Posted on 09/30/2008 7:35:19 AM PDT by Rick Mave
I've been getting grief for not supporting John McCain. Some may say, in fact, I'm being dangerous or petty at the expense of our nation by not being a dutiful Republican. As if surely any Republican President is better than any Democrat President. Most will say that it's selfish to just let Obama win the White House simply because I differ from our nominee. What with a more-than-likely Democrat House and Senate, stepping aside and letting Obama win will shut us totally out of power and give him free reign to do as he pleases, after all.
They ask: Where is my party loyalty?
The answer: My party loyalty is exactly why I am seeking the defeat of John McCain. To say he's never quite been a dutiful Republican himself and go off to detail a list of myriad instances that prove this would be boring, time-consuming, and wasteful, so instead we'll just admit the sky is blue and point to the fact that his Title of Maverick has been well-earned and has stuck for good reason. In defense of myself I point to having a respect for intellectual honesty, principle, and future longevity over holding onto power for power's sake.
What good is party loyalty if it means supporting the most disloyal among us? Supporting the most rogue, political species who made his name by publicly and repeatedly thwarting that which brought us to the Republican Party to begin with? What good is party loyalty itself if all it means is that, at day's end, you'll just show up and vote for whomever has the (R) by his name? Party loyalty is in the midst of being reduced to symbolism. True party loyalty lies in protecting, defending, and advancing your philosophy and practice. Not in simply towing the party line; any fool can do that. True party loyalty means doing what is right, at all times, even if it means you lose.
If there ever were a time where we needed a big loss, it is now. Republicans generally get elected when they run for office on the bases of conservatism. What's conservatism in my view? Conservatism is essentially the victory of realism over idealism. In other words, conservatism is practical solutions to problems. Beholding pragmatism as the core to conservatism is right and it is how we win elections. The past several years, though, we've seen a shift from this proven identity of conservatism to a more simplistic and superficial adoption of American symbols to stand in place of our precious pragmatism. Gone are intellectual debates by devoted advocates. Reason has expired and all that is done is calculated to win the short term. In are ushered the flag and patriotic song to stand in the place of reason and tenet, all the while political stunts, smears, and schemes are now rival to that of the Democrats, who long ago sold their soul to hold higher office. Ripe now are both sides with plenty of platitudes masquerading as Change and Straight Talk.
This is the third election in a row I've been told is the most important election of our lifetime. Only this time we're guaranteed a true change. Either Obama is fresh and new and the future is full of hope, or McCain is the maverick reformer who is going to clean up Washington D.C. Either we get the first non-white President in American history, or we get the first ever female Vice President in American history. All of this is merely symbolic. We have again image hiding reality. Obama radiates an aura of newness, of never-before-seen means of leading the nation, of solving our problems, curing our ills, yet his record and proposals are steeped in 1930s liberal ideology. McCain trumpets himself as the original change agent, the maverick, and as a reformer. Granted I admire McCain's crusade against pork and earmarks, the rest of his record is genuinely not very conservative, and his antics are those of a lifelong politician, and one dedicated to promoting his stature by attracting liberal media attention with the catnip of bashing his fellow Republicans. Looking behind the masks, we have an what's-old-is-new-again candidate who, without his identity wouldn't even be a contender versus just another typical politician who is old hat.
The state of the Republican party is in very bad shape. We've placed 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices and our property rights are under assault while terrorists and enemy combatants are granted constitutional rights? You gotta be kidding me! Government spending is higher than ever, inflation is running rampant and the dollar is deflated, weak, and left undefended. We've expanded government to its largest state by adding a totally redundant, entirely unnecessary bureaucracy, and new entitlements at a time when smaller, less gluttonous, more efficient government and entitlement reform were needed. I've been using this analogy: We're like an old, creaky plane lumbering down the runway, trying to get up to speed on 3 flat tires. In the cockpit sit an old pilot with health concerns whose maneuvers we never much liked and at his side is a co-pilot who doesn't even know how to fly (country last). We can either hop aboard this plane and hope it gets up to speed to lift off before we run out of room (and if it does take flight then Lord help us he doesn't drive it into the ground), or we can power down, turn back, taxi back down the tarmac, pull into the hangar and begin building a new plane. I want the new plane.
Not only will being shut out of national power in the White House, Senate, and House be good for Republicans by forcing us to recapture our essence, but it will spare us from a drab and phony future of upcoming senators and congressmen who would otherwise be obligated to advocate for a President McCain's agenda, which if his record is any indicator, and it is, will be one that is Democrat-minus-one. Furthermore, we have the perfect person to oversee our reconstruction. Mark Twain couldn't fictionalize a better character to rebuild the party than Mitt Romney. His record, if it's any indicator, and it is, has proven tried and true to be one devoted to pragmatic solutions to all problems. Not only would he be an ace articulator of our philosophy, but the perfect foil to President Obama on TV for four years. Afterall he is the candidate most actual Republicans favored until the perfect storm of a crowded field, badly broken brand, open primaries, and religious bigotry yielded a fractured conservative base, resulting in the nomination falling out of a tree and into the lap of Senator McCain. We were hurt by those in our party who have fallen to parochial identity and symbolism over substance and meaning. In other words, we Republicans are turning into the Pharisees of our day.
We're at a point where we can let petty symbolism triumph over prinicple, or we can take a knee, fall on our sword, hit rock bottom. I don't believe that--regardless of anyone's political persuasion--anyone benefits when both parties resemble each other. And so, this is why I believe it's best for the party and the nation for John McCain to lose. And this is why I've ventured into the blogosophere for the first time. I urge all those who feel similarly about what John McCain means to the future potential of our party to join me. We can be the mavericks now. Secure our own future. Defeat McCain. All in favor say aye.
“They ask: Where is my party loyalty?”
For much of the last eight years I asked the same question about Juan....yet I am going to vote for mccain/PALIN on November 4th.
Sincere apologies to the community, then—I wasn’t aware self-promotion was frowned upon as improper etiquette. Also I’ll apologize for my lack of credibility (as judged by not having an identity here prior to now)—I’ve never felt prompted to enter the e-shere before.
Other than that I’ll hide nothing and make no more apologies, but more disclosure: I was active as a volunteer (and donor) to the Romney campaign during the primaries here in Florida. I waited patiently as McCain played out his dramatic VP selection for what should’ve been an obviously sensible choice. Two guys theoretically cut-out, tailormade to tackle the two serious issues of our age: war and the economy...McCain’s lack of economic IQ would be complemented by Romney’s ace of spades, which would free McCain to pursue his passion of national security / foreign policy....in other words: country first). Instead McCain goes out and undermines the core of his campaign (Obama is too inexperienced to be President) by finding and selecting the one person who has even less experience.
What happened is McCain couldn’t find a way to slip Joe Lieberman by us, so as punishment he didn’t do the sensible thing that we wanted (picking Romney) and so he decided to pick someone to give his convention a pop. A cultural play. An ideological nod. A smokescreen, or yes, lipstick. I feel so badly for Palin. This isn’t even much her fault. She got thrust into this totally unprepared, clueless of her selection. The poorness of her pick totally reflects on McCain, not Sarah. Now she’s getting torn up by the liberal media and conservatives are shaking their heads. The damage McCain’s doing to her future potential is a microcosm of what he will do to the Republican party if he’s elected, which forces all of the congressional republicans and everyone else coming up the ladder to pose, to advocate for McCain’s agenda. And that’s a record that is Democrat Lite. And that is not good for the country. If we’re going to have liberal stuff done, then I’d prefer it be done by an admitted Democrat, not a closeted one.
And please, no degree of SCOTUS scare tactic will frighten me into some sort of omega line mindset that McCain needs to win. We put 7 of the 9 damn justices on the court now and they still don’t rule properly. What’s the answer, what do we need, we need 8 of 9, 9 of 9 to get 5 of them to rule accordingly? That’s stupid.
Another scoff I have is for the notion that we can’t recover from a President Obama. Uh, well it’s been a country with a brief timeline but jam packed full of rich history and great tragedy and seemingly insurmountable obstacles yet we’ve always come out on top. So we can recover from one or two terms of anyone.
Yeah maybe Obama is not Osama, but there is only one letter's difference. Obama is a liar, ant-American, socialist, do nothing, empty suit... and a friend of Hamas, al Quaeda, Iran amanutjob, Chavez. Obama is the worst thing that could happen to America ..he is.
OneWingedShark wrote: Remember that Saddam killed [or had killed] thousands on thousands of his own countrymen. If any American President tried to do the same, I am confident that both myself and my fellow service members would be able, willing, and justified in forcibly removing him from office... and that isn’t treason we’re talking, it’s our oath to protect from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
You should move to maybe another country ..say Venzuela.. they have a President there that the Military needs to take out. sheeesh.
>Yeah maybe Obama is not Osama, but there is only one letter’s difference.
And there’s only a single letter’s difference between wine and dine, rape and rope, house and mouse and louse... you’re making an irrelevant point. (As opposed to actually showing a compare/contrast between Obama and Osama.)
>Obama is a liar,
He’s a politician; it’s a given. By the way, did I ever say he wasn’t?
>anti-American, socialist,
Again, did I say he wasn’t?
>do nothing, empty suit...
If that’s the case then why don’t you want him to win? Being hopelessly ineffectual is quite different from being capable and willing to effect evil. Which is it, evil or ineffectual?
> and a friend of Hamas, al Quaeda, Iran amanutjob, Chavez.
> Obama is the worst thing that could happen to America
> ..he is.
Why? I’m saying this because I want to know how one man can bring this country down, especially where there are those like myself (and presumably yourself) who are concerned about keeping it up.
>You should move to maybe another country ..say Venzuela..
>they have a President there that the Military needs to
>take out. sheeesh
Are you trying to be insulting? What I said was that I believe even if Obama were elected president AND he proves to be both utterly moral-less and evil that will not be the end of America. My previous post was taking into account a worst-case scenario, which it seems you ascribe to.
However, you have said nothing to address why my worst-case scenario is a) worse than I project, b) worth more concern (a more likely occurrence) than I believe, or even c) something to make me think McCain is a better choice for me than I currently believe.
I thought America was about debating things and letting the better ideas win (1st amendment), yet you claim to love this country so much you ask me, a veteran, to leave it?
I’ve DONE things, like being enlisted for 8 years as of yesterday. Have you done anything other than run your mouth?
If so, I’d be glad to hear it. What is your EXPERIENTIAL knowledge in this matter? (Just to be clear, we’re talking about leadership here.)
Accepted. I'll just accept that you made the honest mistake; you've been fairly well reasoned and articulate and respectful. (Disagreement ≠ disrespect.)
> And please, no degree of SCOTUS scare tactic will frighten me into some sort of omega line mindset that McCain needs to win. We put 7 of the 9 damn justices on the court now and they still don’t rule properly. What’s the answer, what do we need, we need 8 of 9, 9 of 9 to get 5 of them to rule accordingly? That’s stupid.
Indeed. I agree with you here. If we put 7 of 9 judges on the supreme court, then it only stands to reason that the weird rulings are, to some degree, our own fault.
>Another scoff I have is for the notion that we can’t recover from a President Obama. Uh, well it’s been a country with a brief timeline but jam packed full of rich history and great tragedy and seemingly insurmountable obstacles yet we’ve always come out on top. So we can recover from one or two terms of anyone.
My point EXACTLY! (See my previous post.)
I am calling you a LIAR, as I never asked you to leave this country. You hyperventilated that, and because you lied about that How do I know you are telling the truth about anything.
OneWingedShark wrote: I’ve DONE things, like being enlisted for 8 years as of yesterday. Have you done anything other than run your mouth? If so, I’d be glad to hear it. What is your EXPERIENTIAL knowledge in this matter? (Just to be clear, we’re talking about leadership here.)
Thanks for serving this country, oh by the way Obama has never fought to protect this country or wear the uniform of an American Solider, and he is the one who is lacking in leadership and running his mouth off, and you seem to be OKAY with Obama being president. You are lame in your arguements and defense of Obama.
>I am calling you a LIAR, as I never asked you to leave this country
>>You should move to maybe another country ..say Venzuela..
>>they have a President there that the Military needs to
>>take out. sheeesh
You’re right, you didn’t directly ASK me to leave. However, it looks strongly implied, and as a result I tried to address it. Was that a ‘lie’? Or simply miscommunication?
>Thanks for serving this country,
You’re welcome.
>oh by the way Obama has never fought to protect this country or wear the uniform of an
>American Solider, and he is the one who is lacking in leadership and running his mouth off,
I never implied that he was or did anything of the sort.
>and you seem to be OKAY with Obama being president.
I didn’t say that either.
>You are lame in your arguements and defense of Obama.
That would be because I’m NOT DEFENDING him. Go back and read what I’m saying, I’m saying that I believe America to be strong enough to withstand even him as the president. I am defending me fellow Americans, not Obama.
That said, you still have not said anything to make me want to vote for McCain, or even convinced me that a third-party vote is a vote for Obama.
>Vote your conscience and live with your choice.
You may mean it as sarcastic, but it is actually good and wise advice; for those who do not violate their conscience are never filled with regret for violating it.
>>And please, no degree of SCOTUS scare tactic will frighten me into some sort of omega line mindset that McCain needs to win. We put 7 of the 9 damn justices on the court now and they still don’t rule properly. What’s the answer, what do we need, we need 8 of 9, 9 of 9 to get 5 of them to rule accordingly? That’s stupid<<
Not actually having some sort of conservative or republican nominate SCOTUS justices assures ALL 9 of 9 would be liberal.
Now that would be stupid!
I am defending my fellow Americans too, by not wishing an Obama Presidency on Americans, it would be devastating,and why should we wish that on America. I do not want my country to have to go thru it. I am hoping for better.
Ok, then tell me not only the WHY, but the HOW.
How can one man bring this nation down?
since you have been serving in the Military for eight years, I suppose you started right out of high school, and so now you are about 26? The path downward doesn't happen suddenly, he happens it steps. This country suffered some downward spirals during the Clinton years, you might or might not remember some of the things that happened during the Clinton years as you were in High School. Sometimes a descent can be so slow you dont even realize it is happening.
How could the sane people of German follow Hitler and kill Jews? How could sane people follow Obama who would put no pre conditions to speaking with the enemies of this country, but many pre conditions to debating McCain.?
Why would you think that who the President of the United States is, is of no significance to the security of this country? or that it could not have irrepairable dangers to this country..you are naive.
>Not actually having some sort of conservative or republican nominate SCOTUS justices assures ALL 9 of 9 would be liberal.
I think that’s the original poster’s point. Even though we DO have supposedly conservative nominees, we still have a SC that rules quite liberally. Therefore the implication does not hold. (Implications are only false when the ‘effect’ fails to happen but the ‘cause’ does.)
Again you misread me. I am not saying that who the president happens to be is of no consequence. Where do you get that?
And what about the other people in office? The president isn’t the ONLY word that counts. I mean look at this Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac thing, those were our Houses!
The bailout isn’t happening because of our overwhelming dissent over it... or am I missing something here?
Or are you saying that I should blindly follow whomever The Party throws up as a nomination?
Let me put things another way; Respect is a two way street, but so is loyalty. If the party wants to keep its members, then it needs to be about what it says it stands for... like, say, financial responsibility. Or am I missing something here?
Now you’re starting to give me some reasons; excellent!
{By ‘our’ in my previous post I was saying ‘our houses’ as in the possessive, like “our parents”, and ‘our’ as in the US’s... or is the current House and/or Senate not America’s?}
Also, it might help if, when someone is asking you to explain you cite this: http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
{Which I found yesterday.}
quite an interesting link! I will read it in full later.
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.