I don’t see that many people trying to dissuade others from voting for McCain. As a matter of fact, I see quite the opposite. I see more of those who support McCain trying to browbeat those who refuse to do so. I agree with you, to each his own.
I think what we are seeing involves individuals who loathe the idea of once again voting for “the lesser of the two evils”. They would like, for once, to have a candidate they can vote for, rather than just cast a vote against the opposition. We can discuss the logical decision and the reality all we like, but they see it differently.
Many of these people see what is coming, no matter who is elected of the remaining three. Regardless of which of the remaining three is elected they will support policies that will change the demographics in such a way as they are going to be powerless and on the outside looking in. When you feel betrayed or hurt by one of your own it is far worse than the same from the opposition. This is what you are seeing and McCain has done little or nothing to change that.
He has work to do, a lot of work to do. Many people are not going to get out and vote just to vote against Obama or Hillary. He better start talking about real border security and enforcing of our existing laws. Do you want to face the opposition and see the knife coming or do you want to be stabbed in the back? I think you can understand that and I think that is the reasoning of those whom you say you cannot understand.
It is McCain’s fault, not the fault of those who can’t in good conscience support him. He has much work to do and I do not see him doing it. He is just egomaniacal enough to believe he doesn’t need the Conservative base or evangelicals. He better think again and get to work.
Unforgettable...in so many sickening ways-— that’s what he is. Whether the wins or loses is not my group’s - group 3 - responsibility.
It’s his own’s.
Right now - no way. He has not a snowball’s chance in hell to make it to the WH. Unless a total meltdown among the Demos happens...could.
The trouble I have with John McCain, and one that still has not been properly resolved to my satisfaction, is howcum he was the darling of the New York Times, earning their endorsement in January and early February, while all the time they were holding this story (which is bogus and incendiary to the extreme, and poorly sourced at that), and they choose NOW to release it? If they are going to release real but derogatory information, first collect it and verify from reliable sources, sources which may be independently contacted for corroboration. And for this, the sources should be made available, else it is correct to challenge the veracity of the assertion in the first place.
The New York Times has played hopscotch all around this First Amendment issue, claiming “freedom of the press” which apparently includes the freedom to make up just about anything the editors deem appropriate for their agenda. This is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, then handing out gasoline to fight the fire.
Repudiate any support you have now, or have gotten in the past from the NYT, John, before I can in good conscience consider you a serious contender for my vote. There is no “kiss and make up” on this one.
With luck, the parent company supporting the NYT will go broke and be in receivership within the decade. Then a REAL “paper of record” may be established in New York and the nation.
“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.”
There is no proof of any “STARK” diiferences.
And now we have some people giving aid and comfort to Russia against the U.S. and our NATO allies in Kosovo.
I do not believe it matters one twit if I vote for or support the Keating Five Guy. If Hillary somehows manages to get the nomination, then my support of McCain might mean something. A thoroughly dislikable Washington insider Senator like McCain could have a chance against Hillary who is one in the same. But against Obama, he has no chance. Obama is younger and simply more charming than the old Rino relic of McCain. When Dole lost to Clinton, Clinton was ripe for defeat, but youth and likeability are factors that political ideologues that populate this forum seem to ignore. Since Bush and McCain stand firmly with Teddy Kennedy on amnesty, I see little difference between McCain and Bush. But with all Bush’s baggage, he would do better against Obama than McCain. He is younger, more likeable, and even after eight years he appears less of an insider than Puff Daschle’s vacation buddy.
On the other hand I believe McCain will likely kill off the conservative movement for 20 years and possible the Republican party for good.
If you want conservatives to become disengaged for a generation or two then McCain is your man.
I also think it very likely that a McCain Presidency will do far more longterm and permanent damage to the United States since he will be working with the Rinos and Dems full speed ahead to further his leftist one-world government agenda while any Democrat is likely to face an energized conservative base planning on fighting them every step of the way and flushing the Rinos out of the Republican party once and for all.
Not to mention I see no reason to reward the Republican Party for nominating the worse possible candidate they could considering their base.
And finally a McCain Presidency means legalized Mexican invaders - that won't ever be fixed and the damage is likely to be incalculable. Not to mention it pretty much will lock the Dems in power for decades due the Mexican "give me more of my benefits" votes.
Any Dem will have to fight to get any amnesty passed and the Republicans will be focused on two things - flushing out the Rinos that have infested the party and lead them down the path to utter defeat and limiting the damage done by the Dems.
I won't vote for McCain. Ever. Period.
Write in a real conservative, cast a vote that actually stands for something and let the chips fall where they may.
Obama v. Clinton v. McCain?
That’s like arguing which end of the shit sandwich is “the good end.”
I’ll write in someone else, thankyouverymuch.
The problem with punishing the Republicans and McCain by ensuring a Democrat victory is that every bad consequence will be graven in stone forever. It’s not as if we’re going to have four years of the most extreme leftism and emerge the same as we were before. You cut off your nose to spite your face; your face gets properly spited, and afterwards there’s still a big gaping hole where your nose used to be.
“So why are you working so hard, so viscerlly, so nasty, to turn votes against McCain?”
This question isn’t directed to me since I am not telling anybody how to vote for President this year.
Perhaps the answer to your question lies in finding out why McCain has been “working so hard, so viscerlly, so nasty,” against Conservatives for the past decade.
Don’t read, don’t think, don't try to rationally respond to legitimate questions about your candidate. No, just hysterically fire off your next overly emotional slogan, and bile, filled rant!
You people are the Democrats most effective campaigners
***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.***
You are SO right.
“What doesn’t make sense is why you push for a McCain and GOP loss.”
A McCain loss and a GOP loss are two different things.
In the long run, they are probably the opposite of one another.
This is really a very easy question. First McCain has no chance of winning. Look at the numbers of voters for Obama in the primaries, then look at McCain’s numbers. Then subtract all the crossover voters for McCain in New Hampshire and Florida. He can’t win, no way, no how. There will be no anti-Hillary vote if Obama wins, and even then, the Democrats are unified against any Republican candidate.
The McCain loss being a given, we have no motivation to support him and capitulate on everything that is important to us. Just look at that speech that McCain gave on energy, yesterday. He is making no effort to appease the conservative base, none at all. What makes you think he would do so after the election, if he won.?
This election is more than voting for a Lie or a Liar...for this reason.... I do understand what Conservatives are wrestling with, the lie (obama), the liar (hilery), and the backstabber of Conservatives (mccain) with policy in hand.
Why are you asking questions that have been answered so many times already on various threads? McCain has already lost the election. Better to get over it and focus on the next battle: Congress. Whichever liberal candidate (McCain, Clinton, or Obama) draws the greatest negative backlash from the Conservative voters for the vacating seats in Congress is the best candidate to put in the POTUS chair. If that’s McCain, I’m okay with it ... but rather than encouraging Conservative backlash I see him more likely to redefine “conservatism” in a Clinton-esq way to more closely represent the new Republican party. That is more dangerous to Conservatives than the programs sought after by Clinton and Obama. He is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Keep your eye on him.
But then I support those who wish to be damn fools:-()
I think the question should be, “Why do you keep trying to change OUR minds?”
You vote for who you want to vote for & we’ll vote for who we want to. When you post these vanities, what is it you are trying to do? If not trying to convince or stir some $hit - what? Quit attacking us & get off our backs!
The McCain bashing is utterly childish. I don't like him, I would prefer at least two of the other candidates to be the nominee, if not more, and he's not perfect on issues I care about.
But only children cry and whine and sit out making a tough decision because the choice is between candidates that aren't your first choices.
I keep hearing how we are the "adult" party. I wish we had some real adults here, like those who fought WW2 and lived through the Depression, for example.
The people in the third group are those who wanted George W. Bush because of his religious affiliation--and now those same people LOATHE George W. Bush.
Maybe, just maybe, sometimes you can't get all you want. You can't have one of "our" kind--a specific religious kind. When considering who to vote for, you don't get the phone book--you get the names of those who managed to get through the system as it is.
Do we have to LIKE it? Heck no.
But this is THE choice we have.
The "strategic" voters, who think "I won't support McCain this time, and the GOP will get the message to choose a religious conservative" or whatever are living in a fantasy world wheere their message is magically transferred precisely. Do you REALLY think the GOP bigwigs are going to just CHANGE? No, sorry, they're not going to see few votes for McCain and think "Hmm, next time, a conservative is going to win the nomination," because they can't guarantee who's going to win.
Remember in 2006 when people here said it was a GOOD thing we lost because now in 2008 a conservative would be in perfect position to win the nomination? Guess that "message" didn't get sent quite right, did it?
That's because when the message is sent indirectly, which is the message sent by not voting, IT DOESN'T GET HEARD. Because the GOP will then argue as to what message was sent. Was McCain TOO conservative? Was he too old? Was he not conservative enough? Should we only choose those approved by Evangelicals (you know, like the current president they mostly loathe)?
A vote is a vote. You want to send a message, it's GOT to be on the state level, or when the national party comes calling for donations. THAT is how the message is sent--if we support conservatives in the state and Congressional level, then guess what we've got in the pool of those who will run for the nomination? (Think hard, now.)
Despising McCain is just childish. Ennobling it by claiming one is "sending a message" is nothing but self-applause.
You go right on clapping yourself on the back, now--the rest of us will be trying to stop one of two socialists from coming to power, and making sure neither gets to choose SCOTUS nominees.