A Question for FR McCain Detractors

FR | 2-23-08 | Bob J

[Bob J]

Ever since Super Tuesday a super debate has been raging on FR concerning John McCain. I was never a McCain supporter, in fact I penned the post Super Tuesday post "Official FR Drinking Thread" so we could together drown our common disappointments into oblivion.

FReepers seem to be moving into three distinct groups. The first are those that have always supported McCain, a lot or partially. There are those that don't like McCain but are willing to support him because they believe they will get some of what they want or to defeat what the see as the more critical danger, Obama or Clinton. The there's the third group, those that viscerally dislike McCain and vow never to vote for him for any reason.

The actions and motivation for support from the first two groups seem obvious...they would rather see McCain in the White House than a dem. But for the life of me I cannot understand some of the actions of the third.

Allow me to explain.

I understand you dislike McCain and the reasons why. He is far too liberal on many issues, he has stabbed conservatives in the back several times and he is too cozy with the dems. These are all defensible reasons to not vote for him or to vote third party and you have every right to vote as you see fit and for whatever reasons you hold. What I don't understand is why some here are making such concerted efforts to dissuade others from voting for or supporting him.

As flawed as McCain is there is no way a logical case can be made that we would be better off under Obama or Hillary (O&H). Even on most issues where McCain is closer to the left than to us, O&H are much farther to the left than he is and would do much more damage than McCain. On the issues where he is not, the WOT, taxes, abortion, etc., the differences are stark and this does not even take into count extended issues like judicial appointments.

So why are you working so hard, so viscerlly, so nasty, to turn votes against McCain? If you truly feel as you do than go sit out November or cast your vote for your 3rd party candidate. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why you push for a McCain and GOP loss.

It may be as simple as "misery loves company". It may be that you validate your own position by getting others to believe as you do. It may be that there are some dem propaganda plants on FR. I don't know but I sure would like to and I know others do as well.

[The Citizen Soldier]

Re: McCain-Feingold (1) made no difference in practice, but is bad law and should be rejected by the courts.

Perhaps the Supreme Court?

Stopped reading.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[nyconse]

I will be back, my son is kicking me off the computer...mine is not working at the moment. See you in a bit!

[ex-snook]

"Many of us think that the conservative movement will recover quicker with a Dem in office."

Righto. Bush 41 gave us Perot, Perot gave us Clinton and Clinton gave us a Republican Congress and Bush 43 gave it back to the Dems. Time for a conservative congress again in 2 years and a Conservative President in 4.

[stompk]

your position comes about as close as I’ve seen to mine. I have to sleep at night feeling like I have not sold every scrap of my integrity.

[org.whodat]

When is the D9 going to get here to tear down my house for the new Saudi toll road???LOL

[JasonC]

No, it isn't remotely enough. Name one on which Obama is better.

[calcowgirl]

Some of us believe that McCain is potentially more damaging than Obama because we believe he will pursue a Dem agenda. He will continue reaching across the aisle and will ram through leftist legislation-including a new fairness doctrine-by colluding with Dems and strong arming congressional Repubs.

One can expect the Repubs to oppose Obama, but how are they going to oppose McCain? There is no reason for anyone to believe McCain would govern in a conservative or even Repub manner based on the last nine years.

BIG Bump! That is exactly what has happened in California under Schwarzenegger who has accomplished more for the liberal agenda than any Democrat could have dreamed of.

[StarCMC]

I would love to be wrong. We are in for a tough few years no matter what.

Bump that.

[dforest]

You can decry him over immigration, but you have to decry Bush too. They are one. You can lament the fact that there are any men in politics at all, who are not all true blue conservative - but it is whistling dixie.

THAT was said like a tried and true liberal. Congrats JasonC, you win the big prize, open borders and the end of the US as we know it. Hooyah!

[JasonC]

Why stop reading? It should be rejected by the courts. I do not say it will be or has been, I say it ought to be. They can revisit their decisions, and given a clear enough case on the facts, we can hope they might. For that matter, we can work to repeal it. But it has not had any practical effect.

[org.whodat]

I hate to tell you but the war is over, 65% of the Americans people say so, therefore it is just a matter of time, whether 12 months are 24 months.

[Polybius]

McCain will not win the war...his Dem buddies will force a withdrawal...I am sorry to say.

Like they forced him back to back withdrawal in 2006?

The only thing that will guarantee losing the war is large enough number of voters who are gazing at their belly bottons chanting the mantra:

"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."

Tell ya what, from now until November, you chant your mantra of defeat and, from now until November, I will do whatever I can to put some spine back into the American Sheeple and win this war.

**********

Obama 13 months ago:

Published Jan. 30, 2007 ...... Obama wants troops home by spring ’08 ……. Illinois senator, presidential candidate introduces bill to force redeployment

**********

Hillary 13 months ago:

Published January 17, 2007 ........ Hillary Clinton opposes Iraq troops 'surge'

**********

McCain 14 months ago:

Published December 27, 2006 ..... Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring ........ conservative columnist Robert Novak suggests that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "aggressive" push for a U.S. troop expansion -- or "surge" -- in Iraq may be costing the top 2008 GOP contender in the polls, especially when matched against another presumed front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). "The decline in the polls of [McCain], as measured against [Clinton], reflects more than declining Republican popularity ......... "It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a 'surge' of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006

**********

Three months ago in Iraq:

Troop Surge, Iraqis’ Anger Puts al Qaeda ‘On the Run’

**********

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[penowa]

"Even on most issues where McCain is closer to the left than to us, O&H are much farther to the left than he is and would do much more damage than McCain."

McCain is not "closer to the left than to us" on certain issues, he is in the SAME PLACE as Hillary and Obama and will do an equal amount of damage to the country as either of them will do. The difference is if McCain should by some strange stroke of fate be elected, he will destroy the Republican party, force conservatives to find a new party, AND the damage he does to the country will be blamed on conservatives, not on Republicans or the left. Surely, that isn't too hard to understand unless you think he's just a tad bit to the left "of us" and we should ditch our conservative principles just a little bit to support him.

I would no more vote for McCain than I would consider voting for either of the Democrats and for exactly the same reason - they're all PROGRESSIVE puppets of George Soros, Theresa Heinz, etc. None of the three would be where they are right now if they were not bought and paid for, willing to do the bidding of the elites to destroy our sovereignty. If you're comfortable ratifying their sell-out of this country, then vote for him, or any of the three, but I will not.

[JasonC]

I am against illegal immigration, for legal immigration, and to the right of both Bush and McCain on the matter. But no, the country is not at stake in the matter, and will be fine regardless. We should control illegal immigration for the sake of general law abidingness, fairness to those who obey the rules, and to give policy the ability to regulate the pace of immigration to what assimilation processes can handle, to shape its composition, etc. All important things, but no, the existence and even the success of the country are not at stake in them. We are bigger and stronger than that, have done fine regardless, and would continue to do so. Not a reason not to fix it, but it is a reason not to be hysterical about it.

The sky won't fall if we build another power plant, either. Hysterical scaremongering hyperbole is no more attractive when pretend conservatives engage in it, than when the left does.

[G.Mason]

You summed that up quite nicely.

I'm afraid I have lost all patience with those here on FR, and elsewhere, that cannot see what voting for the lesser of evils (ie: for the slow death of the Republic) has brought, and until my voice, and vote is taken away, I shall speak my mind, and vote for whom I damn well please.

If I wanted to live as do the Europeans, or Canadians, I would move there.

[E. Cartman]

Obviously, if party loyalty was my be all end all, I would vote for McCain. It isn’t and I won’t.

You McCainiacs are just like the conservative members of the GOP who are sent to Washington to represent the heartland and then abandon their principles so the WaPo and NYT will love them. You'd rather jettison your principles in the hope that George and Laura will send you a Christmas card instead of fighting for what is right. You'll go along to get along. You even use the same language The WaPo and NYT does to praise GOP congressmen who've betrayed their values. "They've grown in office." "They've come to see the bigger picture."

When you tell us to see the bigger picture, what you're really saying is, "Shut up and sit down. Be a good boy and we'll give you more of the same crap we've been giving you for the last seven years" or "Yes, John McCain is a senile, psychotic mediocrity but Hillary is worse".

Well, this time around, I'm not buying the same old tripe.

[LadyNavyVet]

“Israel, on the other hand...”

...is perfectly capable of nuking Iran themselves, if it comes to that. Not every a*s that needs to be kicked in the world needs to be kicked by the US military.

[ConfidentConservative]

Here are my thoughts;

I look at the senate when repubs decided to do this very thing... If it weren’t for President Bush and vetoing some of the Dimwads we would have a LOT of problems to deal with.
SO Now Let’s have the Republican voters do the same thing with the Presidential vote? No veto, we get hosed big time.
Be CAREFUL what you vote for people.

I look at it this way, our troops do not cut and run IF a situation only looks partly good. They fight the fight.
So If I only have part of an arsenal Do I drop the ball and run? not me.

BE REALLY SURE you want the outcome of your vote people because it really is going to count this time.

your friend,