Posted on 02/10/2008 4:12:31 PM PST by John W
Edited on 02/10/2008 5:16:57 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Kamikaze Republicans -- those who say they'll never vote for John McCain because he isn't conservative enough -- may get what they deserve.
The Clintons.
Many on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, James Dobson and others, have declared they'd rather vote for Hillary Clinton -- or not vote at all -- than cast a ballot for McCain. These self-appointed spokesmen for conservatism insist that voting for Clinton is a matter of principle: Better to go down on the strength of one's convictions than to be a morally compromised placeholder, they say.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Kathleen is out to lunch.
First, Rush, Ann and Glen are no more self appointed spokesmen than she is...they’re all conservative media types.
Second, are we gonna be waving the bloody shirt as the Dems did for Kerry in 04? Military service wasn’t enough of a selling point for Kerry, George H. Bush or Dole. If that’s gonna be the campaign theme for those who wanna make us feel bad for going against McCain they should stop it now.
Third, the Clinton fear tactic does not work anymore. Most people can look to the Clinton years and see a congress that fought liberal policies and then look to the Bush years and watch a congress that loss seat after seat after supporting liberal policies in the name of party unity.
Kathleen, eat me.
As you say, there may be no difference between the three on their views, but there is a difference in the sheeple’s views. In 4 years with a RINORAT, the sheeple will merely pile on more hatred of the party. In 4 years with a RAT making those same decisions, the sheeple and the GOP may possibly wake up and vote for a real conservative in ‘12.
The author thinks that the “stay-true-to your-conservative-principles-no-matter-what” argument is not very convincing.
However.... I am not sure that the author has correctly understood the position of many of the so-called “suicide voters.”
My take on it is that they are arguing that:
1. The Clinton presidency would cause less damage, because conservative republicans would be actively fighting against her proposals. So her liberal policies wouldn’t get through.
2. The McCain presidency would cause MORE damage, because the conservative republicans would not be actively fighting against a fellow republican. So his liberal policies (not amnesty-because-you-pay-$, global warming policies, etc.) would pass.
As for me... I tend to think that McCain’s presidency would cause less damage, so most likely I will be voting for him.
(I reserve the right to change my mind!!!!)
BTW, I came to that decision long before Ann or Rush or any of them ventured such an approach.
Kamakazi Republicans?
It starts out that you are misinformed.
Then you are having a childish tantrum.
Then you are mentally unstable.
Finally you are dangerous.
By November, the establishment will be in pure terrified panic that we serfs are in revolt.
Prepare to be cast as the evil ones.
PS: whodatorg wants to add “McCain Derangement Syndrome” to my list. I think it should go between ‘childish tantrum’ and ‘mentally unstable’, but I’m willing to listen to others’ opinions on its position.
The country will be irretrievably in the crapper by '12 if your scenario unfolds..
My argument is that McCain is not emotionally stable enough to be president no matter what his policies or politics.
Yawn. Another lecture from one of my so-called conservative betters.
Look here, Kathleen. Just because my name isn’t known in the Georgetown or Manhattan cocktail party circuits doesn’t mean that I don’t have influence in my corner of the world, or a deep education in history or political philosophy.
My loyalty is to conservative principle, not the GOP.
If you want my vote, you’ll need to do better than to harangue, insult, and condescend.
At this point I see no reason not to let the Dems take the blame for the economic tough love coming our way. It was socialism that got us into the mess, not free market capitalism. Why let the faux-capitalist party get tarred with the brush?
Good argument!
WTH? That has to be one of the dumbest things Parker's ever written.
Bi-Partisanship is nothing more than caving to liberal demands. McCain says he can work across the aisle. In other words, he is a compromiser.
Nowhere in the definition of “conservative” is there anything mentioned about compromise. So conservative principles are not based on compromising to a leftist, socialist, progressive agenda. Neither is an election of a pseudo conservative.
McCain isn’t the GOP nominee, yet.
Compromise is:
getting rid of your principles a little bit at a time.
- Patrick Lear
McCain is a Consensus-tive rather than a Conserva-tive.
“Kathleen is out to lunch.”
Well said. This young lady is closer to the Clintons than most of us. She’s pretty much a lefty. I’ve read her columns for the last couple of years and can’t figure out where Townhall figures she’s conservative.
Then again, it might be viewed as grandstanding for the Beltway Bunch.
most of the people who made comments here just prove her point..
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.