TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN

Don Feder's Cold Steel Caucus ^ | 02/14/2008 | Don Feder

[Witch-king of Angmar]

I just got back from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., where conservatives began lining up behind a man who’s been sticking it to us for years. By a process of self-hypnosis, many have managed to convince themselves that McCain is actually one of us.

Not for nothing did Benjamin Disraeli call conservatives the stupid party.

What part of John McCain do we not get? McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Edwards -- among other socialist, anti-speech, open-borders, enviro-Marxist measures he’s co-sponsored with the hardcore left of the Democratic Party over the years.

If Il Duce had served with him in the United States Senate, there would be McCain-Mussolini.

[Grunthor]

“What’s your alternative? Rather than vote for McCain, what do you propose?”

NOT voting for McCain.

[Grunthor]

ty

[Senator Goldwater]

The excitement on the Democrat side is huge.

---

One half of which will be dissappointed and dispirited after their convention.

Don’t join them. The soldiers are too important.

[Liberty2007]

there is no solution, we cant get so-called conservatives to rally around 1 3rdparty candidate, some of you hold blindly on to that little r with all your might. btw I dont even know if a 3rd party can win they have no electoral votes. just perpare for a rough 4 years no matter who gets it. if mccain does I can join in glee with the rat bashing of him.

[kabar]

Bravo Don!!!!

[brytlea]

Yes, we will be pilloried, and then blamed for a Clinton or Obama Presidency since we couldn’t vote for McCain, when in fact the failure lies with the Republican party and their inability to find and nominate a suitable candidate. I refuse to accept the responsibility for that.
susie

[PugetSoundSoldier]

He's on the wrong side of all the issues and I'm not going to drop my principles simply because he has an "R" beside him. I'm a conservative before I am a Republican.

Hyperbole, thy name is goldstategop...

Is that why McCain opposed tax increases, which the Democrats want?

Is that why McCain is a solid pro-lifer, not a pro-abortion Senator like the Democrats?

Is that why McCain wants to win in Iraq rather than cut and run like the Democrats?

Is that why McCain has an 82% lifetime ACU (and 75% over the last 8 years) rating, while the Democrat candidates are under 10%?

Is that why McCain voted for the border fence that the Democrat candidates didn't?

Since you claim McCain is on the wrong side of the issues according to you, I have no other choice but to conclude you are a pro-abortion, high-tax, cut-and-run, open-border Republican.

[Faith]

I’m with you Soldier Dad. Our troops deserve a CIC who will support them. God bless them all.

[bushinohio]

Absolutely. How can anyone say McCain is better than Hillary or Obama? He has consistently stabbed us in the back on so many issues. Why would he change just because he gets into the White house? I think a McCain presidency would be much worse because his administration would be mislabeled as conservative. And though he would be acting like a liberal, the media can still blame all the crap on Republicans and conservatives and destroy the party even further. A vote for McCain is a vote for closing the gap between the two parties.

[kabar]

McCain=Amnesty=Destruction of this country as we know it. If John McCain can vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party, so can I. Under no circumstance will I vote for him.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

NOT voting for McCain.

And voting for whom?

[attiladhun2]

Exactomundo! Obama is going to willingly hand over Iraq to either Al Qaeda or Iran simply because “he voted against the war”, the interests of this country, the Persian Gulf States, or the world be d@mned. This is not just pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory, it is putting us all at infinitely greater risk. It would, on the one hand, give Iran an even greater share of the world’s petroleum reserves and more money with which to arm themselves, or give Al Qaeda a strategic position far more favorable than remote Afghanistan and a sanctuary from which to launch even more horrendous attacks. Such a policy would enshrine Obama as a master of higher strategy—for the Jihadists.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Did you vote for the Republicans in 2000 or 2004? Because you know that the "Amnesty" plan of President Bush (McCain supported) was a plank of the GOP platform.

Or have you decided that "amnesty" was good then, but not now?

[Liberty2007]

Libertarian party sends condolences to the RNC

[kabar]

You don’t get it. Amnesty will destroy this country. It is irrevocable. McCain, Hillary, and Obama all support amnesty. Why should I be complicit in voting for someone who supports amnesty? We must vote for the other Reps on the ticket, just not for the office of President. It will be easier to fight a Dem in the WH on amnesty than McCain.

[rtbwood]

This lack of logic just confuses me. What are we to do? Just sit this out and elect Hillary or Obama Hussein? We have to make our voices heard and vote McCain. Then also vote straight Republican for Senate and House. We MUST regain the House and get Pelosi out and Harry Reid in Minority positions. John Bohner is a good man and will lead effectively. Folks, we MUST vote. Half is better than none and the slow path so socialism as opposed to the fast track is the better choice. With a Republican House and Senate, we have a chance to stop the executive branch dead in it’s tracks. So VOTE REPUBLICAN down the line.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, nice little rant. Now let me ask again:

Did you vote for the Republicans in 2000 or 2004? Because you know that the “Amnesty” plan of President Bush (McCain supported) was a plank of the GOP platform.

Or have you decided that “amnesty” was good then, but not now?

[kabar]

Did you vote for the Republicans in 2000 or 2004? Because you know that the "Amnesty" plan of President Bush (McCain supported) was a plank of the GOP platform. Or have you decided that "amnesty" was good then, but not now?

As always, I voted a straight Rep ticket in 2000 and 2004. Amnesty was not part of the platform. The 2006 Senate bill [S. 2611] that passed was amnesty and so was McCain-Kennedy. chiMcCain was one of the chief architects of both bills and the WH supported him. If I had known that that was the WH position in either 2000 or 2004, I would not have voted for Bush.

Amnesty was never good either now or in 1986. I find it interesting that McCain voted AGAINST the 1986 amnesty bill despite being a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution."

[AlternateEgo]

“Since you claim McCain is on the wrong side of the issues according to you, I have no other choice but to conclude you are a pro-abortion, high-tax, cut-and-run, open-border Republican.”
____________________________________________________

Thanks PugetSoundSoldier for expressing it so well.

I’m with you. How goldstategop can try to sell the line that there’s no difference between a vote for McCain and a vote for Hillary/Obama is beyond comprehension.

[alicewonders]

From the article:

Judicial Nominations – Though McCain denies it, columnist Robert Novak swears the frontrunner told him prior to confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito that the nominee was too conservative, and that he preferred those who “didn’t wear their conservatism on their sleeve” (like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy?). McCain was also part of the Gang of 14 which prevented a rules change that would have stopped unconstitutional filibusters on judicial nominations. Former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman was responsible for the Supreme Court nomination of David Souter -- the most disastrous Republican appointment since Earl Warren. (The play was Rudman to then-Chief of Staff John Sununu to Bush Sr.) Rudman has a prominent role in McCain’s campaign. Rudman could be President McCain’s Attorney General, giving him more say on judicial nominations than anyone other than the president. In his 1996 book, Rudman wrote that Christian conservatives include in their ranks “enough anti-abortion zealots, would-be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough” to align itself with them. With Warren Rudman at his side, it’s anyone’s guess whether McCain’s Supreme Court picks would be appreciably better than Clinton’s or Obama’s.

War on Terrorism – We’ve already noted McCain’s support for energy dependence and his crusade for open borders. (Besides all of the rapists, drug-dealers and gang members coming across our Southern border, terrorists are also infiltrating the United States due to the de facto surrender of national sovereignty.) McCain wants to close Guantanamo and give terrorists the same rights as enemy combatants. He opposes tough interrogation techniques that leave no scars, but have elicited the intelligence that has saved American lives. (Personally, I’d use thumbscrews and the iron maiden on this scum.) A McCain anti-terrorism policy is more likely to be shaped by his friends at the ACLU and The New York Times than by the Center for Security Policy.

The two issues that we think are most vital to vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama are the Supreme Court judicial appointments and the War on Terror. If you read the two points above, you will see that McCain is not what people think he is on either point.

The best strategy is to vote for Republicans all down the ballot EXCEPT for John McCain. We will do better as opposition. Please people, think this through - don't choose on emotion alone - THINK it through!