John McCain, a Not So Favorable Retrospective (Heavy Graphics)

My own thoughts... | DoughtyOne

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Doc. It’s nice to know you got it on the first pass. I don’t demand folks adopt my beliefs. I just want them to acknowledge the premise, agree or disagree, then go about their merry way. You take care.

[DoughtyOne]

McCain’s people should dominate the convention. He has vastly superior numbers. I’m not sure how anyone could change the platform without his approval. If someone disagrees with this, I’d be happy to hear it, and an explanation along the lines of what you asked for.

[higgmeister]

You can call us any names you like, but I am not going to support the one of the three leftist candidates left, that will have the most support for whatever he wants to pass.

Give me someone Conservatives can rally against, not someone who will subvert a large body of them.

You realize you are saying Jimmy Carter wasn't so bad. And that Bill Clinton wasn't so bad. You are saying you would have voted for them if they had run against McCain. You sound as crazy as Eschior!

[Eric Blair 2084]

Oh, come on. Be an elitist and just ask what kind of wine goes best with your turd sandwich.

If you don't vote for McCain, you are voting for a Giant Douche.

They have a gun to our head...what to do? Turd sandwich. Giant douche. Decide now, or I'll shoot! That's what the cold caller from the RNC said.

Poor bastard. He likes to play games so I had one for him...

Wheel of Fortune...

Would you like to buy a vowel GOP?

S_ck M_ B_lls.

[calcowgirl]

I mostly agree with you there, but I would like to add that more conservatives need to show out in primaries for their candidate.

Absolutely no disagreement there!

Let my give you an example, calcowgirl, in my state's primary(SC) only 1 in 4 Republicans voted. Let's just assume that Fred Thompson was the conservatives' choice in the primary. Ok, Fred got 17%, I think McLame got like 25%. So if a little over twice as many Fred supporters would have actually showed up(and I know they were out there), McLame would have lost to the conservatives' choice. Couple that with the fact that the Democrats had an 80% turnout; now you see where I'm coming from.

Yep. But I'm convinced much of that was by design. IMO, the RNC ins controlled by a group that is much more moderate than the general electorate. They are the ones that gave McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger starring roles at the 2004 Convention and have helped develop their resumes for years. They had several horses in this race and were going to make sure that one of them rose to the top. Whether it was pumping up Rudy or beating down Hunter, all of it was designed to make sure one of the more moderate candidates rose to the top (even if it happened in almost silence... as it did with McCain). Rudy dropped out at the exact right time to help McCain. A three-dimensional chess game, almost.

I know it's hard for folks to believe that there is something better than an (R) winning. A decade ago, I would have been arguing with the likes of me. But most recently in California, we have lived it up-close-and-personal with Schwarzenegger. His policies are much like McCain's. He has been able to pass legislation with almost unanimous Democrat support and only the minimum number of Republicans necessary to get a majority. Being the titular head of the State Party, he can wield much power--in the form of appointments, reelection support, fundraising, etc. He twisted a couple arms to get passed global warming legislation, massive land grabs, reckless spending plans, massive borrowing programs--all things that the vast majority of Republicans opposed and had been fighting for years. In the first few years, the Republicans objected with only a whimper, wanting to be supportive of their party leader. He appoints leftist judges and all the Republican loyalists did was say, "well, maybe he'll do better next time." To add insult to injury, the MSM reports these as "bi-partisan" legislation and lauds Schwarzenegger's ability to "get things done." Conservatives, and most all Republicans, are left almost powerless under the media blitz.

When all is said and done, he has been able to accomplish more for the liberal agenda than any Democrat could have dreamed of. I see the same thing happening under a McCain presidency. With any of the candidates in the White House it is going to be a bad four years. I see the best hope as GRIDLOCK against the weakest opponent and one on the opposing team. Having our quarterback give the ball to the opposing team does not make for many touchdowns on our side of the scoreboard.

Sorry that was so longwinded but I was impressed with your willingness to engage in dialogue, even if we don't agree. I thought I'd give you a bit of background as to where my political passions come from.

Your writting style reminds me of Ann Coulter's, btw. That's a good thing. ;)

Wow! That is quite a compliment! Thank you. :-)

[DoughtyOne]

I’m sure you have probably considered this, but there are no guarantees if we do stay in Iraq another 100 years. (I know, McCain didn’t actually mean a full campaign there that long, so don’t react like I did.) At some point we’re going to have to leave, and it may slip back into the abyss.

If you want to get really upset, look at what is taking place right now in Europe? We lost hundreds of thousands of lives there during the last century. To what avail. They can’t even hang to to what we have given them, twice.

At some point we may have to accept the fact that we eliminated a vast number of terrorists, and take comfort in that.

I’d rather see us pulled out of Iraq, than see McCain sign on to globalist issues conserning our sovereignty here at home. If you want to talk about something our troops fought for in vain, let me tell you that our independence, sovereignty and self-dtermination woudl be the penicle for me.

I want opposition to that type of thing over the next four or eight years. I don’t know if you agree with this, but the immigration issue is indicative of a man who has bought into the globalist line hook line and sinker.

I do not want that man in the White House with no viable opposition.

[calcowgirl]

Very nice. You’re the go to person. Thanks for the point about John’s wife also.

I only learned that about his ex-wife recently.

I had not realized that John had taken an alternative view in the matter of troops in Lebanon. I do appreciate you filling in that gap for us.

You're welcome.

[DoughtyOne]

You realize you are saying Jimmy Carter wasn't so bad. And that Bill Clinton wasn't so bad. You are saying you would have voted for them if they had run against McCain. You sound as crazy as Eschior!

I haven't even suggested someone vote for Obama or Hillary in deference to McCain, so I don't know where you got any of this.

As for Carter, I have thought him to be the worst President our nation has had.  He continues to be one of the most problematic U.S. Citizens to this day.

As for Clinton, about all I can say is we survived him.  We took the Congress in 1994, and forced him to pass welfare reform, and reduced spending dramatically, although some of it was at the expense of our mlitary.

What I have said, is that a McCain win could be worse than an Obama or Hilllary win for the nation.  The law of unintended consequences can bite us as easily as it can bite the left.

[DoughtyOne]

There’s been a gun to our head every election since 1988. You tell me if the nation has progressed any administration since? What we have been doing hasn’t been working. It’s time to try something different.

[higgmeister]

How can a guy who stands against everything Conservatism stands for, reduce the numbers of people who believe in Conservatism?

By the resounding defeat of Conservatism with the election of Obama! No Conservative would be able to stand for anything after that. Democrats would bring back "The Fairness Doctrine" with a much broader mandate to cover any spectrum to shut down every voice of Conservative causes. The main stream Media would declare so often the death of Conservatism that our de facto demise would become a reality.

[DoughtyOne]

Very nicely stated.

[DoughtyOne]

And sadly, so true...

[Eric Blair 2084]

In 1988, I was passed out in a bar after my fraternity formal at The Library in Georgetown. You could drink in DC at 18, since I was grandfathered. Hell you could even smoke in a bar back then. I wish I were still there.

This real life Socialism sucks. No wonder why folks in the inner city smoke crack.

[higgmeister]

What I have said, is that a McCain win could be worse than an Obama or Hilllary win for the nation.

I strongly disagree with your defeatist notion. Show me the Goldwater that would restore Conservatism through the socialist tyranny of Hillary or Obama. A Marxist with a mandate is the worst consequence we can face.

[DoughtyOne]

How can a guy who stands against everything Conservatism stands for, reduce the numbers of people who believe in Conservatism?

By the resounding defeat of Conservatism with the election of Obama!

While I may not have worded it properly, my point is that by offending the sensitivities of not only Conservatives, but also some Democrats, Obama would strengthen the ranks and swell the ranks of Conservatism.

McCain as President would not offend.  Half or more of the Conservatives would make excuse after excuse for McCain as many have done on this thread.  It should be obvious that what I am saying is true.  Just look around.  This would leave only a paultry number of Conservative that would object to him, and even those would be hounded to death for having done so.  Does that strengthen opposition to lefist policy?  Does it swell the ranks of true Conservatives?  No.  If anything it cuts them in half.  And in Congress it almost silences their opposition to lefitst policy completely.

No Conservative would be able to stand for anything after that. Democrats would bring back "The Fairness Doctrine" with a much broader mandate to cover any spectrum to shut down every voice of Conservative causes. The main stream Media would declare so often the death of Conservatism that our de facto demise would become a reality.

The fairness doctrine is something that I have been conserned about also.  Who is the guy who proposed limits on our First Amendment rights?  Was it Ted Kennedy?  Was it Hillary Clinton?  Was it Bill Clinton?  Was it Jimmy Carter?  Was it Barney Frank?  Was it Nancy Pelosi?  Was it Harry Reed?  No!  Of course not.  It was John McCain who contacted George Soros, asked him to fund the drive, and signed on with Russel Feingold to pass Campaign finance reform.

If you ask me, the Fairness Doctrine passes with ease under McCain.  It might actually get enough resistance to block it's passage under Obama.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not entirely sure where you’re going there Eric, but you do remind me of my younger days.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe my comments in Post 155 should cover your comments here.

I understand your aversion to my premise. That’s okay.

Thanks for the comments.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Your premise is a worse nightmare than Goldwater losing 49 states. His “loss” set the groundwork for a conservative revolution.

What is going to happen here, IMHO, is that McCain will win in a landslide without conservative votes. American voters may be clueless and brainwashed by the MSM but they do usually get it right. Nobody except eggheads who studied Marx and Engels and love them, African Americans, or dumbasses who are homeless and poor will vote for Obama. Nothing to do with the color of his skin, nobody cares if he is orange, green, purple...Hell, I’m darker than he is and I was born in Africa! I’m more African American than him and Whitney Houston.

Obama is a dangerous empty suit opportunist and Marxist. Independent voters will see that.

McCain will win by default.

When that happens, what message will that send?

You can win by running as Socialism Lite. We’re screwed.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks, D1.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Sorry to digress to my college days. Point is...

This is a great country. God Bless America.

What kind of asshole would want to change the greatest country in the history of the planet Earth?

Only sore losers who knew the rules going in and decided to change it because they lost. Like the Gore folks who thought that the popular vote should override the electoral college vote.

They still haven’t figured out the concept of federalism and why RI has as many senators as CA.