That notwithstanding, sometimes I find it just bewildering how so many people can storm around hissyfitting saying they just can’t, in good conscience, vote for McCain. Even as someone who can’t stand him, I find this attitude to be somewhere between the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits.

I’m getting tired of remaking points differently every time the same people simply state in 10 words or less that they cannot vote for him “in good conscience”,so here are are some retro responses, sure to become classics, which I’ll be using from now on:

On Immigration:

On the issue of judges, as much as most of us on this board dislike McCain immensely, mostly because of his liberal stand on this very issue, he isn’t half as liberal as Hillary or Obama. In the future some similar suits will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Right now this country is balancing between two worlds; we are neither a Sovereign Nation nor a Sanctuary Nation. Whether we become one or the other will likely depend on just a few judges who just happen to be among the most powerful on earth, and who cannot be removed for the rest of their lives. As ironic as it seems, if McCain is the Republican nominee, we’re going to have to support, vote him into office and tolerate him for four years. Why? Because Hillary or Obama will fill the judges seats as quickly as they possibly can with open-boarders socialist liberals – maybe in just a few months from taking office. Will McCain? Not likely. Why? Because McCain wants power first, and if he wants a second term, he’s going to have to at least modestly stay in line. Hillary and Obama get their power from those who believe in the reverse of what we do.

On Not Voting McCain on Conscience:

Those of us who are sucking it in by voting for McCain have principles, too, which one would not know from some of these posts, and I feel our principles are better than theirs, quite frankly, with all due respect. We’re doing something monumentally unplesant personally for the good of the country, as opposed to doing something for ourselves, and when you vote in contradiction to the good of the country over a misplaced sense of principle, you’re doing it for yourself. Sorry, but that’s how it shakes out unless you explain how allowing Hillary or Obama will be good for the country (and none of that Rush-on-meds stuff about uniting the conservatives as we all skip into the land of Oz, because that’s what that theory is, the land of Oz.)

Here’s a question for you:

If by the inaction of putting your “feelings” above the good of the nation (an illness some conservatives seem to have caught from liberals these days, it appears), you contribute your little share to the deaths of 80,000 of your innocent, hardworking fellow Americans, and breaking the hearts and destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands more as those killed will be grieved, will you still, knowing what you did, be able to look at yourself in the mirror and say “Yes, I was right and I’d do it again.”

Let me give you a head’s up from where I stand: if your answer is “yes”, then in my opinion, knowing the potential in advance, you are self-aggrandizingly delusional to the point of having very serious issues with reality, to put it politely. No offense, but I mean that sincerely.

Your feelings are important. Your sense of ethics and morality are important. But your little feelings do not trump the needs of your country. If every soldier in our military thought like you do, then we’d have no heroes.

We all have to do lousey things for our Country, shi*ty things we simply hate. But you and I, by the Grace of God, are not called upon to go out and die while doing them. But as you know, our soldiers do. For you to say that voting for a candidate you detest is too difficult and too painful for you to do, you and like-minded soulmates should take another spin around Arlington National Cemetary sometime. Look at each grave. In that instant of death, as realization hit, I’ll bet all of them wished with all their heart that they were instead home with their loved ones, but I’ll bet not one regretted doing what needed to be done.

It seems to me that sucking it in and casting an unpleasant vote for the best interests of the country when unpleasant choices are all we have isn’t asking for a hell of a lot in the big picture. Or are you so self-absorbed that you just don’t care?

My take would be that we all do “ideological posturing” – i.e. “acting on one’s conviction”, MrCC. Thought process – acting from thought process.

Your take is highly insolvent intellectually. Once again, you appear to be stating that ideological posturing is equal manifestly to actual material cause and effect. No, PP, the idea is ridiculous. Dreaming about picking daisies in your sleep is not as manifest as running someone down with a car in reality – at least to the victim. And there will be innocent victims of selfishly sitting home and allowing Hillary or Obama to become President. And accordingly, pretending as though there are no negative consequences for your country by sitting out the election or voting for a third party candidate is likewise ridiculous. There are consequences for our inactions just as there are for our actions. Stay at home this fall or vote third party and you pull the level for Hillary once and determinedly whether you realize it or not. I’m just trying to help you realize it. Not understand it in theory, mind you, that you already understand. But realize it, Purple Peep. This isn’t just internet talk. Our actions matter.

In my case, it’s moot. The local electorate is such that the Democrat presidential candidate always wins.

With an attitude like that, they always will.

I understand that people want no part of hoisting wrong on their country.

Do you also understand that there is no such thing is a neutral inaction in an election? Stay home or vote third party and you hoist a worse wrong upon the country. Does that make it better? In an imperfect world where every moment is in reality an actual compromise, whether you see it or not, those “people of conscience” are hurting their country. And once again, they do it in the act of selfishly appeasing their own feelings instead of doing what is right for the country. Do you respect people who are prepared to do that?

Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

“Now, couldn’t they observe that you, too, are speaking from your own convictions ( or “feelings”, if you prefer)?”

If ideological posturing can be seen as equal in the practical sense to manifest cause and effect, I would say yes, but I don’t, so I won’t and will instead disagree with your hypothesis.

My take would be that we all do “ideological posturing” – i.e. “acting on one’s conviction”, MrCC. Thought process – acting from thought process.

“They can state their convictions are what’s right for America, as can you re: your convictions.”

That is correct. I wonder though, in context, how abstaining from voting or voting theird party and so ensuring the presidency to Hillay or Obama would be “what’s right” for America. I’d like you to answer that for me.

In my case, it’s moot. The local electorate is such that the Democrat presidential candidate always wins. The anomoly was ’72 McGovern-Nixon where McGovern got his clock cleaned everywhere except Mass (if memory serves). I can have some impact on things like school levies and dog license fees, though.

But I view the abstaining or other party vote as I said before; folks say none are fit to serve as President. I understand that people want no part of hoisting wrong on their country.

Now, couldn’t they observe that you, too, are speaking from your own convictions ( or “feelings”, if you prefer)?

If ideological posturing can be seen as equal in the practical sense to manifest cause and effect, I would say yes, but I don’t, so I won’t and will instead disagree with your hypothesis.

They can state their convictions are what’s right for America, as can you re: your convictions.

That is correct. I wonder though, in context, how abstaining from voting or voting theird party and so ensuring the presidency to Hillay or Obama would be “what’s right” for America. I’d like you to answer that for me.

Ageed, but what practical purpose does sitting out the election or vote third party serve, except to vote in the worst of two evils?

Of course, what I was pointing out there was that the argument about perfection only works if the other person(s) has made the it the basis of their own argument. Otherwise, ya gotta strawman there, MrCC.

What’s more important? Your country or your own feelings?

I think the “feelings” is another fellow constructed from straw, CC. If you mean something along the line of what most folks are most likely arguing, you could say “convictions”.

Now, couldn’t they observe that you, too, are speaking from your own convictions ( or “feelings”, if you prefer)? They can state their convictions are what’s right for America, as can you re: your convictions.

In the end your convictios have no power over others’ convictions, nor their convictions over your own. They just are.

On February 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm, Ragspierre said:
Well, as adults, we have the ability and the responsibility to discern when “imperfect” crosses over into “unacceptable”.

I have news for you. There is no such thing as a neutral inaction in this election. You’re going to vote for somebody if you like it or not. And it’s going to be a Republican or Democrat, whether you like it or not. Vote for McCain, and we get the lesser of two evils. Vote for Hillary, you get Hillary and life-appointed judges which will give new meaning to the word “unacceptable” in every aspect of your life. But guess what, as if you need to be told: if you vote for a third party or sit it out, you have still-pro-actively pulled the lever for Hillary no more or less than if you walked physically into the booth and did it intentionally. That’s the reality. Posing and posturing won’t change that. All you will have succeeded in doing is running away from an unpleasant and necessary patriotic responsibility simply because you don’t feel like it. Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river about not enjoying it, but don’t tell me you are doing anything less than pro-actively voting Hillary or Obama into the White House because anything else is just spin and bullsh*t.

On February 10th, 2008 at 6:35 pm, purplepeep said:
I think the core of the argument some folks are making is not about perfection, MrCC. Rather, it would seem the argument is that none of “options” are suited for the office.

Ageed, but what practical purpose does sitting out the election or vote third party serve, except to vote in the worst of two evils? What’s more important? Your country or your own feelings? our parents and grandparents would be disgusted that such a question would ever need asking, but today it does. It isn’t a rhetocial question. What purpose does it serve to this country, PP? Send a message? To whom? the victors who could care less? The losers who are relinquished to the land of the powerless? What practical purpose does it serve to, by abstaining or vote third party, does it serve to this country to vote into office the worse of two evils? I’d like a sincere, well-formulated answer, if you’d be so kind.

That’s true any time you have to make a choice between two imperfect options. As adults I thought we were past all that.

Well, as adults, we have the ability and the responsibility to discern when “imperfect” crosses over into “unacceptable”.

Hell, NOBODY’s perfect! I don’t suppose there is anyone on this thread that needs to be told that.

But there is a broad gulf between “imperfect” and
U N

S U P P O R T A B L E.

I voted for Mr. Bush TWICE, and do not particularly apologize, given the choices and reality on the ground.

I know “imperfect” when I see it.

I also know a lying, dishonorable opportunist when I see one.

McCain will NEVER get my vote.

Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
That’s true any time you have to make a choice between two imperfect options.

I think the core of the argument some folks are making is not about perfection, MrCC. Rather, it would seem the argument is that none of “options” are suited for the office.

On February 10th, 2008 at 8:04 am, Renee_VA said:
I will say it again, continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils gives you, nothing to choose from but evil.

Pardon me, but “hello” – That’s true any time you have to make a choice between two imperfect options. As adults I thought we were past all that.

Seriously, how long to we have to listen to these idealistic absurdities. Whining between choosing the lesser of two “evils” – literally? How about getting your head around the chopice which will do this country manifestly less damage. If you back away and don’t vote the better option, you put the worse one in power, and millions are hurt who would not have been hurt before.

Lesser of two evils? Look in the mirror.

John McCain is a moderate Republican, many would even call him an independant/centrist. To those who tend to lean hard to the right though, he’s a “liberal”.

No, dear. McCain is no Republican at all, or if he qualifies for any “Republican” appellation it should be “convenience Republican”, or “Republican of opportunity…today”.

Again, you confuse differences of “reasoned positions” with a fundamental, and totally empirically based, loathing of the man’s character.

I have a great deal more respect for Joe Lieberman than McCain. I could not vote for either, but I would sooner vote for a man of convictions than one without them entirely.

I don’t consider myself “leaning hard to the right”. Rather, I am firmly planted on the side of Constitutional conservatism. My positions are sometimes radical, when compared to those who do not give a fig about the Constitution, the rule of law, or the good of humanity.

Often, however, they are squarely in the middle of thinking American’s positions.

Ordinary Coloradan said:
And if youare interested, Bill Quick has started:

Ordinary CO -
In checking out the link you offered I’d personally pass on it. I think the fellow has a bit of a problem – referring to Obama as “the boy” might’ve been somewhat effective in the 1800s. I feel like sending the fellow a DVD of “They Call Me Mr. Tibbs!” to help get him up to speed.

However since “John McCain is a moderate Republican”, I can only hope that if the building catches fire they don’t send moderate firemen fire fighters, (sorry).

OK, I will most likely have to vote for him (assuming the R levers are not crazy glued yet again)because at the end of the day the President is the Commander in Chief… but I live in NY so my vote doesn’t count anyway.