Michelle has a post up in which she asks her readers what they will do if it’s McCain vs. the Hildabeast, and the results are pretty depressing. This is a fairly representative sample:
If McCain becomes the republican nominee, Rush will be proven right. The “republican†persuasion will cease to exist. It might as well merge with the democrats to become its true self. Good riddance.
Staunch conservatives for life, my wife and I will vote for the democrat nominee (Billary or Obama) since they are scarcely different from McCain except on Iraq. Better to have a democrat pres kill the country than a faux-conservative republican like McCain kill it.
Then maybe another Jimmy Carter in 2008 will bring forth another Reagan for 2012.
This idea that there would be no difference between a McCain presidency and a Clinton presidency, and that it would be better to have the Dems destroy the country so that a Republican saviour can ride in and save us is pure insanity. Whatever McCain’s faults are, he’s not Shrillary, and thinking that a Clinton presidency would bring on a new golden age of Republicanism is a vague hope at best. And if it doesn’t happen, you’ve screwed the country just to make a point.
We simply cannot allow the Clinton crime family to regain the White House. The damage to the military and to our security concerns could be fatal in the dangerous world of jihadists in which we now live. On the domestic front, the huge socialist programs she would institute would never be gotten rid of. And the naive, foolish Obama, who has already said that he would withdraw all the troops the minute he takes office, would be even worse.
All of you people who are wailing and gnashing your teeth, if you don’t want McCain, then go out and do something about it. Work to get Romney elected. But if that doesn’t happen, grow up and cut the crap about taking your ball and going home. I dislike McCain for all the obvious reasons, but if he’s the candidate, the choice between him and Hillary or Obama is a no-brainer. Besides, we’ll have at least four years of looking at Meghan McCain.
Update: Based on Jeff’s post that follows this one, and his and others’ comments, let me be clear(er) about this: I do not like McCain. I understand that a McCain presidency has a potential to be disastrous. But I have yet to see a convincing argument that a Clinton or Obama presidency wouldn’t be far more disastrous.ÂÂ
Face fact, Craig. Some people really do believe McCain is the worse of the two evils.
But you feel free to vote for whomever you like.
well that all sounds nicely adult a pretty much entirely irrelevant. For my taste this attitude of voting for the least evil is a continuation of the attitude of settling, which is exactly how creeping incrementalist wins. You accept a little push here and a little push there and eventually find yourself in an unacceptable place. It saddens me to say it but I’m begginning to believe that some external destruction will have to assault the country before enough people grow up and stop being the self-indulgent children they insist on being. McCain has demonstrated the Constitution and the principles this country were built on are of no matter as long as little Johnny gets what he wants. At least the side backing the Hildabeast has a sort of extreme vision of America that tilts to socialism. McCain has a vision of John’s place.
Hmmm. I wish he’d admit that free speech MATTERS, and that campaign “finance reform” has been anything but, restricting speech while burying source funding even further from public view.
But he’s better than the alternative.
Romney is supposed to be the “work for it” solution to McCain?
Kill me now.
Brokered convention.
FRED!
Jeff’s comment is spot on.
For once, I’d love to vote FOR a politician rather than AGAINST another one.
But, in the end, we shall have the government we deserve.
If I have to, I’ll vote for the guy with a zillion Hanoi Hilton bonus points.
However, my dentist will love the mad jack he gets from replacing all the enamel from the inevitable epic tooth-gritting…
CraigC – there really is something to allowing the house to crash in upon itself. how can I put this properly: there are a couple ways to move things to one’s preferred outcome.
1) push for the outcome you prefer by working within the system – trying to convince others that without doing so, things will be worse – this takes a long time and a lot of energy – and patience
2) try to correct those things you see as objectionable – working within the system to be “a part of the solution” – yuck – like asking a bureaucrat for an opinion
3) allow system to crash / fold into self under its own weight.
I am impatient and cynical, so I choose catastrophe. Let Billary be president. Let her ravage the country. the more swift the collapse, the more likely I will be to live long enough to know how this will play out. I will either see the absolute demise of the Experiment, or I will remember her for what she was. This life-support thing… not so much. Really unbecoming.
Face fact, Jeff. Some people really do believe Clinton is the worse of the two evils.
It works both ways.
I would prefer not to be in the house when it is crashing down, Enoch. Tearing everything apart in a gigantic tantrum is wonderful in theory. In practice it pretty much sucks. and this is our country we are talking about. I would prefer that it did not suffer any catastrophes, and I particularly despise those who wish one on it to teach those people a lesson. That sounds way too much like that fat fool from Vanity Fair, James Wolcott(?) who wanted a hurricane to hit NYC just to teach us all a lesson about global warming.
Screw that kind of thinking. I want the best that my country can get, and I want it to take the best available path and avoid the worst. And if it comes down to McCain and Clinton then I am voting McCain because I care enough to subsume my ego for what I think is the best choice (not the lesser of two evils as I am a ‘glass half full’ guy, not a ‘glass half empty/pessimist’). And I also have hope for the future that things will get better because they always do.
It doesn’t matter if there’s differences between McCain and Clinton. I don’t care for either one, why on earth would I vote for either one? This isn’t about teaching a party a lesson or throwing a fit. IfF the choices suck, I’ll stay home. It’s not like the GOP has had no warning on this.
Look many conservatives voted for President Bush in 2004 despite the fact that he wasn’t particularly conservative and was terrible on spending because he had to nominate judges (done) and finish the job in Iraq (basically done). Anyone else in power would have ruined both of those and caused tremendous harm beyond simply bad policy. We don’t have that motivation this time, and to be honest I’m a bit tired of the taste of turd sandwiches. They both suck, in different ways.
If you want me to vote, put someone up there I’m at least mildly inclined to support. If you won’t don’t complain to me about my lack of support. Look in the mirror.
I will honor McCains military service unto both his death and mine, but the presidency is not available as a bonus prize.
That’s why, if McCain gets the nomination, I will step outside the Republicans’ house.
For the last eight years we’ve watched as George W. Bush — for whom I happily voted in 2000 and 2004, and of whom I never expected perfection — redefined conservative into something entirely unrecognizable. A McCain presidency would drain the word of any meaning altogether.
The idea that McCain is Teh One™ to stop Hillary, is ludicrous. She’ll chew him up and spit him out.
of course the worst irony is that that McCain massacree at the general election will be interpreted as a mandate for the beast rather than the sprint away from McCain that it will be.
What was the Republican Platform like from 1950 through, say, 1976?
I’m beginning to think Reagan was the RINO–a person who went with the Republican Party because he had no home in the Democratic Party and there was no viable alternative other than the GOP.
Were Republicans always pretty much like, say, Arlen Specter in the years before Reagan?
Were Republicans always pretty much like, say, Arlen Specter in the years before Reagan?
Pretty much yes. That’s something to consider – Ronald Reagan was the exception, not the rule, RINOs have always been the mainstream and in the end that makes Reagan a RINO.
Of course it does. But I’m not telling anyone they should stay home to make a point. Which is the correct corollary to what is being advocated here.
Vote for who you want. Just don’t insist that I vote for who you want, just because of what YOU think is the worse of two evils.
Look many conservatives voted for President Bush in 2004 despite the fact that he wasn’t particularly conservative and was terrible on spending because he had to nominate judges (done) and finish the job in Iraq … We don’t have that motivation this time, and to be honest I’m a bit tired of the taste of turd sandwiches. They both suck, in different ways.
Taylor – truly you ought to print this out in triplicate and frame it. What you do with the other 2 copies, I don’t care. That was a beautifully executed analysis of why I voted in 2000 & 2004.
Mikey – pussy! mayhem-hater!
McGehee – i am not talking about the Republican tent. I am talking about the house. And also, Mikey is a pussy. A hater of mayhem.
Jeff, I’m not insisting that you vote for anyone. I’m making two points: One, that sitting at home will likely give the election to Clinton, or worse, Obama, and two, that if you think McCain isn’t the lesser of two evils, you are, in my opinion, mistaken.
What was the Republican Platform like from 1950 through, say, 1976?
This is a really interesting question – and the comment about Reagan being a RINO is very good – well, excellent.
One will occasionally hear from Democrats who reminisce about the past when bipartisanship was supposedly the norm. I think it is actually from a period of time when the Republicans may have pissed and moaned about “things”, but they basically knuckled under to anything proposed by the Democrats. This bipartisanship is the Charybdis to the Scylla-like notion that politics didn’t use to be so “mean”.
Until the Republicans broke “the agreement” with Reagan and then the Contract w/ America. We’re getting back to knuckling under; don’t worry, be happy.
Hey! I have a hard time believing Obama is worse than the worse of two evils.. (Craig..)
If the choice is between McCain and Hillary… That’s a sucky choice.. I think I’ll stay home and have a beer..I’m tired of voting for the least sucky candidate.. Then at least I can spend the next four years doggin the people that did vote for whichever of those two wins the general election..
On the other hand if it’s McCain -vs- Obama.. I gotta roll the dice and vote Obama… He comes across as an idealist.. Hell, maybe he’s one of the few liberal idealists in history that will actually accomplish something positive.. We survived Jimmah.. we can survive anything Obama can dream up..
There is one thing that would suit me about having McCain as the Republican nominee: the Dems will rip him three new ones every day, and while that would bother me if I actually supported the candidate they were doing it too, with McCain it would just be entertainment.
Obama as the nominee I might vote for him, just to shut up the “America is racist” idiots.
The way I see it, with either McCain or Clinton, it is a matter of winning (or losing) a battle at the expense of the war. I suspect McCain will win irrespective of the base because the left will flock to Maverick when the realization, and implications, of another Clinton White House. If the left nominates Obama, McCain will get crushed.
In other words, either way, the success or failure of McCain’s bid is entirely in the hands of Democrats, not the GOP base. As such, the question becomes in which battles will the next President engage, and how successful will s/he be? I’m fairly certain McCain-Kennedy will be reactivated and endorsed. Also a huge move (read spending) to fight anthropogenic global warming. And I wouldn’t be too surprised to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated.
Now lets look to the areas where McCain and the Dems differ.
Spending starts in Congress and McCain, while much better on rhetoric, would likely have little effect – especially is Congress is Dem controled. Similarly, both Clinton and Obama, while professing to enact universal health care, would likely have significant opposition when the price tag is revealed. And I think, given McCain’s legislative history, I suspect he’d willingly sign on to a modified health care package anyway.
McCain is the strongest in terms of combating global jihadism, but Clinton is smart enough to recognize that with a Pelosi/Murtha surrender comes huge costs, both tangible and intangible. Obama would be a disaster.
Judges. McCain wins this hands down, but only in degree I suspect. McCain would likely chose more OConners. Either Dem would nominate more Gisnburgs.
We all chose our battles. I have no confidence that McCain will chose those that lead to victory in the war of ideas. I will not battle for McCain.
Real conservatives are serious people. Serious people do not look for perfection in a politican. There are too many petty purists who threaten to hold their breath until they get exactly the candidate they want. They can´t wait to throw respectable and accomplished guys like Giuliani (my fave) Romney or even McCain under the bus when they all are vastly preferable to the Democrats.
For months I have been lectured that Rudy is “not a conservative” or Romney is a “phony”. It´s all crap. Now these same people may have to vote for McCain. How do you like them apples, conservative base?
Let Hillary have it sounds a lot like “I dont like the design of my house so I’ll burn it down and hope the insurance company comes through so I can redesign”, Sounds like a hell of a gamble for an unknown. No Mac backer here but my wallet hurts thinking of Hillary or Obama setting the agenda and a bunch of slobbering moon eyed zombies at the other end of Penn Ave longing for the good old days.
D-lo I think it’s less about “we’ll show the Republicans” than “yeah well he’ll raise my taxes too and he keeps kicking me in the furry beanbags with a mad gleam in his eye, then demands my support.”
For months I have been lectured that Rudy is “not a conservative†or Romney is a “phonyâ€Â. It´s all crap. Now these same people may have to vote for McCain. How do you like them apples, conservative base?
He’s not a conservative. (ducking)
Seriously, though, how is it the fault of conservatives that moderates and country club Republicans voted for McCain? We didn’t.
My rebuttal –
Hillary and Bill are essentially the product of the Huey Long School of Southern Political Opportunism …in Hil’s case, mixed in with a leaning toward a muddle of Wellesley feminist socialism and typical ’60’s utopianistic Useful-Idiotism. Admittedly, they are a pretty nasty example of Bayou-borne political hegemonists.
Which is pretty much saying that they’re in it for the money. And sex (in Bill’s case). And the attraction of a certain historical pulchritude (in Hil’s case).
The Republic survived the Great Society experiment of the 70’s …eventually rejecting it. We’ve survived Roe v. Wade …and we’re now belatedly rejecting it. We’ll survive Hilcare too …and who knows, maybe technological advances in science will give us the nannites that will obviate medical care period (or not: I’m just sayin’) …the nation is resilient enough to survive idiotic and opportunistic political whack-jobs like the Clintons.
So I am entirely unpersuaded by the typical solipsist arguments – like this – based solely on the presumed disastrous consequences of the Evil Reign of the Narcissistic Demon Hildebeast.
So enough of that: you, umm, people, haven’t persuaded *me* of the efficacy of *your* arguments …you are entirely underwhelming. In the vernacular of that great American patriot, H Finn: I jes’ ain’t scairt of ‘er. Nyah.
Now I turn to John McCain. The ever popular Saviour figurine of the marching RINO hordes of 08.
John and his political friend Rus believe that free speech should be abridged …their avowed and holy purpose in this holy quest is to keep political speech fair (“fair” being defined by disinterested observers as seemingingly “speech which is beneficial to keeping incumbent Senators incumbent”) during elections.
Essentially, Saint Senator McCain has determined by inner soul searching (and avarice: dear god don’t! ignore the avarice) that the First Amendment to the Constitution should be held in abeyance with righteous scorn, to keep the iniquitous Mammon-ites from further participation in the Autumnal Rite of Politics, thereby soiling same with infusions of their filthy lucre.
And after much deep pondering, pretty much accomplished same by a combination of Congressional fiat, presidential pandering, and judicial insouciance, with McCain-Feingold …thereby denying an **essential** right of a free people as enumerated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution granted by the Founders to said “We the People”.
To wit “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Which seems pretty damn simple to understand to me, simple minded moron that I appear to be.
But to Saint John of the Sacred Senate Sacristy? – “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”
Saint John I, it is to be understood contextually, and through his magnanimity and wisdom, will be the final and ultimate arbiter in the determination of the depth of said corruption. Who else?
Presumably, for teh children.
Really, I could go on like this for a long, long time (boringly enough). And admittedly have already gone on too long. So let me bring this heartfelt response to a more certain and unambivalent conclusion to those of you still too deeply dimwitted to understand that the real and present danger to the Republic is to be found in ignoring St John’s inherent dismissal of the historical imperative of the Roots of our Great Experiment.
(Which ignoring has rather much been displayed by one John McCain for some time now btw.)
(Hmm. Perhaps its a form of progressive dementia: you decide.)
Succinctly put: I have rationally come to consider John McCain to be a **greater** danger than Hilary Clinton to the future of the Republic, and will vote against the man should he – as it looks like he will – win the Republican party nomination.
I thank you for your patience.
jdm – The bipartisanship you speak of, and the kind that they so fondly recall, was from the times that the Dems controlled the House and Senate for over 40 years. Bipartisanship was when the Republicans did not bitch too loudly, and they went along, and got along. Now, in modern times, bipartisanship is only uttered when Republicans are in charge of the chambers. Not once have I read an article about how Harry and Nancy need to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. It is all about their ability, or lack thereof, to implement their agenda. But, when Republicans controlled the chambers, or were re-elected President, we were subjected to literally weeks of breathless coverage how the Republicans need to reach across the aisle to heal political wounds, to work together, and to compromise. Nothing ever about their platform, their agenda. Just the media shaping the agenda, and they went along with the media, as evidenced by the reaching across the aisle on any number of issues, only to have their hand bitten by a rabid dog. Fuck bipartisanship.
CraigC – I have no qualms with you, but will not eat my peas. Thank you. I just tire of being told to do something for the good of the party, over the substance of the principles. Why should I vote for a President that is going to oppose tax cuts? Why should I vote for a President that is going to oppose curtailing illegal immigration? Why should I vote for a President that had no regard for the 1st Amendment?
And, if you tell me it is for the good of the party, then I would ask … what party?
Maybe I’m missing something in all this, but… why does it sound like we’re looking to elect a dictator? When did the American presidency change from a powerful position, to an all-powerful position?
Last I checked, we still elect a Congress of 535, though not all at once. If, as a Republican, you’re ultimately unhappy with the political stances of the party’s candidate, you can still influence policy through the Senators and Reps you elect — this year, in 2010, and in 2012.
McCain’s immigration stance isn’t to your taste? Fine — elect congressmen who will oppose him. It worked on Bush, didn’t it? And loathsome as I find McCain-Feingold, it’s important to remember that the majority of a Republican Congress approved it, a Republican President signed it, and a “conservative” Supreme Court green-lighted it. Plenty of failure in all three branches of government here, and very little of it is McCain’s alone.
You want to stand on principle and prevent “incrementalism”? Tough. This is a republic with democratically elected representatives. Incrementalism is how it works. Don’t complain about it; use it to advance policies you favor. Refusing to vote because no candidate is good enough serves only to ensure that your opinion isn’t heard, and doesn’t matter.
This attitude scares me:
We survived Jimmah.. we can survive anything Obama can dream up..
“Survived” is a pretty low standard; the country survived Warren Harding and the Civil War, too. As for Carter, let’s try to remember that, guided by his stupid “idealism,” he singlehandedly and deliberately allowed Khomeinists to take over in Iran — a screwup of such staggering proportions that we are still paying for it, nearly 30 years later.
Carter’s effete approach to foreign policy and the Cold War also gave us the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — another blunder that we never quite recovered from.
Still feel like “rolling the dice”? Because I gotta tell ya, I’m not in a gambling mood. No, sir, I don’t care to spend the NEXT three decades paying for some idiocy Obama commits while mistaking Hope™ for actual strategy.
Yep — right up until 2006, when people decided to punish Bush for his immigration stance by kicking those “congressmen who will oppose him” out of office.
Unfortunately, the average voter in this country just doesn’t have any clue how the system works anymore. And even mroe unfortunately, I saw a lot of that in comment threads two years ago. There may even have been one or two of those dunderheads who stumbled in here.
I cannot support McCain and I will not vote for him. He has no sense of domestic politics and would make a huge mess of the economy while biting huge hunks out of our Constitutional freedoms. Granted, both Hillary and Obama would do the same thing but worse. The real question is, after 4 years of making a hash of things, the decision will come to choose the next leader to fix the mess. If McCain is the one who made the mess, how can we argue that the Republicans are the ones to fix it?? If the Dems make the mess, the choice will be much easier for the public.