Kuhner: The case for McCain

The Washington Times ^ | July 6, 2008 | Jeffrey T. Kuhner

[Wolfstar]

Your failed attempt at slandering freepers...

My failed attempt? The words were not mine, but yours and the one you so vehemently excuse and defend. But enough of this tit-for-tat. I, at least, have reached an understanding. You've made yourself abundantly clear.

[Eagle Eye]

I have a couple questions for you:

First, what potential GOP candidate could be so repugnant that you could not vote for him?

Second, since McCain subverted the GOP majority, and you’re for McCain, are you then also pro-Dem and anti-Republican?

I mean, which side are you on? Your tag line implies that ‘your’ side must win, yet I’m not sure what side you are on.

Certainly you aren’t on the Conservative side since McCain is decidedly not for Conservatives having worked against them time and time again.

Then you can’t even be on the GOP side since McCain has shown a tendency to be more comfortable with GOP opponents than GOP activists.

So since you’re not pro Republican or pro Conservative, and you are pro McCain, what does that make you?

[calcowgirl]

BS.

[calcowgirl]

What a crock.

[Wolfstar]

First, what potential GOP candidate could be so repugnant that you could not vote for him?

McCain. If Hillary Clinton had won the Dim nomination, I'd have voted for one of the minor party candidates. Probably the Libertarian, since it's the 3rd largest party we have.

There have been plenty Republicans I couldn't vote for through the years, including the current governor of California.

Second, since McCain subverted the GOP majority, and you’re for McCain, are you then also pro-Dem and anti-Republican?

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be FOR McCain. I am against Obama, big time, and pragmatic enough to grasp that one of those two men will be our next president and commander-in-chief.

So since you’re not pro Republican or pro Conservative, and you are pro McCain, what does that make you?

You wound yourself up and then leaped to drastically incorrect conclusions.

Certainly you aren’t on the Conservative side...

Certainly? Interesting. So give me your definition of Conservative, and we'll see if I'm on your side.

Now let me ask you something, since turnabout is fair play.

What putative conservative candidate could be so repugnant that you could not vote for him?

[Common Tator]

Here is lesson in politics.

Starting in 1952 the Independent voters have been a huge factor in every election. They are on an 8 year cycle. In 1952 it was the Republicans cycle with Ike. Independents voted for Ike. 1960 after 8 years of peace and prosperity they went for JFK the Democrat. It was the first peak Democrat year. And independents voted for Ike.

Then in 1968 the Republican who had lost in 1960 won in 1968. Nixon proved that 1968 was the peak Republican year.

In 1976 it was the peak Democrat year and Carter won.

1984 was a Peak Republican year and Reagan won. But 1992, just 8 years later it was a Democrat year and Clinton won. 2000 was the Republican year and Bush 43 won.

Thus not once in the last 50 years has a party lost in its peak 8 year cycle. Just once in 1980 did a Democrat lose in the minor Democrat year. But that took Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to bring that about. Bush is no Jimmy Carter and Obama is no Ronald Reagan and 2008 is a peak Democrat year. 1980 was a minor Democrat year.

In evey one of the eight year cycles since WWWII the party that is at its peak wins. Seven out of seven is not luck.

So what would it take to keep a Democrat from wining in 2008 which is a peak Democrat year. Well first a very very liberal would have to get the Democratic nomination. How about a black leftist Democrat with a Muslim name. What do you think the odds are of that happening.

Then we need a RINO candidate for the Republican nomination. There is no way a Conservative can win against a far out liberal in a peak Democrat year. It has not been done.

But there is a chance that the independents who will chose the winner just might go for a RINO if the Democrat nominee is left wing enough.

That is what we have. And as one looks at the internals of the polls it looks like McCain is the most conservative candidate that can win.

What I can't believe is that somehow the election of a far left liberal will cause the nation to turn to the right. That is not what happens. The nation did not turn to the left because a right winger named Reagan won? The nation will not turn to the right because a far left liberal wins. It will turn to the left.

The nation did not turn to the right because a far left Roosevelt defeated Hoover in 1932. What would make any one believe that electing a leftist would turn this nation to the right? That is not what history says happens.

The nation has always turned in the direction of the winner. At this time in 1980 Reagan was 30 points behind in the polls. Carter did not turn this nation to the Right Reagan did.

And only a fool would believe that if Obama is elected this nation will take a hard turn to the right. That is what the media thought in 1936. They said that the depression was bad in 1932 and that was what defeated Hoover. They also noted that the depression was just as bad in 1936 as it was in 1932 and that should defeat Roosevelt just like it did Hoover. But FDR won the biggest victory in history in 1936. It stayed to the left in 1940 and in 1944 and again in 1948. Five straight elections stayed to the left.

And they told us that it was Vietnam that cost LBJ the presidency in 1968. And Vietnam would cost Nixon the presidency in 1972. But Nixon won the second biggest victory of the 20th century in 1972.

Those that believe a failed Obama presidency will bring about a rise in the conservative movement in 2012 or 2016 has not read history. A left turn in 1932 put the left in power for 20 long years and 5 straight elections.

After 1936 the Republicans kept moving to the left until Ike won the presidency in 1952. Goldwater foolishly tried to move the nation to the right in 1964. He got destroyed by the most leftist president of the 20th century.

Time and time again in all of our history a win always moves the nation in the direction of the winner.

If the conservatives were bright enough to support McCain and McCain won in a huge landslide every paper and TV newscast would be loaded with stories of how this nation (GASP CHOKE GULP)had taken a giant leap to the right. Not only that but McCain would owe his landslide to Conservatives.

There is just one way to control what a politician does in office and that is contribute a lot to his victory. Then that candidate OWES those who elected him and needs them badly for his reelection and legacy campaigns.

When a Republican loses the only logical conclusion is he was not leftist enough to win. When a Republican wins teh Democrat was not right wing enough to win. What part of when a Demorat wins the majority of voters are voting for the lefist. In that case what part of when the LEFT WINS the RIGHT LOSES can't you understand.

Try to teach a candidate a lesson by withholding your conservative vote and the political center moves to the LEFT by the number who withhold their votes. Candidates to win have to get their side of the political spectrum and just a bit on the other side of center. What part of withold conservative votes and the center moves to the left escapes the minds of conservatives. Then The Republian in an effort to win moves to the left. If he still loses logic says they Republican nominee in 4 years must be even more to the left.

If a Republican wins teh Democrat was not right wing enough. For the Democrat to win in 4 years they will have to move to the right. Democrats tend to forget the rules. They forgot with McGovern, Dukakis and perhaps with Obama.

To win McCain will have to move further to the left to make up for the lost conservatives. And Obama would not have to move as far to the center as he would have had the Conservatives not decided to teach McCain that he is not leftist enough.

In this year as it stands no matter who wins both parties move to the left. The most counter productive people in politics are the conservatives. They never think about how to win. They are absorbed with teaching Republicans a lesson.

The LESSON they try their best to teach Republicans is BECOME A RINO.. Conservative haven't a clue about how to win. They are only experts at losing.

[Eagle Eye]

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be FOR McCain. I am against Obama, big time, and pragmatic enough to grasp that one of those two men will be our next president and commander-in-chief.

Then I apologize...sorta.

If you are voting for McCain then you are for McCain because there is no tally for votes against, only votes "for" a candidate.

If not and you are refusing to swallow the GOP's stuff anymore, full fledged apologies.

And regarding a Conservative candidates too foul to vote for, I can't think of any right off but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Heck, I could even vote for some Republicans!

[Man50D]

most counter productive people in politics are the conservatives. They never think about how to win.

So by implication and omission in your fallacy of a conclusion is the socialists are productive? LOL!!! Please explain how it is productive for the nation that GOP leaders(McCain and Bush) to support a policy such as amnesty for illegals knowing the danger it presents to national security or how it is productive McCain sponsoring bill with socialists Kennedy, Feingold and Lieberman that support amnesty, restricting free speech or the fallacy of human induced global warming not to mention McCain's refusal, like the socialists, to drill in ANWR.

They never think about how to win.

Do you honestly consider it winning when the party's policy is to move closer to the ideology of the very party who seeks to supplant our Representative Democracy with socialism? Is it winning when the presumptive nominee of your party once sought out socialists Democrats when considering becoming a member of their party? That's not my definition of winning.

They are absorbed with teaching Republicans a lesson.

Your logic is 180 degrees backwards. The GOP has been absorbed over the years to expand its voter base at all costs by appeasing the socialist Democrats at the expense of Conservatism and McCain has been content on teaching Conservatives a lesson by thumbing his nose at the Conservative cause on many major issues.

The LESSON they try their best to teach Republicans is BECOME A RINO..

Conservatives haven't needed to teach the GOP that lesson. The GOP has learned that lesson very well on their own. Conservatives are now the minority RINO's considering a majority in the party now embrace socialism to some extent.

Conservative haven't a clue about how to win.

Not if you consider winning placating the very group of people who want to subvert and destroy the country and render the Constitution irrelevant.

You spew all these historical facts to create completely erroneous conclusions. They completely ignore the content of the issues or where a candidate stands on the issues. I suggest you look at post #137 for some meaningful content on McCain's history. It's light on numbers and heavy on substance.

It's interesting you keep referring to Conservatives and Republicans as two separate groups and that is precisely my point. You certainly reflect the party line towards Conservatives. Ignore and them reprimand them when they refuse to sacrifice their conservative principles then demand they blindly follow the GOP's increasing move towards socialism but never making the same demands of socialists. If you and your fellow Republicrats took that same hard line tact with the socialists then the GOP would have full support of Conservatives and avoided this fiasco of a campaign. You also fail to understand the very obvious fact this is a Conservative website. Go pedal your GOP socialist wares on a Republican website if you're seeking approval.

[streetpreacher]

I never looked at it that way but you might have some valid points.

[MrNatural]

bttt

[JoJo Gunn]

Although they represent only a tiny fraction of the American population, they are the dominant group on FR.

Then perhaps the DU or Kos is better suited for you Socialist wannabes who project your infirmities on the rest of us? This site is for Conservatives, not mindless Party drones who act on emotion instead of logic.

Take your incrementalism elsewhere. 

[Wolfstar]

Take your incrementalism elsewhere.

So let me get this straight, chickadee. You've been a member here since Oct 24, 2002. I've been a member here for over 10 years, and steadily for 9. Yet you presume to have a clue to what I'm about, and to tell me to go elsewhere?

Stuff it.

[JoJo Gunn]

Presuming to hold Seniority on me, Methuselah?

No matter how you spin it, you’re a bedwetter, throwing a tantrum, because such a high percentage won’t sell out like you will.

Watch that doorknob on the way out, sugah.