I won't vote for Sen. McCain if he picks pro-abort running mate like Gov.Crist,et al

[Sun]

This can be a deciding factor in a close election, and it looks as if the election will be a very close horse race.

Most voters know that Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge are pro-aborts, but they might not know about Florida's Gov. Charlie Crist. He is sneaky, calls himself pro-life, but is not.

Awhile back the Florida House approved a bill to give women the option to see an ultrasound before having an abortion.

I heard Laura Ingraham say that Gov. Charlie Crist did not support this in the past, but he might support it now, because he wants to be the VP running mate.

So how can we trust Gov. Crist?

[floriduh voter]

Crist is Fla’s Barack Obama.

[WilliamReading]

McCain is for stem cell research as well. Should you be voting for McCain, since you are such a “purist”?

[Sun]

I will hold my nose and vote for McCain if he picks a pro-life running mate, because I am practical.

However, I won’t vote for McCain if he picks an antilife running mate, well, because I’m practical.

[Sun]

“Crist’s marrying a millionaire and he’s trying to keep a low profile. If McCain picks Crist, I will not vote. Crist is as phony as Barack Obama. Unemployment in Fla is 6.6%. Don’t get me started.”

And many pro-life Floridians know the real Charlie Crist, and McCain could lose Florida, if he picks him, because the pro-lifers can be the deciding factor.

A deciding factor can be 275 votes, because that’s around how much President Bush won by in 2000.

[hunter112]

And I think McCain is just the next slip along the slippery slope. The only thing that makes him look reasonable is the extreme liberalness of Obama. But the American people are not going to give in to the extreme of the left, any more than they would allow carte blanche to someone of the hard right.

I'd trust Barry with a moderate-to-conservative Congress way more than I'd trust McCain with a moderate-to-liberal Congress. This country has survived both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton within my lifetime, and each of them had far more cunning than Obambi could ever have.

[Robert DeLong]

The only thing that makes him look reasonable is the extreme liberalness of Obama.

Alrighty then, I can see by that statement that discussion with you is useless.

[Robert DeLong]

Each person will do what they think is best, but if Senator McCain picks a pro-abort, I can’t trust him to pick an originalist judge, either.

So you can use that logic to justify allowing Obama pick replacement(s)? UNBELIEVABLE.

[flaglady47]

“At any rate I think we are at too important of a crossroad for this country to even contemplate risking having an Obama Presicdency. I will vote for McCain and hope that eirther a strong conservative will arise in 4 years or that McCain will actually be more conservative than we think he will be. To me that is the less risky risk than risking 4 years with Obama in control.”

It’s just like an alcoholic. Most of the time an alcoholic has to hit rock bottom before he/she can look up. That’s why it may be necessary to have the Pub Party figure out that they cannot elect a pro-life Prez or VP. It’s just too important not to. If McCain croaks before his term is up, we are then stuck with a pro-choice Prez. That is unacceptable. Then our Party morphs into something it is not, a quasi pro-choice Party at its very head. And that person woul be choosing a Supreme Court Justice instead of McCain if McCain is no longer amongst the living. So, in order to save the Party for the future, even though an Obama regime would be disastrous, we may need to live through it. We would be like Georgia, occupied by Russia against our will. A pro-life party infiltrated by a pro-choice Prez trying to mold our Party to his outlook. We, like Georgia, must make sure to rid ourselves of the infestation. If McCain chooses an overtly pro-choice VP, I will stay home and let the chips fall where they may.

[flaglady47]

P.S., I’ve been very afraid that McCain was setting us all up by what he said at Saddleback, by coming out so strong about how he would have a pro-life administration if he wins. He said it so emphatically that I can’t help he was trying to mollify pro-lifers for when he chooses a pro-choice VP. That he’s trying to make the vinegar go down more like honey. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t trust him. He likes his maverick image, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls some pro-choice VP out of the hat thinking he’ll get more independent voters. What McCain has to realize is that he will lose a bunch of blue-collar Dems too, may of whom are Catholic and pro-life, if he chooses a pro-choice VP. Why would he gamble with his one chance at the Presidency? Because McCain is a risk taker. He’s like Tom Cruise in Top Gun, a bit of a loose cannon. And because I think he likes to stick it in one’s face when he can get away with it. We shall see. Sincerely hope I’m wrong. I too got sucked in by his extraordinary and excellent performance at Saddleback. Just hope he wasn’t trying to lay the groundwork for a bad surprise further down the road, like a bad VP choice. We shall see.

[hunter112]

Alrighty then, I can see by that statement that discussion with you is useless.

I don't think so, but if that is the case, then my attitude got quite hardened during shamnesty last year. I see that as the prototype for the kind of fight we'd have on our hands every minute of the next four years if McCain were our President. He'd propose 'maverick' solutions to try to get a legacy in a single Presidential term, knowing that his natural allies are Democrats. We narrowly avoided shamnesty because we managed to convince conservative Republicans to buck an unpopular President, and we also worked on newly-elected Blue Dog Democrats who don't back their party's moonbat ideas.

Would it really be that much worse if we had Obama looking like he was going to win big in the fall, scaring the pants off of red state voters, and causing them to replace the D's with some R's, just to keep from paying reparations? We'd be able to ask staunch conservative and liberal RINO alike to oppose every part of the Obama programs.

Bolstered by email campaigns, we'd stuff a backbone into the US Senate with every liberal nominee that Barry sends up. All we have to do is show the American public what he really wants to do for two years. I'm confident we'll get Congress back in 2010, like we did in 1994. And the best thing is, the person who is most effective at saving this country from a liberal agenda is the one who should be our nominee in 2012. Let Obambi deal with Hillary in his own party, and our new champion showing what American policy should look like, let him be the one who gets the blame for the coming housing crisis, and we will be on top again, with real leaders that conservatives can be proud of, not ones we have to hold our noses to vote for.

[Sun]

4 years of Carter gave us 8 years of Reagan.

[Sun]

Sooooooo, in case you missed the logic, if McCain doesn’t pick a pro-life, conservative VP running mate, we can’t trust him to pick originalists judges, either, and would be better off with 4 years of Obama for the chance of 8 years of a true conservative after Obama. Think about it.

[Robert DeLong]

Oh I understand the logic very well, however, I believe the logic is so flawed on many levels. First just because 4 years of Carter gave us 8 years of Reagan does not mean 4 years of Obama will give us another conservative president. What you seem to miss is that a lot of damage can be done in 4 years as Germany found out with Hitler. You seem to think that only 2 liberal judges are the only ones Obama could replace, but people die unexpectedly all the time. But let's say that he only replaces the 2 liberal judges with young ones that we are stuck with for decades, then it would be conservative judges that would be up for replacement and there s no telling what ideaology that President may hold.

According to you we could "Bork" Obama's nominees but for wahtever reason you believe it would be harder to "Bork" McCain's (if we even needed to) or his pro-choice VP's judicial nominees should something happen to McCain.

But far beyond pro-life vs. pro-chioce, there are many other important issues as well. Gun control - gun confiscation, taxes, security, freedom, liberty, entitlement increases just to name a few.

So in case you miss my point you are employing such tunnel-vision that you miss the big picture.

Lastly, what did Reagan do for pro-life except give it lip service in his 8 years as President? Roe v Wade still exists as law.

No, conservatives, which I consider myself to be - and a pro-life one at that (though many would call me a flip-flopper as I was a pro-choice person in my youth) - only have McCain as their best bet.

[Robert DeLong]

McCain has a long history of being pro-life. Ther are a lot of things to be wary of regarding McCain, but this issue is not one of them.

[flaglady47]

“McCain has a long history of being pro-life. Ther are a lot of things to be wary of regarding McCain, but this issue is not one of them.”

I’m not particularly worried about McCain himself, but I am worried about whom he chooses for VP. If McCain would croak while Prez, then the VP obviously becomes Prez. Then we would be stuck with a pro-choice Prez. If McCain doesn’t croak, then whoever he chooses for VP will have a leg up on the next election, meaning a pro-choice VP would have a good chance of becoming Prez after McCain’s term is ended. That is the concern. And he is still thinking about Ridge, whom he really wants. It’s still out there floating through the air, and McCain won’t outright deny it. He likes to be the Maverick.