Attn McCain Apologists: Talk all you want! (Vanity)

Vanity | 03/31/2008 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Attn McCain Apologists: Talk all you want!

But he's still a constitution trampling RINO and unless he repeals McCain-Feingold, repudiates amnesty and global warming, drops all support for embryonic stem cell research and stops talking about partnering up with the Democrats and instead swears to fight the evil bastards he won't be getting my support.

You kicked the conservatives to the curb and nominated your RINO, now all you gotta do is get him elected.

However, that shouldn't be all that tough to do. Look what he'll be running against. A corrupt, power hungry Marxist radical feminist control freak or a corrupt, America-hating racist Marxist surrender monkey (oops, can I say "surrender monkey" in this context?). Can't see America going for either of those two useful idiots.

By the way, "change" is a Marxist codeword.

As they say, America deserves better.

Carry on.

P.S.

Or, you can select a kick butt pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-America, pro-gun, pro-drilling, pro-defense, pro-small government, fiscal conservative as your running mate and signal a return to traditional conservatism as the future of the GOP and of America and you will get all the support you need. If she's a moose hunting Alaskan army mom, all the better!

[CottonBall]

"Sometimes you’ve just got to choose the lesser of two evils"

Nice to know there are people out there that WOULD choose evil and brag about it. /s.

In this case, it's the lesser of 3 liberals. (And we'd still have a liberal, no matter what).

[NoGrayZone]

[gidget7]

We can't tame McCain. We can only work to get STRONG Conservatives into seats in Congress. They CAN control him. But that is our only hope. We lost the day the media and the RNC threw Conservative candidates under the bus, and nominated this liberal. The White House is already lost. No matter who wins the White House, we already lost it.

Work hard to take back the majority in Congress with Conservatives.

[CottonBall]

So I'm sitting here thinking about what's more important and which can do more permament or long-lasting damage: the courts or Congress

I was thinking along the same lines also - until someone here posted that McCain voted to affirm Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Souter. So much for thinking he'd be for a conservative judge.

[NoGrayZone]

“In this case, it’s the lesser of 3 liberals. (And we’d still have a liberal, no matter what).”

I could never bring myself to vote for a lib. I still have to find out about my options. If I write in for POTUS, do I still get to go to the polls to vote for any Conservative running as well? Must I “flick” that lever for all or can I leave one “unflicked”?

This is the 1st time I have ever been put in this situation so I really have absolutely no idea how to do any of it!!

[CottonBall]

I think I may just go ahead and vote for McCain though, because the damage to the party, if he wins, will probably be irreparable and final - and sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.

Now, that's an interesting - and totally different take on it. hmmmmm.....

[CottonBall]

As someone wisely put it elsewhere, “I held out for a true conservative in 1992 and got 8 years of Bill Clinton.”

On the other hand - I reluctantly voted for a nonconservative in 2000 and 2004, hoping for a real conservative the next time around. And I get McCain as the nominee!

[CottonBall]

Then why be on here? I mean really. If someone disagrees with you on a topic, you choose to not help support FR? I have given loads to FR and still have to put up with lots of people here who I disagree with, including you. It’s nice that people like Jim support this site so we can have freeloaders use their donation as a club rather than to say you believe in debate and support the premise of the site.

I have the opposite view of Sonora, so I'm not backing his/her statement. BUT, I do respect their right to put their money only behind sites that back their ideology. I did exactly the same thing. I waited to donate until I saw this thread. The reason: IF this site were to start backing those that loved McCain and ban those that said anything against him, I'd not only prefer not to spend my $ on it, but I wouldn't be here either. I've backed with cash and other support candidates that have turned out not to be what they said (ie., Bush). I'm a lot more cautious now and look for signs of eventual betrayal first. (Yes, those signs are loud and clear with McAmnesty!)

[CottonBall]

We can only work to get STRONG Conservatives into seats in Congress. They CAN control him.

I have to disagree. Did the Republican-controlled Senate control Bush or did he control them? (ie., they passed his and McCain's amnesty bill easily). And the House heros that refused to pass amnesty and instead passed a strong anti-illegal immigration bill were villified for it - from Bush and the RNC. McCain is not as nice or mild-mannered as McCain. Expect the hostilities toward real conservatives to increase tenfold.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>If it was Jule vs. Hillobama, I’d vote for Julie.

You know, fixing this country means fixing the Democratic Party too. If they get beat every time they put up a gun-grabbing, pro-abort, military hater, they will eventually stop, even if the person beating their gun-grabbing, pro-abort is a gun-grabbing, pro-abort who has proclaimed that he has repented.

We will all be better off.<<

That’s an interesting way to look at it. The anti-McCain idea that voting for McCain is, in effect, proving to the GOP that it can continue to drift leftward. You are saying that the same idea applies to Dems. I’m not sure HillObama is worse than GoreKerry.

Is McCain worse than GW Bush? I don’t think Bush started breaking his promises before he was elected. At CPAC McCain promised that he would secure the border first, and since then he has repeated that promise, but his actions are those of a man who does not want to keep that promise.

It’s really a very complicated and depressing decision this time for voters. No matter whether I vote or not, no matter who gets my vote if I do vote, it’s going to help our nation go leftward.

All 3 candidates would push an amnesty that would provide millions of new Dem (or worse) voters, and consequently the left would control all 3 branches, possibly forever, unless leftists themselves changed when thay saw the disaster they caused. I hope McCain would not turn the USA into the mess that California is.

[DoughtyOne]

Nice...

[nicmarlo]

Agreed.

[roamer_1]

My mule,Eli,could be veep...................

Three Jackasses and a mule...

[DoughtyOne]

Well they’ll tell you that Reagan and Bush put their names forward. I’m not voting for Reagan or Bush. I would submit those men had advisors who failed them, but that’s just my take on it.

It was John’s duty to make damn sure these men were what the presidents said they were before voting in the affirmitive.

John failed his duty three times here. We’re still paying for it.

[Polybius]

"Sometimes you’ve just got to choose the lesser of two evils"

Nice to know there are people out there that WOULD choose evil and brag about it. /s.

English is not a literal language. The idiom in question means "an unpleasant option, but not as bad as the other".

War is certainly unpleasant and, in World War II, choosing to fight a war rather than surrender to Nazi tyranny was certainly "choosing the lesser of two evils".

In the Real World nothing is Perfectly Good except some characters in children's Fairy Tales.

To mock someone with the literal text of "choosing the lesser of two evils" is not clever. It is merely childish.

Right now, the choice is a right of center moderate candidate with some liberal tendencies who desperately wants to win a war that America cannot afford to lose without devastating strategic consequences versus a far left candidate that has promised to surrender in that war which, by all historical benchmarks, has already been won except for the always unpleasant job of "mopping up".

America's future safety will depend on whether or not the registered voters who act like adults next November will outnumber the registered voters who act like children who demand a Fairy Tale character next November.

**********

Obama 14 months ago:

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

**********

McCain 15 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

**********

Four months ago in Iraq:

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

**********

[AppyPappy]

So, who gets your vote?

[NoGrayZone]

Thanks!

[Sonora]

Excellent points, CottonBall.

I find the attitude of Jim Robinson to be disgusting relating to this subject, but let’s face it - he’s his own man and I suppose has his reasons to be on the no compromise track. McCain is probably at about 70-80% of what Jim wants, so Jim and Rush rile against him, post against him, discourage people and posters from supporting him because of the missing 20-30%. I can understand that position, but I also think it’s short-sighted and stupid.

Now let’s see, should reasonable people go for 70-80% or practically brain dead, close to 0%? I’d say a penalty is needed for encouraging posters to go for brain dead versus voting for someone that just may listen.

I’m primarily here to support the troops and have a little fun. If Mr. Robinson decids to limit posters to those that agree with him and donate to him - I’ll be happy to move on down the road, but no poster here is in the position to tell me what to do until that event happens.

[gidget7]

No they did not, but the Conservatives did try! Too many in Congress are not Conservatives.

[scarface367]

You are aware that Ginsberg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, right? In other words many conservatives voted to confirm her, not just McCain.