Posted on 05/07/2008 6:23:21 PM PDT by Kleebo151
PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry's margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
Those wacky photojournalists.
I know plenty of conservatives that have 'manned up' and have decided it's immoral to simply vote for the one who will destroy the country slowest.
Don't vote McCain!
...and end up with a de facto victory for the one who will destroy the country the fastest. I'm sorry, but I just don't get that logic.
Dittos and Amen!
Well said!
It's immoral and insane to vote for the one who will destroy the country the fastest.
I think I know what the author means!...
Note John Kerry's name at top right of The New Soldier:
"The book's cover features a group of not-particularly sober-looking anti-war protesters (vets, presumably) flying the American flag upside down [while mocking the historic flag raising event at Iwo Jima]":
Obama's pal, Bill Ayers, stomping on the American flag.
I am no big fan of John McCain but I will crawl over hot coals covered in broken glass to keep this POS's good buddy from becoming my beloved country's president.
THANK YOU, Commander Limbaugh, for your valiant and successful execution of Operation Chaos!
These pollsters are bad at basic arithmetic. Thirty-seven percent does not equal forty-one percent.
Urging Americans to elect Obama is tantamount to treason.
Or Hillary.
Are these people who would reject medicine which can't cure you, but just make it so you don't die as soon?
It’s very likely that the President elected this November will pick John Paul Stevens’ replacement on the Supreme Court, and could get to pick replacements for one or two of the other justices. I’d hate to think of the sort of person Obama would select—someone to the left of the National Lawyers Guild.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Hardly surprising. The demonRATs seem intent on nominating Communists. First Kerry with his VVAW ties (it was an honest to goodness Communist front organization), now Obama with his ties to Wright (Black Liberation Theology is just Marxism dressed up in Christian vestments for the benefit of folks of African ancestry), Ayers (the Weathermen were another front organization), and the Hyde Park left in general.
Who's saying vote for Obama? Geez, put on your thinking cap.
The ends don't necessarily justify the means...study some philosophy. Two candidates, two forces of destruction...you think it's the morally correct choice to choose one of them?!
There are still a few good men.
What you're saying is that Hillary herself could present you with some extreme Obama relation, and you'd vote Hillary. Moral relativism...stinks from miles away.
Urging Americans to elect Obama is tantamount to treason.
Misreading a statement is tantamount to illiteracy!
Close enough.
Either McCain or Obama will be the next president. Your choice is not McCain.
Man, I really dislike responses like yours. "Study some philosophy." It's an implicit put-down...ohhh I'm just not INFORMED and EDUCATED enough to understand this apparently oh-so-f*****-complex concept that you are putting forth for my tiny little non-philosophical brain to grok.
I studied philosophy, theology, anthropology and logic in college and on my own. I think I know a thing or two about the simplistic "lesser of two evils" idea that is at the core of this discussion.
Now, back to just some plain old common sense: If you don't vote for McCain, you are tacitly voting for Obama. The guy who will destroy America the fastest. End of story.
Correct.
Well done.
Now, back to just some plain old common sense: If you don't vote for McCain, you are tacitly voting for Obama. The guy who will destroy America the fastest. End of story.
So you condone the destruction of America, but only by Republicans, who will achieve it slower?
It's like saying you're going to Hooters instead of a strip club and then patting yourself on the back....or more accurately saying you're going to a strip club instead of soliciting a prostitute and then patting yourself on the back.
Of course I don't condone the destruction of America. I also really, really dislike responses that can only argue in term of extremes. "You are choosing McCain, so that must mean...you condone the destruction of America!!!"
No. It's very simple. Unless Hillary pulls off some miracle, you will have two choices in this general election: Obama and McCain. There is no "None of the above" bubble on the ballot. Sure, there will be other names on the ballot besides the Dem and GOP candidates, but a vote for any of them mathematically be a throwaway vote, and thus will be a tacit vote for Obama since the way the numbers are stacking up now, he will need our section of the electorate in order to win -- the black vote won't carry him. And if you refuse to vote for a presidential candidate altogether, it is the same difference, a tacit vote for Obama.
So recognizing that realistically you have a choice between two imperfect candidates: Of those two, Obama or McCain, which is your pick?
I will pick McCain.
"...mathematically will be a throwaway vote..."
I don't think it's extreme at all. McCain has a long history of antagonism towards conservatives. He also doesn't fair too well with respect to our sovereignty - and that's a severe understatement. Implicit in the phrase 'lesser of two evils' is that McCain is evil, just not a much and not as fast.
No. It's very simple. Unless Hillary pulls off some miracle, you will have two choices in this general election: Obama and McCain. There is no "None of the above" bubble on the ballot. Sure, there will be other names on the ballot besides the Dem and GOP candidates, but a vote for any of them mathematically be a throwaway vote, and thus will be a tacit vote for Obama since the way the numbers are stacking up now, he will need our section of the electorate in order to win -- the black vote won't carry him. And if you refuse to vote for a presidential candidate altogether, it is the same difference, a tacit vote for Obama.
There is no constitutional requirement to vote for one of two candidates. You set up a falsely limited choice. There's no moral or ethical obligation to vote for the 'popular' candidates. The idea of voting is that each vote is FOR someone. The votes are tallied and the candidate with the most votes wins. The candidate who was 'voted against' the most does not necessarily lose (Bill Clinton winning with only about 43% of the vote).
It is very simple - vote for the candidate that best represents your views so that you can be REPRESENTED if your views are reflected in the majority. If your views are not popular, then don't jump on the bandwagon so you can be part of the group and pretend you are represented. Well, come to think of it, maybe you are represented appropriately...by RINOS and liberal Republicans who will just a soon compromise THEIR principles as YOU will.
So recognizing that realistically you have a choice between two imperfect candidates: Of those two, Obama or McCain, which is your pick?
It's not either/or. Tell me, what if Hillary got the Republican nomination and ran against Obama, who would you vote for?
It is simply a matter of damage minimalization.
McCain is liberal when it comes to immigration, soft on tax cuts, and was the author of McCain-Feingold. On the other hand, his position on the WoT is correct, he is anti-spending, he is pro-life, and he is more conservative than Obama.
They have 4 years — maybe 8 — in which to do either damage or good. Given that fixed time frame, and given the only two real choices — and yes, they ARE the only two REAL choices, otherwise you WILL throw your vote away and it WILL be a tacit vote for Obama — I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.
My core principles remain intact. I am neither a RINO nor a liberal Republican nor am I thrilled with the choices this election cycle. But I sure as hell am not going to help Obama win. He is the most scary of the candidates — or, I think, of any candidate that has come before him in the modern age. No way in hell I am going to tacitly help him win.
Regarding your last question, I would weigh the pros and cons as I have done with this cycle, and make my decision. Depends on a lot of factors, not limited to the candidates alone but also the House/Senate makeup at the time, the veep choices, the situation with the SCOTUS and so on. It could be that I’d decide to sit it out or vote for a strong third-party candidate, or it could be that I’d decide that a very unpalatable damage-minimization choice is the most strategically prudent option. Hopefully a choice such as that will not present itself, but I take them on a case-by-case basis.
Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. But, sounds like if McCain got bad enough you wouldn’t vote for him.
To use your terms, I’ll be voting ‘against’ Obama AND ‘against’ McCain.
OK. But I think that in practical terms (or mathematical or demographic or strategic terms, whichever way you want to say it), not voting for either or them will unfortunately equal a tacit vote for Obama. So, I will not so much be voting 'for' McCain as will be voting 'against' Obama. Do whatever you can stomach, I guess.
(a month later)
/bingo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.