am through with voting for people who I believe will ultimately do this country more harm than good just because they’ll probably do less harm than the other guy.
This means you’re knowingly exposing the kids to this country to more evil than would otherwise be the case. It may make you feel more pure, but is it in reality really fair to the kids? Think on that one heavily before you answer.
“the lesser of two evils” is an expression. With all due respect, considering the inevitable result, I cannot help but wonder if posts like yours are written by liberal shills with the intention of influencing others so as to supress the conservative vote. It won’t be the first time such tactics were used.
Support the ones who beat Hillary in the national polls, then get out and vote when the time comes. Anything else puts your own idealism before the good of the country, and that is simply unpatriotic by the dictionary definition. Be a patriot. Vote for the one(s) who we know can beat the much worse opposition. Be practical. Be smart. Be patriotic.
Prefection is a dream, and the result of good hard work comes incrementally. Don’t stay home and have a hissy fit just because the better of the two ultimate candidates isn’t perfect.
Conservative_Cat – please explain how McCain is better than Hillary. Then we can have a discussion. So far, all you’ve done is appeal to emotion – it’s for the children.
Hillary is terrible for the country – but I’m at a loss to see how she’s worse than McCain.
If you get Hillary, I’m SURE all the R’s would line up against her. If you get McCain, how many R’s would stop him.
From a pragmatic standpoint, with Hillary, in fact the country might not be as bad off as with McCain.
I agree completely, which is why I’ve decided to support Rudy. No, he’s very far from perfect, but the guy gets the job done – what he did to NYC was miraculaous, I know, I was there – and has the best chance of beating Hillary according to the polls.
McCain, for me, has demonstrated just about nothing manifestly; just another player in the land of players, and has saddled up to Ted and Co once too often for my tastes.
But if it comes down to McCain or Hillary, you get bet your last buck I’ll be running to the polls for McCain. Hillary’s strident socialist dedication makes her genuinely no-kidding dangerous with a far-left congress and a far-left media, and there really is much practical reality behind the idea of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
CRus:
McCain better than Hillary:
Hillary: strident, anti-military socialist.
McCain: strident pro-military liberal republican.
Hillary: Fawning media gives a free pass always.
McCain: once wins presidency becomes the “enemy” of the press and they watch him very carefully – as it should be with all Presidents.
Hillary: will rubber stamp all that Pelosi and Reid send her which would be traumatic ultimatey for the united states – there isn’t an ounceof socio-political discipline between them.
McCain: will compromise like mad, but will at least feel an obligation to his constituants not to go too far left, while Hillary will feel an obligation to her constituants to go as far left as possible.
I don’t like McCain. In fact, I can’t stand him. But I’m no idealistic fool, either. If God forbid he gets the nod, I will vote for him in the general election as a duty to the country to keep it safer than it otherwise would be. Anything else is being a cry-baby. And yes, I’d do it also for the kids – they deserve better world than Hillary would “provide”. How much better? That depends on who we get as our candidate. But a little is better than none, if McCain, god forbid gets the nomination.
It isn’t complicated
Does that answer your question?
Most of the responders here will never smell the sweet scent of victory – their noses have been cleaved from their faces. This “my way or the highway” attitude is what undermines the Republican party. The vile attacks on John McCain’s sanity, heroism, ethics, and patriotism belong in a Hillary attack ad. I have had the honor of having dinner with him and found him to one of the most decent, honorable, selfless people I have ever met. I do not agree with every position he has, but respect that he has principled positions and sticks to them (maybe many of you are so used to politicians lying or pandering to you that you close your eyes to their reality). I and my family will not only vote for John McCain, we will write in his name if necessary.
Why is Thompson not getting more attention? Why are we even having to “look at” McCain? Good heavens, we have several candidates who are WAAAAYY more plausible!
I do not disagree with you for one second and I read and understood every word. I just have trouble with people who want to sit out because the guy they would not support did get the nod. Well hello Ron Paul! When asked if he did not get the nomination would he support any other candidate and emphatically said – “NO”.
My heart longs for a conservative who is not a politician. Am I going to get it? No way in hell. So, should I stay home if I do not like “not my choice”? Again, no way in hell.
I hate the idea of Giuliani getting the nod – hate it! In the end, I will NOT surrender my vote as I hate with a passion of passions the idea of Shill being POTUS.
We can play all kinds of “what ifs” and make this work. McCain is 72 years old. How about McCain/Cheney? I could live with Cheney being president (and it could happen) as it would make every liberals head instantly explode!
Wow! Conservative_Cat manages to get it all in. If I don’t support McCain, I am unpatriotic, and a liberal shill invading this web site. What can I say in the face of such reasoned argument?
You want to talk about the kids? Fine, lets talk about the kids? I’d rather be able to tell the kids that I tried to fix the problem than to have to tell them I was willing to let the country go to hell in a handbasket as long as a Republican was the leading the way.
“On December 26th, 2007 at 1:10 pm, gollumclone said:”
A president, ANY president, would have no say about Roe v. Wade, except to appoint judges who would likely vote to overturn it if presented. Bush has done what he could do in respect to Roe v. Wade.
DUNCAN HUNTER
DUNCAN HUNTER
DUNCAN HUNTER
IMO, not voting for a Republican is a vote for a Democrat. To sit home and not vote will hurt the country in the end. Anyone the Republicans end up with will be better than any of the Democrats running. My vote will in all probability be a vote against a Democrat rather than a vote supporting a Republican. I think that’s our option this election.
Agreed. That’s half the issue, though. The other hafl is the question “who can win”? This isn’t an average Presidential election coming up: with Hillary as the frontrunner the battle lines have been drawn to tremendous extremes. This isn’t just about higher taxes and military spending, as it usually is. What happens this upcoming 08 election will have huge impact for generations to come…world-changig impact, in the form of Hillary’s unabashed ideals. Hillary’s choice of judges, giving reid and pelosi whatever ultra-socilaist legislation they want, and doing all with no honest accountibility in the fawning kleft-wing press. This is gigantic for the nation, and ultimately horrendous for anyone with an ounce of belief that this cutry should remain a bedrock representative republic. I can’t think of a time historically when one person would have the power and inclination to change this nation so nightmarishly into the failed, bankrupt socialist model. Polling matters. Whoever looks to be stronger against Hillary in national polls should be the candidate. Considering the gigantic implications, this is a simple no-brainer, really.
Some people say they don’t want to just cast a vote against Hillary. Given the enormity of her radical ideals, I respectfully suggest that they are tragically, terribly wrong.
You got it dead wrong, read it again: if you sit out the election and don’t vote republican no matter who the candidate is because you’re being selfish to your own ideals then you’re not being a patriot. There’s a distinction. And I personally can’t stand McCain. Get it, wise guy?
Mr. Convervative Cat, I guess you try to intimidate those who disagree with you, rather than try to discuss things reasonably. Who really knows what McCain will do with judges? His conduct re the gang of 14 is not encouraging. His absence of comment on many of the complexities of the mideast is not encouraging. His advocacy of illegal imigration is not encouraging (recently, like Bush, he says he is for strong borders — what about Ramos and Compean, abuse of visas, etc.)? Proponents of the lesser evil always say that the present election is crucial and precedent-setting (hence the battlefield analogy I suppose), but at least in 1964 and 1976 this was not the case. You sound like one of the Republican elite; Guiliani, or now McCain, because only they can beat Hillary, meanwhile things drift more and more to the left. BTW, how do you know I’m a guy?
Mr_Conservative_Cat wrote:
I agree. We can’t undo decades of steps in the wrong direction in a single election. We have to take things one step at a time because there is no other option.
My problem with McCain is not that he’s not the “perfect” conservative candidate. It’s that he is an incremental step (several, in fact), but in the wrong direction. How can we expect to ever return our government to where it should be if we continue to vote for even more incremental steps towards our country’s destruction?
Yes, McCain would be fewer steps towards destruction than Hillary, but damage is damage. Ombre Rose got it right. Both parties are drilling holes in our ship of state. Just because one candidate will drill a few less holes than the other one does not mean that I am okay with letting him run amok with a drill. We have plenty of holes which need to be patched. Big, freakin’ holes which will take decades to repair as it is.
My bottom line question is this: Can we survive more holes being drilled? How long can we last before the ship sinks? Our bilge pumps (working taxpayers) are already straining at the load. I don’t know how much more we can take. All I know is that we’ve got to STOP drilling !@#$!@#%! holes!
I agree with most of your comments cat, but the polls actually show that McCain beats Hillary by a lot more than Rudy.
I don’t get this at all, but I don’t understand most of your response. Yes, McCain is a poor choice, but if you’re saying that Hillary is a better choice from a conservative standpoint, then I think you need to get your head examined. “Wise guy” is an expression which applies just as much to women as men. You’re off on some little geeky earth orbit, it seems to me. Thanks, but I won’t follow.
Absolutely right, but I didn’t propose the question put forth in this thread, “can you vote for John McCain”? There are a few people not reading the contents of this thread all that well. If you want to see how I feel about the guy, read post # 39, above. But it has been expressed by others that if McCain gets the nomination we should sit it out. NO! Is he a step in the right direction? Of course not. Is he better than Hillary? Alas, yes, and we should take the trouble to preserve what little we have in the general election if McCain gets the nomination. But do I think we should vote for him as the Republican candidate? Absolutely not. Only instead of Hillary if he actually gets the nomination. I think we probably agree on that.
This would be a dramatic recent shift. Could you point me to a link with those recent poll results? (I would discount some polls like MSNBC, of course, because they’re always trying to throw elections against Republicans by setting up the polls with loaded questions designed to ensure a certain result. Example: “Among conservatives, who do you feel has the best chance of creating a conservative administration if elected?” Huckabee gets the most votes. Headline: “Mike Huckabee conservative favorite to win election” knowing Hillary would eat him for lunch. We need to be careful who says what – and how.)
By the way, ThackerAgency, is your handle a reference to my favorite film, Citizen Kane?
I think that actually goes back to the way the poll was set up. The only choices those of us who cannot in good conscience pull the lever for McCain, ever, were sit out and I’d rather be waterboarded. In my case, there is no way I will sit out, even though that’s the choice I made in the poll.
If it becomes necessary, I will once again go third party, because I can only vote for someone who is a step in the right direction. Not voting is acquiescence to what others want. Voting for a “lesser evil” headed in the wrong direction tells them that I agree with that direction, even though I most emphatically do not. Only a vote for a candidate I think can take this country in the right direction will show those in power what that direction is, even if that person has no chance of winning because they’re not one of the big two.
I am obviously not alone in this thinking. Furthermore, there are lots of others who agree that McCain would do additional harm to this country and are only considering voting for him just to keep the Democrats out. I think both groups can agree that the Republican party has been sliding to the left and that it must stop. IMHO, the only way this can happen is if both groups unite and draw the line at electing RINOs.
Right now, the most viable option is to pull for a true conservative in the primary. If the majority of conservatives are truly suicidal enough to abandon their principles and (for whatever reason) choose a liberal pretending to be a conservative, then we will find ourselves in a no-win situation. Until then, this discussion is part of the argument about why we have to go to the mat now to get a true conservative selected in the primaries.
People – voting for a RINO is the SAME as voting for a Democrat except that the RINO won’t be opposed for their taking the USA down the wrong path where the Dem would be challenged by any with an R (well except by Spector, McCain and a few others). I personally can see how the USA would be better off with Hillary as POTUS than McCain. Hillary would be challenged, McCain wouldn’t.
Hunter?
I’d rather be waterboarded?
Given that he was tortured in service to our country-this is really in bad taste.
I was too young to vote for Reagan. My first “choice” was Bush I or Dukakis. I voted for the lesser of 2 evils and he caved to the dems. I voted for him again as the lesser of 2 evils and ended up with Billy-boy anyway. The GOP offered up Dole because it was “his turn” and I held my nose and voted GOP. Then Georgy boy came along. I campaigned for him. By the 2004 election I had to squeeze my nose again to block the rotting RINO stench. He fooled me the first time. I have voted for the lesser of 2 evils 4 out of 5 times and was fooled the time I didn’t. I will not do it again!! I will punch the chad for the libertarian instead.
I agree with Rus and some others here but would differentiate the contrasting opinions as long term vs short term outlooks. Short term having a RINO rather than any of the dem candidates is better. However, long term, passing on a RINO now is probably better for our long-term survival and likelihood of turning back to the conservative, small government, individual liberty, personal responsibility platform that made this country great. As someone said earlier,given that the policies of a RINO are going to be similar to those of a Democrat, might as well let someone with a (D) behind their name take the blame for the failure. The only really scary part of that proposition is SCOTUS nominees. That is the only reason that I foresee for my even considering throwing up in my mouth a little and voting for Guiliani, McCain or Huckster or holding my nose and voting for Romney.
I could not vote for McCain under any circumstances…he is a carbon copy of Bush…libs at heart. I’d vote for local, state and fed candidates and pass on the presidency if it were to be McCain or Rotten Clintoon.
If we don’t step up and demand a Conservative we’ll get stuck with a liberal, its that simple.
On December 27th, 2007 at 11:58 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
The two highlighted names of ‘Rudy’ and ‘McCain’ will take you to the head to head polls at Real Clear Politics in the post that you referenced.
As for the name, I use it as a weak attempt at marketing. I sell insurance, and it’s thackeragency.com
Brand name awareness, building a brand or whatever. The only problem is that I’m a terrible agent with customer service. I’m trying to set it up automatic. If I wasn’t so lazy, I’d be a lot richer.
I wouldn’t vote for McCain, even if you tased me, bro.
Which is the same as sitting it out by any practical measure, because the third party will get nowhere and Hillary will become President of the United States. For real. That may make you feel noble of conscience but how does that help your country and the people in it?
Hillary, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Belafonte, Wolf blitzer and millions of others will thank you for being so true to your idealistic views, and putting the entire sum total military, socio-political and legislative power of the United States straight into the hands of the people who represent the worst of the direction you don’t want to go. Congradulations on that brilliant maneuver.
Provided they show a chance in the polls of beating Hillary.
#
And who will report on the R challenging Hillary? the fawning pro-left press? This is ridiculous. McCain would be challenged because he is a republican, Hillary wouldn’t be because she isn’t. All the republicans in the world could challenge Hillary and the best you could hope for is the same reporting that you get on the good things our soldiers are doing in Iraq. No, Hillary as President means she does what she wants with no challenge…. just like she wasn’t challenged by the press when she ran for senator; just like she isn’t being challenged now. plenty of Rs are challenging her about chinese money connections and a host of issues. Do you hear about it in the press? No. The only difference is she isn’t President – yet. But with strategies like the one you’re outlining, she will be soon.
#
When you say “long term” I guess you mean very long term, because the next near decade will see Hillary and the dems in absolute control of everything, moving the nation and what is percieved as the political center gigantically to the left in ways this country has never seen and may not even be able to imagine. So are you talking one hundred years or two?
And just who do you make this demand to? Who fulfils this desire you have? It’s an honest question and it’s asked legit. How do you make this demand come true?
Thacker, I’ll check all the latest polls. It’s extraordinarily bad news for the general election if McCain, or Hillary Light as I think of him, is siphoning votes away from Giuliani.
I’m talking over the next 4-6 years. If dems take the White House I would anticipate that they will have both the presidency and the congress for 2 years. When that happens the GOP tends to finally get back to it’s roots as it did with the Contract with America in ‘94. I would anticipate that in 2010 the GOP would take back the Congress or close to it, and that in 2012 regain the presidency setting up a 1980 type situation but controlling the congress or at least having a near majority going into 2012. That could set up 12 years of GOP in the White House.
I’m really starting to think that we do better with one party in congress and another in the white house. When they are shared by the same party, the party in charge goes nuts with spending and programs. It is only when they are fighting so much that they can’t get much done that We, The People are left alone to be be successful as a nation.
What do you imagine is the worst case scenario if Hillary Clinton is President for that long with the current congressional control and is it worth gambling that on your conplex theory being wrong in any number of critical aspects?
Based on what that you can point to, specifically?
Based on what and what are the consequences if you’re wrong?
Based on what, assuming that the press continues to ignore democrat failings and exaggerate those of Republicans to the voting public, influencing them the way they did in the last congressional elections?
If not a single presumtive aspect of you theory goes awry.
There is something to this assuming that the different branches are controlled by moderates. This is not the case in congress right now and that changes everything.
Your theory is interesting, but I’d contend that the stakes are much too high to gamble on several presumptions even the best political analysists probably couldn’t agree on.
It’s not ’siphoning off votes’. There are two head to head polls. One has Rudy vs. Hillary (click) and one has McCain vs. Hillary (click).
It shows in a head to head match up, Rudy trails Hillary by 1.8% nationally. But in a separate poll head to head match up McCain leads Hillary by 5% nationally and is extending that lead over her. (Those polls are averages of several polls at Real Clear Politics).
I’m not endorsing McCain, I’m just sayin click the links.
It is definitely only a theory – actually more of a guess based on lots of factors. We are 11 months out from the election also and a lot may change or be said to make many of us change our minds between now and then.
Here is another consideration – second terms. I don’t see Huckabee being a 2 term president. Too much like Jimmah. I think McCain and Guiliani will alienate the conservatives to the point that they also would have a hard run at a 2nd term unless they can pull a lot of the centrist dems to their side which means a lot of governing left of center. Romney I’m enough on the fence about on certain issues to not state an opinion. Romney has hinted that he would sign a new assault weapons ban which would alienate a large section of the conservative base which, if mobilized by the NRA and GOA, could prevent a 2nd term.
It will be interesting if nothing else. We will likely have the SCOTUS ruling on the DC 2nd Amendment case before the election. Reactions to that could change a lot of things. The current situation in Pakistan could spiral and create new issues that could change things. Definitely lots can happen in the next 11 months.
McCain+Kennedy+amensty= just hanging on for the matching funds.
Conservative Cat,
You keep talking about the horrors of a Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama presidency. I don’t think anyone here (except the occasional liberal wading in foreign waters) disagrees that they would do significant damage to this country.
Where we may, or may not part ways is in where we think RINOs like a McCain are taking this country. The simple trend has been that our Republican presidents have been getting more and more liberal over the last several decades. For example, George Bush seems to be to the left of where JFK was only 40 years ago. McCain is to the left of GWB. As a result, it seems that if current trends continue, it may take 16 years for RINOs to take us to the same point that Hillary would take is in only 8 years.
Do you see why I am concerned about this trend? Whether it takes only 8 years or 16 years, we’re still heading for a heap ‘o trouble. Only the timeframe is different.
So far, you’ve argued vociferously that we need to focus on keeping the more dangerous person out of office. The reason I simply cannot agree is quite simple: you have not given any explanation at all about how doing things your way will even stop the slide towards destruction, nevermind making any steps towards a correction.
It’s quite simple. To most politicians, only the votes matter. Here are the three options I gave you previously laid out in a different fashion:
1) Don’t vote: Tells the politicians that they can safely ignore you and do whatever the heck they want.
2) Vote for a RINO: Tells the politicians that you agree with what they’re doing, therefore they will keep doing it.
3) Vote for a true conservative: Tells the politicians that they are missing out on votes because they’re not doing those things which the 3rd party candidate espouses. If this number is large enough, the large party politicians may either change their minds or be replaced by different politicians more in tune with those voters.
If you think these three vote based points are wrong, tell me which is wrong and why. If you think there is any other way for average Americans to influence the politicians, I’d love to hear that too.
Just remember this: Even our “lesser evil” president, Mr. George W. Bush, attacked the 80% of Americans who are in favor of enforcing the immigration laws; and he did in the face of a huge outcry against amnesty.
Sounds so pragmatic and realistic – til you realize – they are the SAME! Who’s the Carrot? Who’s the Stick?
SHOW US how one of them is better than the other?
You guys NEVER CAN, so you just start calling us NAMES because we are going to vote for SOMEONE ELSE, regardless of the consequences.
If McCain were better than Hillary, then why did Hanoi John let McCain take several MONTHS of Kerry’s precious time deciding IF he wanted to be a DIM VEEP to Hanoi John, or not??????
GOOD GRIEF!
There is no subject you can bring up in which I trust McCain better than Hillary to do the right thing, ESPECIALLY regarding JUDGES after his baloney over Abu Ghraib and Gitmo – and McCain Feingold/Thompson.
Don’t try to blackmail ME into supporting that weird little Manchurian Candidate so you can get the LIBERALISM in Govt that YOU want at MY expense!
You go round up some druggies or something who don’t care what kind of govt they have to help you vote for this Liberal Socialist. The kind that stay smashed in some hashish house regardless of what dictator is in power.
Some say he was – some who were there say he was not.
He himself once said he was sorry but he didn’t have the fortitude to take pain.
Regardless, at this point, he has demonstrated his sympathies lie with the terrorists, not with American soldiers, and not with American POWS or MIAS. He helped exacerbate both the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo scandals and then heaped another anti-torture bill to slap our soldiers square and solid in the face in the height of it all.
I won’t help put him in as Commander in Chief when the discipline and heart of the military always WAS not to break under pressure, and now remains so, in spite of his own example.
He stands shoulder to shoulder with Hanoi John and Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy.
I have no vote for him. It ain’t happening.
If you moderate RINO lovers want Hillary as your Prexy, just nominate McCain.
Remember ‘76 and ‘96 – Ford and Dole!
Not voting for a little man with a hot temper, who was last voted in as Senator of his state by the votes of Democrates, while being UNANIMOUSLY CENSURED by the GOP CAUCUS OF ARIZONA, because he was more pleasing to the DIMS of Arizona than their own Dim candidate.
That Dims will cross over and vote for him in the GOP Primaries just doesn’t impress me with his “electability”.
I won’t stand before God with a vote for him on my record, for me to have to answer for.
There isn’t a nation on the planet that NEEDS any Socialist in ANY office, much less in control of any branch or dept of a govt. AT ALL!
They surely don’t need a Socialist party holding down any percentage of the govt power, either.
Several parties are great – but NONE of them needs to be a SOCIALISTic one – just to have an “alternative viewpoint”.
On those home remodeling shows, do they ALWAYS supply one guy with the wrecking ball and crane who gets to turn himself loose at will at any stage of CONSTRUCTION that he wants to? IN THE NAME OF FAIR AND BALANCED?????
~~~La Dee Dah~~~
Gee, guys! THAT just ain’t happening, and yet, all the guys who show up at the remodel all have different ideas about how to procede – WITHOUT A WRECKING BALL being in charge of operations!
EVER!
Man, you have SO hit THAT NAIL squarely on the head!
I want a REVERSE – a TOTAL REVERSE!!! Not a SLOW SLIDE on an AVALANCHE!
You are so dead right – who cares if the avalanche comes down in 5 seconds or 3 hours?
McCain won’t reverse. Neither will Fred, Rudi, or Huckabee, or Newt, or Mitt.
I’m prolly gonna vote for Duncan Hunter in the Primary.
Heckman and Ombre Rose.
Yes, it is pragmatic, and you keep missing the exceptionally simple point many of us are making, and doing so like like blind marksman, and maybe you are blinded – by anger because things aren’t just 100% wonderfully and exactly as you would idealistically want them. Let me try to S-P-E-L-L T-H-I-S O-U-T:
McCain is terrible. I didn’t write that hasty little Dr Suess knock-off in post #39 because I love him (read it if you haven’t). How I feel about him should be clear to a third-rate idiot at this point.I never said his capitulation to leftist agendas was good. I am quite certain he would make a pretty poor President. Possibly an awful one.
That having been clarified – finally, I hope – what I said was, and please put on your G*dd*mm thinking caps for a change so I don’t have to explain it for a fourth or fifth time, okay?
IF – GOD FORBID – MCCAIN GETS THE NOMINATION WHICH IN CASE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND FROM THE PHRASIOLOGY OF THE FIRST SEVEN WORDS OF THIS SENTENCE IS NOT A GOOD THING, YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY BECAUSE HE WOULD BE BETTER THAN HILLARY, AND IF YOU STUPIDLY THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE WITH SPOILED, SELF-AGGANDIZING “PROTEST VOTES”, HILLARY IS WHAT YOU’LL GET. IT’S WHAT WE’LL ALL GET, NO THANKS TO YOU. WON’T THAT BE WONDERFUL? OR ARE YOU JUST – AND I REALLY DO WONDER IF IT’S ACTUALLY TRUE -LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO BITCH ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE THINGS ARE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS SO YOU CAN DO WHAT IT MAY BE THAT GIVES YOU THE MOST PLEASURE – GRIPE, COMPLAIN AND BE MISERABLE? IF SO, FIND ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE THE REST OF US WON’T ENJOY SUFFERING WITH YOU.
In the name of all that isn’t as stupid as your voting strategies, what is it about practical, rudimentary common sense that you two just don’t understand?
Cat apparently is willing to sell his soul because he THINKS a RINO is better than Hillary. I am not willing to sell my soul for that – I need to at least have some reasonable assurance it will be better. McCain killed Able, Guilable, Huckster, RomHeel all have by past actions done NOTHING to convince me otherwise.
I would rather have poison in the bottle labeled poison than in the bottle labeled water. Apparently Cat, wants his poison in a bottle labeled water.
Obviously, I disagree with the basic eventuality of your expressed views in which the vast majority of Americans will suffer from misguided socialism because you need to keep yourself somehow in a state of absolute spiritual purity rather than compromise to the best effect in the real world. I hate to be blunt but in context – emphasis, there – I hope you realize how really sick this sounds; pathologically selfish and self-aggrandizing in a fantasy-world kind of way. In your view, we will all suffer as will our kids because you can’t intellectually seperate politics from poisoning of your soul in actual reality. I wouldn’t personally subject my neighbors and loved ones to that, but I won’t debate it with you – you seem genuinely and unsettlingly beyond any practical reason.
I hope you’re a liberal shill trying to supress the conservative vote. I’d hate to think you were both conservative and serious.
Conservative Cat,
You keep saying the same thing over and over. Purity vs. compromise. Purity vs. compromise. Ad hominem. Purity vs. compromise. Now how about addressing the points I asked you about?
1) Am I incorrect about the 3 voting options and what they tell the politicians? Yes or no? If no, why are they incorrect?
2) If there are ways of reliably getting politicians to revert to actual conservatism other than actually voting for true conservatives, what are they?
3) You still have not explained how voting for someone worse than our current president even stops the slide into statism/socialism. You seem to think that it should be obvious to us, but it is not. To me, moving towards socialism is moving towards socialism. The speed of that movement means relatively little. Please explain how doing things your way will actually stop the move towards total government control and eventually return us to the system of government the Founding Fathers designed.
Bonus question: When I look at the history of the Republican party over the last 40 years or so, I see a definite and obvious move to the left. Your arguments seem to imply that you don’t think this is actually happening. But rather than guess what you think about this, I would prefer that you make it clear. Do you think the Republican party is actually moving to the left?
It looks like Conservative Cat is a one-man band. Who’s paying him?
No, smart and necessary practicality over self-destructive idealism. Purity didn’d get into this until that last guy went quasi-spiritual on us, and a very wierd and unsettling moment it was, too.
I honestly have no idea what the hell you’re even talking about. What 3 options?
Once again, when was this ever brought up? I will say this, though; some people here seem to think that McCain is no worse than Hillary. I refer you to post #85, but you don’t seem to comprehend the common sense of what some of us – not just me -are saying, so I’m not sure what good it will do, except to help block others from being influenced by idealistic idiots and liberal shills to sit out the 08 election. Which is quite obviously what is happening here to some extent.
Your lack of common sense here is mind-rattling, really. Is the world so black and white and your own place in it so – yes, here we go – pure that you can say something as absurdly self-destructive as that and mean it?
Now this is easy. We’re at a crossroads of exceptional left-wing extremes. Newt has been emasculated by the press and Hunter relegated to a media void. There are no ideal solutions, and I agree with that. In fact, I insist it’s true. But you and a few other very loud voices here are demanding 100% all at once or you’ll pout and stamp your foot and take your toys and go home, like spoiled, undesciplined little infants. No. You do the smart thing.You take what you can reliably get now and push forward in the future. You don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater in a hissy fit, and that’s what we’re hearing from a few loud people here – a hissy fit. “Waaaaaa! I want my ultimate conservative! Waaaaaa!”
Which real world do you live in, anyway?
No. You take what you can get. We don;t have the option of voting for Reagan vs Carter this time around, get it? By throwing in the towel and acting like infantile jerks – or liberal shills, and I’m quite certain a couple of you are(your lack of common sense absolutely stinks of attempted manipulation, in case you didn;t know) you give it all to a President with the congress she needs to destroy the country. But you’d have that, right? That’s your version of a temper tantrum. Smash the country if it isn’t exactly the way the baby wants it. Then you can sit around and do what you do best: pout and bitch and whine how things aren’t the way you like them.
Bonus question: When I look at the history of the Republican party over the last 40 years or so, I see a definite and obvious move to the left.
40 years means 1967. I guess you missed the Reagan Revolution. Read about it sometime. Those were great days.
Not the way you describe it, of course not. are we too far left now? of course, that’s why we have the watered down choices we have. But do your country a service and stop being a pathetic baby, suck in your gut and move the world a little bit away from where it might otherwise go. that’s your productive opinion. If you’re grown-up enough to be posting here, you’re grown up enough to be at least responsible enough to do that.
But rather than guess what you think about this, I would prefer that you make it clear. Do you think the Republican party is actually moving to the left?
Yes and no. I think the mainstream media is the ultimate enemy because they’ve been very successfully brainwashing (that’s the word, let’s not be coy)this country for 50 years easily. The problem republicans face is that in order to remain visable (ask Hunter) you need to at least manage to be on their radar. Go too far and be successful at the same time and they’ll destroy you the way they destroyed Newt, and they did destroy Newt. Yes, his quasi-infidelity was the last straw of his own making, but they were maginalizing him with a ginsu knife long before that. If the next President is a Republican, it’s vitally important that he do what Bush was tragically incapable of doing – use the bully pulpit to swing public opinion and force the media along with the nation, at least to some extent. In my Opinion “America’s Mayor” (already becoming an MSM enemy because he’s drifting to the right) can do that and we can trust that he will for one very important reason -he has had a hate/hate relationship with the media going back to pre-Sept 11th days, and unlike the other candidates except Fred Thompson has been the only one unafraid to make pointed attacks against them. that’s what Reagan did (maybe he learned that one from the gipper; he was in Reagan’s justice department)). That’s what the next one needs to do, too. That’’s how the country can start to turn around. Not in a day. Not in a year. But maybe halfway there in four. And if he wants to be President again we have to hold him to some pretty strong promises or we’ll look elsewhere, and as an incumbant he’ll have the political capital to move more right without being afraid of the media doing him in, as would now be the case (and is becoming the case). And he’ll need to at least make those promises for re-election. If Hillary gets in with pelodsi and the MSM, you can write the conservative cause off for another 20 years. Your baby-assed hissy fit will ensure that. Will you be proud that you voted your conscience when she gets sworn into office? if so, you’re living in an egotistical dream world.
Nobody pays me, but they should considering how much I’ve put into this thread. I wasn’t a one-man band earlier in this thread, but I think smarter heads prevailed and realized that this thread would just go away and not make or break the world. Being not stupid is something I’m pretty passionate about however, so I;ve stuck it out for the hell of it. Maybe a few other voices will chime in, now. I’ve made my case, and I doubt any dissenting views having the last word at this point will make them sound any more reasonable at the end of this thread then they did the first time they started acting like spoiled, selfish, country-destroying, egotistical cry-babies.
Wow. Fascinating. Any chance anyone other than myself just happens to think that McCain might be the best candidate? Maybe vote for him not because he’s the best choice available but actually the best choice?
No wonder you’re not getting my point. You apparently didn’t even read what I wrote. I made this argument TWICE!
Pure ad hominem. Why can’t you get this? An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and does absolutely nothing because it is not an argument consisting of facts and conclusions. It seems that you cannot use anything but ad hominem attacks because you have no real argument for this point.
John McCain is clearly less conservative than George W. Bush, a man who is no sterling example of conservatism. That means that electing him would be moving the country farther to the left. How does voting for someone who is less conservative move us towards a government which is more conservative.
Gee, there’s that purity vs. compromise theme again, coupled with yet another ad hominem attack. Joy, oh, joy.
Why are we the ones who always have to compromise? Why can’t the leftists start to compromise for a change?
Here is the problem with always compromising. Joe Lowbrow wants to beat you to death. You don’t want him to beat you at all but you’re not strong enough to stop him, so you agree to a compromise. He can beat you half to death. Later Joe comes back to finish the job, but you’re still strong enough to force another compromise. Now you’re 75% dead. One more compromise leaves you 87.5% dead. How much compromise will it take before Joe actually accomplishes his goals and you are simply dead?
Furthermore, I’m really starting to get pissed off at your constant repeated use of the “purity” strawman fallacy. A pure position would be one were all the unconstitutional activities (such as social security, welfare, federal dept. of education, etc.) all are to be ended on the day a new president is sworn in. I have never once argued for such an ideologically pure result. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I have pointed out that repairing the current problems will take a long time and that an ideologically pure overnight reversal simply is not possible.
Your persistent attempts to mischaracterize my relatively mild position of “Stop creating new freakin’ problems!” tells me that you are not actually interested in serious discussion of these issues, rather that you are only interested in winning at all costs, even if that means cheating. Using the strawman fallacy is exactly that type of cheating.
Really?!? I didn’t realize all the primaries were already over and that a RINO already won.
Ad hominem again. It’s really tempting to throw a few back your direction, but I know better. I’m not the one throwing around logical fallacies then claiming that my opponent is the one who is illogical.
No I didn’t. What makes the Reagan Revolution so notable is that for the first time in decades, the trend towards more socialism/statism was actually reversed.
Unfortunately, that was a singular reversal. We thought we had gotten a similar reversal in Congress in 2004, but it turns out that the Republicans pissed it away through profligate spending and other horrid policies. As a single exception, it does not prove that the Republican party is remaining conservative. Rather, it serves to highlight the leftward drift because of its obvious deviation from the trend.
There’s that ad hominem thing once again. This time there’s at least a glimmer of a true argument mixed in with it.
As I’ve repeatedly stated, by all appearances, McCain is to the left of Bush and just marginally to the right of Clinton. Putting him into office would definitely move this country away from conservatism. How is that moving the world in the right direction? Or even stopping the movement in the wrong direction?
If we are like a rubber raft full of people headed towards a waterfall, I don’t see it making any sense whatsoever to paddle even a few strokes toward that waterfall. Instead, we need to paddle like heck for the shore, and only then start working our way back upriver. It’s not a matter of “purity”, it’s a matter of survival. Why do you seem to be so insistent on throwing in the towel when the fight is nowhere near over?
I agree that the MSM (which I think of as new media) is a major driving force here. But I contend that they are not alone. The education system and popular culture (primarily, movies, television, and music) are also the other big movers.
The problem is, as you’ve pointed out, they are setting the terms of the debate. They control the microphone. The education and pop culture set the worldview and preconceptions. As you’ve correctly pointed out, they attack and destroy their enemies who dare to step off their socialist imposed reservations. In other words, they’re winning and the leftward movement we are seeing in the Republican party is because of this influence.
I must admit to a certain amount of fatalism in this regard. Politics winds up being a reflection of the thinking of the majority, though it trails that majority by a number of years. Unfortunately, it seems like the number of socialists in our country is growing while the number of conservatives is declining. I don’t see us being able to win this fight to break the cycle described by Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler:
Given that cycle, it seems that we are doomed to fail unless we do something. Furthermore, it seems that only aggressive action has any hope whatsoever of breaking this cycle.
My question is simple. Why not try? If we cannot possibly succeed, then by failing faster, maybe we can swing through the bottom of the cycle faster. If we do manage to somehow succeed, then we will have averted tremendous suffering.
However, there is one action were we can be sure of the outcome. Do nothing at all. Just go along for the ride. Based on the lessons of history, this is a guaranteed recipe for destruction.
Correction: When I think of “mainstream media” I think of the news media, which is distinct from popular culture which is spread primarily through movies, TV and music.
What?!?! Here’s another ad hominem attack for you: you’re crazy. And you are. Only someone crazy could make a self-assessment that ridiculous given the extremist position you hold that you would throw this country into the hands of a socialist revolution never seen in this country before if the Presidential options for your party aren’t conservative enough for you. Your arguements were never sublime, but they certainly have become rididicuous. And I know a couple of people on this board who think so also, but prefer not to mix it up with “ranters”, in case you think you’re making any headway in terms of persuading anyone.
But you’ll still watch your country go down in flames now rather than risk the slow version…. the slow version with some hope. Your position is beyond insane.
Gee, no sh*t. Except it isn’t sincere. Unlike some who really are just acting like spoiled cry-babies, you’re clearly a liberal shill trying to persuade others to sit out the election.
Oh yeah, sure, like throw everything into the hands of a socialist President with a socialist-led congress protected almost entirely from oversight by a socialist media. You’re right, that will stop the cycle alright – for the rest of our lifetimes. What a brilliant political strategy. Thank God dopes like you didn’t exist in WWII, or we’d all be wearing Nazi armbands.
And with this last, self-contradictory statement we agree. Doing nothing means destruction. So when the time comes, get off your ass and vote for whomever the Republican candidate may be, because no matter how much any of them might or might not stink from a true conservative viewpoint, it’s better than doing nothing at all. Unfortunately that isn’t what you mean, but you seem to “have a glimmer” of intelligence in that last remark.
I have no idea why you make the distinction. While the news media is worse than the general entertainment culture, as you know the entertainment culture has gone to hell as well. I know. I make my living in it and have for 25 years.
Well, you can make repeated observations about me making personal attacks against you, and that claim always an effective hiding place for the
people of dangerously mediocre philosophy – and who should be mocked and scorned when the philosophies they aspouse are damaging to this country, and you qualify by a mile. At a certain point the protection of our country becomes more important than good manners. So I’ll make my case again about that ilk of which you claim to be a part:
By sitting out the election you throw the entire country into the hands of the hard-core, idealistic socialist Dems, a nightmare at a time when we’re under attack by middle-eastern radical forces developing nuclear warfare capabilities. A true nightmare if ever there was one. And those people of whom you claim to be part do so for the most spoiled of reasons: to be whining, selfish, egotisitic, utterly irresponsible cry babies. Except in your case it’s becoming abundantly obvious that you’re a liberal shill trying to suppress the conservative vote. You’ve made several statements which make that clear, like seperating the corruption of the News media from that of the entertainment media, a sure-fire give-away of a activist liberal no matter what political ideaology they claim to have and how strongly they claim to have it. Nice try, but it was pretty apparent form the get-go.
I’ve given you enough attention. Anyone who can’t see the insanity of your position is hopeless – and thank God in the absolute fractional minority. frankly I don’t know anyone outside of the anonominity of the internet who would even dream of embracing such a measure of guaranteed political suicide. But as a pathetically obvious liberal shill – or someone so crazy that they’re doing a spontanious imitation of one – you’ve now officially gotten all the ‘debate” time you will from me (others, like Ombre Rose, still have plenty of time left if they want it). Quite frankly, reading your self-contradictory views, non-sequitors and relative moralism couched in conservative idealism is giving me a headache, and I choose my headaches wisely.
So long, and say “hi” to all the libs and spoiled cry-babies in la-la land.
Obviously I strongly disagree with your preferred choice of candidate, but how nice to hear someone in this thread speaking like a normal, rational human being again – it’s been a couple of days since I’ve been holding down the fort in this thread against the cry-baby huns and their self defeatist battle cry. “waaaaaa, I want my ultimate conservative or I won’t vote – so there!Mnuh…Mnuh…Mnuh…MnuhhhhhHHHH... MmmmmnnnuuuhhhhwwwwwwaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!”
I wonder, would you sit out the electionif it was a choice between Hillary and any other of the candidates? (I want to exclude Ron Paul from that question for obvious reasons, but to remain in power he, too, would need to at least bow to his core-base constituents slightly as Hillary needs to bow to hers, and when you compare the core party activists of both parties and what each demands of their candidates, then by reckoning even Rob Paul beats out Hillary. Not desireable in the extreme, but there can be no debate about the differing socio-political pressures each core party activist block puts on their respective candidate, which at this point are in diameteric opposition to each other. This is no small consideration when in this election really so very much is at stake. Thankfully, Paul has no chance.)
Oh I’m pretty sure one of us is a liberal shill. Let’s go to the evidence, shall we?
Exhibit A) One of us is arguing in favor of moving the Republican party to the left. That would be CC.
Exhibit B) One of us prefers to use the same debating tactics as open liberals.
Exhibit B.1) Using ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned arguments (a logical fallacy) when the opponent did not automatically agree with an assertion.
Exhibit B.2) Conflating two significantly different positions in order to use a strawman fallacy instead of dealing with the opponents actual position.
That would be CC.
Exhibit C) One of us did not even read their opponents suggested tactics, nevermind actually discussing the pros and cons of those tactics. Not even repeating the suggested tactics TWICE and referring to them again TWICE could get one of us to take a serious look at the suggestion, demonstrating a “La la la, I can’t hear you!” approach to debating. Again, this is typical of the left. Once again, CC sadly fits the leftist mold.
Exhibit D) One of us claims to know the others’ motives, rather than addressing the actual argument. Oddly enough, when the left does this, they’re often, but not always, projecting their own motives onto their opponent. Once again, CC fits the bill.
The really cool thing about a debate like this is that everything is right here in black and white. Anyone can go back and review everything and check the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
That is what you have been advocating. Just go along with the trend. Don’t try to do anything different to change it. Stay in the river. Don’t try to row for shore. Don’t try to make a difference. That is doing nothing.
BTW…
It strikes me as really stupid to criticize a position which you admit that you haven’t even read! And I quote:
Let’s keep this simple, you poor imitation of an academician:
The only part of your actual position that matters is that you are trying to convince people to stay home on election day and let the democrats win. You have said so. In no uncertain terms. Let;s make this quick: it’s stupid, you’re a shill and this is tiresome. no one is listening anymore. Go settle down with your blue blanket.
Once again, you have provided proof that you haven’t actually read what I’ve written.
Well, then just what is your point? I was pretty sure the general question posed was if you could vote for McCain under any circumstances, meaning in the general. Your three voting options I had forgotten beause they didn’t seem relevent. Vote not at all, for a conservative or a RINO. Fine, that’s great in the primaries. I thought I was abundantly clear that I wasn’t talking about primaries. I was talking about the general. What are your options then, if Mccain is the Repub and Hillary the dem’s choice? You also have three, but very differnt ones: vote for GHillary, not at all which is also voting for Hillary, or Mccain. I say vote McCain. You say no difference. i say you’re crazy, thre’s a huge difference. If you’re talking about primaries that’s great, vote for the conservative. i say vote for the Repub who can beat Hillary because anyone is better. But you know all this, so why am i wasting my time.
I only have one point here besides severely disliking McCain:
Anyone who sits out the election because things are’t prefect enough for them is a selfish, egotistical cry baby who puts their own sense of perfectionism before the good of the country. people like that stink. Sorry, but that’s my take, always will be my take and that’s where I am.
Now let me ask you a question for a change so we can put this to bed: What is your take? Will you or will you not sit out the general election if a conservative to your liking isn’t the candidate? i don;t need to respond because you know what I am on it. Where again exactly are you? I’m not interested, quite frankly, in anything other than an answer to that simple question. Then we can be done.
Senator Thompson has released a video message to the people of Iowa about why he should be Commander-in-Chief. The link is below.
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/video-freds-message-to-iowa-voters
EWTHeckman,
Well shades of Flenser! Get past the endless hypothetical academic minutia, ask a straightforward question that gets to the point and you’re met with deafening silence.
Just for the record, I’ll repeat the question:
Now let me ask you a question for a change so we can put this to bed: What is your take? Will you or will you not sit out the general election if a conservative to your liking isn’t the candidate?
Please keep it simple. A yes or no would be good. In fact, a yes or no would be ideal.
If McCain is the nominee, I won’t sit home. There are certainly issues I’ll want to vote for — but I will *never* vote for McCain. I’ll vote for the American Independent Party candidate. He won’t have the ghost of a chance, and the Democrat will certainly win the election, but if someone has to screw up the country, I’d rather it was a Democrat than somebody falsely labeled a Republican. Then, come the next Presidential election we *may* have a chance — especially if McCain isn’t on the ballot.