An election of John McCain will do more harm than good.
Hello from Ellensburg. I am the newest contributor here, and would like to thank Mr. Forbes. I have long considered myself a Republican, going so far as to be President of the CWU College Republicans for a time. Lately, however, I feel as though I am not so welcome in the party.
My first vote was cast in 2000, and it was an easy decision. George Bush was my guy. Eight years ago, the competition was fairly stiff, with Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes, and Pat Buchanan all being in the running. Solid, accomplished candidates all.
Which brings me to our present situation. This year, after sorting through a field of the half-crazed (Ron Paul) to the half-dead (Fred Thompson), to the half-liberal (Rudy Giuliani), we have settled on the greatest enemy Senate Republicans face, John McCain. In the process, we discarded Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. I am not very excited to vote.
I define my views as those of a paleo-conservative first, and a Republican second. Not too very long ago, the Republican Party was the vehicle for advancing the cause of conservatism. Currently, it is a convenient way to convince people that you are any sort of conservative. It has been betrayed by the likes of Arlen Specter in their quest to be elected. John McCain stands to be the final nail in the coffin for any sort of return to viable conservatism in the next twenty years.
Can anyone honestly say that John McCain appeals to the base? Who among us wants an open-border, anti-growth, tax-hiker claiming the Republican label? Why should we settle for the weakest Republican and one of the most easily defeated horses in this race? His military record is dubious, and has even gone so far as to work with the Brady folks. (See links below for more information)
Should John McCain get elected, the Republican Party will be fundamentally changed for all time. The platform will be composed of 'whatever it takes to get elected' and there will be no unified set of values to work toward. Democrats have nothing to fear from John McCain, he would rather work with Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold anyhow. Taxes will rise, deficits will continue their out-of-control spiral, and our policy of pointless entanglement into foreign affairs will continue. Aside from alienating those within the Party, it gives Republicans a very bad name.
The obvious question is, would you rather see an Obama presidency? And my answer is without a doubt, yes. Either of these two clowns is gonna screw it up and screw it up hard, why not let a Democrat take the fall? In 2012, maybe the Republicans will have pulled their heads out and realized that electing weak Republicans, liberal Republicans, and phony Republicans got us into this mess, and it's probably not the way to get us out.
Links:
http://www.vvof.org/mccain_hides.htm
http://www.vdare.com/awall/080202_memo.htm
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/art ... rticle=231
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/080224
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcianhro.htm
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
http://offthegridgirls.wordpress.com/20 ... hn-mccain/
http://bconservatives.blogspot.com/2008 ... about.html
http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartaz ... erica/2570
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/earlhopp ... eb08.shtml
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
10 comments:
I'm not too thrilled with McCain either, but I'll still be voting for him in November. Since you didn't explicitly state it, will you be voting for Obama, McCain, a third party candidate, or not at all?
I don't think "letting a Dem take the fall" is a wise course of action at all. The problem with this thinking is that it overly simplifies the broader reality of such an event - we are the ones who suffer, not just the Dem president.
Granted, McCain has been acting like a liberal, so it's tempting to think that there are two Dems running for president, but recent events have shown a clear difference. In particular, in response to our need for greater domestic energy production, McCain is proposing that we increase supply by drilling our proven reserves. Obama, on the other hand, is telling all of us that we have to suck it up with the empty promise of "something to replace oil," meaning he is openly committed to making us suffer.
As flawed as McCain is, the fact of the matter is that he at least in part identifies with us. I am certain that we would be able to have fruitful discussions with him, whereas a marxist like Obama would never give us, our interests, or our concerns so much as two seconds on his answering machine.
Finally, the notion of letting the Dems screw things up for four years, presumably so the Republican party can correct itself and revitalize, is asking for us to personally sacrifice our livelihoods for the sake of a political party. No thanks.
Let's have a follow up with Obama negative talking points.
I'm not too happy with our choices either. I am old enough to remember my parents talking about holding their nose while they voted. I can relate. There is a reason why John McCain was finally the Republican candidate this season, though I can't figure it out.
McCain = 1970's liberal Democrat.
Obamma = Hardline Stalinist. Obamma himself is probably only a Marxist, but his anti-everything (especially free speech and individualism) supporters put him in the Stalin column.
More on this subject, here's an article by Thomas Sowell that just ran over at Atlasphere:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/080626-sowell-obama-mccain.php
Another very good point on the clear difference between the candidates: we're facing a nuclear armed Iran within the time frame of the next presidency. Iran's bomb will become a terrorist's bomb, and we cannot afford to elect a Chamberlain like Obama.
I completely agree with this analysis of the Republican Party these days and have writen about it myself. www.bluebarking.com
Here's some reading regarding flip/floping-obama-rama-ding-dong:
http://tiny.cc/OLqCn
The base should not be falling for the fear mongering over Iran and whatever else. Why are we supposed to fall in line for the candidate who was endorsed by the New York Times? The guy who wants to win the war wants to do it by moving captured enemies into the US court system. Smart.
Don't believe the hype, and don't step in the B.S.
I look forward to this being an ongoing discussion.
I was cut short earlier. A by-product of having three dogs. They (being the RNC and neo-con establishment) will always have some dire reason we HAVE to go cast our vote for whatever sorry candidate they have. We are supposed to cower in fear at the thought of a Democrat being elected. Party leadership has been employing this strategy of running these 'moderate' candidates in an unsuccessful attempt at grabbing votes in the center. Look at our own state in 2004, with the snubbing of Reed Davis in favor of George Nethercutt at the convention, even after Nethercutt broke his own word on self-imposed term limits.
Their current line is this war issue. Since when exactly did entering wars become a Republican value? Nixon ENDED a war that two Democrats started, then escalated. Now we are supposed to fear the Iranians for our lives. The Iranians aren't threatening our freedom every day. They aren't the ones funding abortion clinics, and they aren't the ones passing ridiculous laws about seat belts, cell phones, and smoking on private land. I searched for the "Iran" deduction on my pay stubs, but all I found was Social Security, Medicaid, and federal income tax. What does Johnny Mac plan on doing about the things that concern ME and NOW? Let's get some people elected who will take care of the REAL problems, not go looking for more across an ocean.
Cav,
So you're voting for Obama then?
Hell no. I'm writing in Barry Goldwater. The RNC can expect a photocopy of my ballot, and an angry letter, as they have gotten from me in previous years.
Heh... well, that beats writing in a dead cat for President.
Post a Comment