and she makes that point with me. Perfectly understandable. I don’t think I could vote for a Clinton nor do I feel I will stay home from the polls. If McCainiac is the Republican nominee, I feel we have at least a 4 year wait before we can possibly get a decent president. and I dont agree with those who worry about a liberal supreme court nominee from a Clinton or Obama, as I feel McCain will appoint much less than satisfactory SCOTUS justices than we can possibly imagine.
The way I see it with Supreme Court Justice nominees, even if a Republican wins the White House and has an opportunity to replace retiring justices (which in all likelihood would be liberal ones already like RBG or JPS), there would be so much pressure on the POTUS to replace liberals with other liberals...absolutely so much pressure that it would not effect the composition of the court anyway.
When McManiac says he would pick justices in the mold of Roberts or Alito, frankly, I don't believe him. He has proven by his actions on other matters that he cannot and should not be trusted; and right now, IMHO he's only saying that to throw a bone to the right in the party. He has proven he will say ANYTHING to get the nomination and will do even worse to win the presidency....which I don't believe is possible.
and she makes that point with me. Perfectly understandable. I don’t think I could vote for a Clinton nor do I feel I will stay home from the polls. If McCainiac is the Republican nominee, I feel we have at least a 4 year wait before we can possibly get a decent president. and I dont agree with those who worry about a liberal supreme court nominee from a Clinton or Obama, as I feel McCain will appoint much less than satisfactory SCOTUS justices than we can possibly imagine.
My deep concern about a McCain presidency is that he could, and probably would, move the country a lot farther to the left than either Hillary or Obama would be able to.
The strongest point in favor of a McCain presidency is that he would possibly appoint less liberal judges and SCOTUS justices than a DemonRAt. That's not likely. His most prized legislative achievement is McCain-Finegold (MF), a constitutional monstrosity that has only been sustained by a narrow SCOTUS majority and one that's abominated by every originalist scholar in the country. There's no chance he'd appoint a SCOTUS justice who'd be likely to overturn MF. That leaves us with the probability that he'd appoint another O'Connor or, as Gerald Ford did, another Stevens.
On the rest of his agenda, including all of the WOT, other than Iraq, he's nearly as far to the left as Hillary and Obama, with one exception: he's a Republican. That exception makes him really dangerous because he'd subvert whatever Republican opposition there was to his socialist policies and get them enacted much more easily than either Hillary or Obama could get similar policies enacted, meaning a McCain presidency would hurt the United States far more than a Hillary or Obama presidency. It would also devastate the Republican party by profoundly corrupting our brand and undermining the credibility of any subsequent Republican who might run as a genuine conservative.
If, OTOH, Hillary or Obama is elected, that individual's pursuit of socialism will be strongly resisted by Republicans in Congress. Given Obama's inexperience and Hillary's tin political ear, either could easily antagonize voters so deeply that 2010 might be a repeat of 1994, especially after either has let the Bush tax cuts lapse. Indeed, each might feel a pull to the center that could cause an actual Hillary or Obama presidency to be a lot less destructive in its accomplishments than a McCain presidency almost assuredly would be.
The foregoing statements are not just political theory based on my powerful antagonism to McCain; instead, they're based on my actual experiences with two horrible RINO governors whose misrule I have directly experienced.
The first of those two monstrosities was Richard Ogilvie, RINO governor of Illinois from 1969-1973, while I lived in Illinois. He defeated Democrat Sam Shapiro, with those of us who voted for him, myself included, supposing he'd govern as a conservative, a view he did nothing to disabuse us of. Then, as stated in the following Wikipedia entry:
Bolstered by large Republican majorities in the state house, Ogilvie embarked upon a major modernization of state government. He successfully advocated for a state constitutional convention, increased social spending, and secured Illinois' first state income tax. The latter was particularly unpopular with the electorate, and Ogilvie lost a close election to the Daniel Walker in 1972, ending his career in elective office.
There's simply no way Sam Shapiro could have increased social spending and imposed a state income tax the way Ogilvie did. Indeed, Sam probably never would have even tried. Ogilvie succeeded in his vile schemes because he subverted the Republican majority in the legislature. The Republican brand has never been the same in Illinois. A McCain presidency is likely to work the same way, just as a Hillary or Obama might end up governing in a way similar to the way Sam Shapiro would have governed, doing less actual damage and enabling the Republicans to retain their integrity.
A couple of moves thereafter, I went to Tennessee and lightning struck a second time with another RINO governor, this time a little more than 30 years later.
We elected Don Sundquist governor in 1994 over Nashville's Democrat mayor, Phil Bredesen. Sundquist governed reasonably well from 1994 to 1998, frequently saying he opposed a state income tax. We, myself included, re-elected him in 1998 by nearly 70%. Wikipedia accurately summarizes the subsequent disaster:
Immediately upon his reinauguration, Sundquist set out to raise more revenue for the state, which had traditionally been one of the lowest-tax jurisdictions in the country. His tax reform plan included a state income tax, previously regarded as political suicide in Tennessee. He quickly offended most of his grassroots base, and his popularity plummeted. Only certain elements in the business community supported him from the Republican Party, and many Tennessee Democrats, especially conservative rural ones, had no interest in either alienating their constituents or helping a Republican. The income tax issue dominated Sundquist's second term, but was never passed. Sundquist became very isolated politically, with many of his Democratic supporters doing so [supporting the Sundquist income tax] only because they wished to see the income tax implemented in a way in that the Republicans could be blamed for it. Several of his original conservative supporters, such as State Senator Marsha Blackburn, led street demonstrations against him. Many leading figures in his own party publicly disavowed him.
* * *
Sundquist, like McWherter before him, was barred from running for a third term in 2002 by the state constitution. Unlike McWherter, however, he was so unpopular at the end of his term that it is highly unlikely he would have even won the Republican nomination, let alone reelection, had it been possible for him to run again. In an interesting twist, many Sundquist allies supported democratic candidate Phil Bredesen and this support is considered a major factor in Congressman Van Hilleary's narrow loss to Bredesen in 2002. [Emphasis added in all paragraphs.]
Here the damage was a bit less than in Illinois since, with an effort close to a civil war, we stopped the income tax. However, as accurately noted in the quoted Wikipedia entry, Sundquist corrupted the Republican brand enough to keep Van Hilleary, a true conservative, from becoming governor in 2002. Bredesen, Sundquist's successor, although a DemonRat, has not even tried to enact a state income tax.
Again, just as in Illinois, we have a very instructive example of what's likely to happen with a McCain presidency as opposed to a Hillary or Obama presidency. The DemonRats are likely to support every one of McCain's socialist schemes just so they can stick the Republicans with them. At the very least, they'll be able to win after a McCain administration, just as Bredesen did, because McCain will have hopelessly corrupted the Republican brand.
The subsequent example of Bredesen is equally telling, since he hasn't even tried to enact a state income tax, being more moderate in the way he's actually governed than Sundquist was. It's quite possible that Hillary or Obama would do the same thing, especially if either wants to get re-elected. Thus, my personal experiences with two horrible RINO governors, each of whom I voted for, my analysis of what McCain is and the probable impact of his potential presidency, have led me to conclude a Hillary or Obama presidency will be far less destructive. Hence, I plan to vote for a third party protest candidate, since I can't stand the idea of voting for Hillary or Obama, and the vote for the protest candidate would show exactly what I was doing, something neither failing to vote nor voting for Hillary or Obama would do.