Two Blue To Be True

February 6, 2008

You play the hand that’s dealt you in politics, conservative’s Ace in the hole is not McCain, nor Huckabee – and may, or may not end up being Romney. What it is, is our principles, I urge you to not fold them now.

One cannot one day be pointing out how bad an individual has been, and is for conservatism in America, then turn on a dime to suggest the GOP is more important than our principles. Not if one wants to retain their credibility and integrity. It’s a ploy that may work to a very limited extent. But said individual then becomes part of the problem, not the cure. Do you stand up for principle, or for a party because it’s the only game in town? That is not retaining power. It is giving yours away.

After reviewing all the numbers, clearly McCain is the presumptive nominee without some jarring event. I imagine he’ll shamelessly take Huckabee as the VP to help him with the southern base. Unless Huckabee doesn’t want it, McCain will be hard pressed to refuse. He thinks he can win the presidency as a watered down Republican. That tactic has never worked. For now, we may effectively have two Blue parties in America, no matter what these men do or say. I stress, for now. And the stronger of the two, the Democrat Party, is sure to win in November. It’s their playing field, after all. Any great, imagined center doesn’t vote – they go to the Mall.

The chattering class will now launch their Save the GOP campaigns – see Hugh Hewitt. I understand and respect it, but it is not to be. The grass roots doesn’t take its marching orders from Right-side pundits. Independent registrations are growing, both parties numbers have been struggling. Many that would normally support the GOP simply won’t show up. I’ve been hearing that from plenty of people who are not bloggers, and such. They’re fed up and this would be the final straw.

While acknowledging there is an election in November, serious conservatives would be better served positioning the movement to jump back in the battle after November, so that we can help to elect more conservative members to the legislature – and of course vote the under card this Fall. I could never pull the lever for a top ticket containing the name McCain, or Huckabee, should they prevail.

After the coming debacle, the GOP will need substance, strength and leadership. If conservatives are smart, we’d be wise to avoid the bickering this year and be prepared to provide it going into 2010.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. docweasel says:

    Sitting out campaigns to “teach the party a lesson” has never, ever worked. As Hugh (finally talking some sense) points out, if Hillary is allowed to appoint left wing SCOTUS judges, the entire electoral process might be changed, and its very likely it will, meaning when you do get that conservative candidate you like, he won’t be able to get elected because the Courts have gerrymandered the map so badly and twiddled with the election process to be more “inclusive” (read, more advantageous to Democrats).

  2. Mark says:

    Yes, let’s listen to Doc, the professional McCain shill and Morman bigot:
    Step right up and vote for Citizen Kang!!! DON’T THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE. He’s much better than his identical twin sister, H.R. Kodos!!!

  3. kbiel says:

    You’re completely right of course. We should all pull together and get behind McCain so that he can appoint left wing SCOTUS justices.

  4. Deon says:

    Come on, do you really want a justice who wears conservatism on his sleeve? I mean, right there ON HIS SLEEVE?

  5. Mark says:

    If McCain suddenly came around and repudiated Huckabee, gave a “Read My Lips” no amnesty pledge – (not some dissembling non-recant), and asked Romney to join as Veep (likely I’m sure, given his magnanimous personality) I would pause, but I might still hope that Romney would say no. In my opinion a clear and unambigous train wreck will fix any future desire to run as DNC-lite.
    Apart from all the pain of a Hillary presidency (a tanking market, followed by the economy, soaring tax rates, maybe another Ruth Bader sometime in the next four years) a Hillary victory would have some upsides:
    1. Hillary will not be bad on the war once she owns it. Bill wants a legacy and it’s not going to be the fall of Bagdad. I also suspect that she’s a closet fan of waterboarding, military tribunals, and the surveillance of terrorists. I just hope that those things don’t get used on us.
    2. Her victory will come with a house cleaning of Republican “leaders” who have ceded any moral right to their seats with Amnesty, Bridge to nowhere, etc.
    3. It will completely discredit the milquetoast Schwarzenegger, Global Warming, open borders wing of the GOP –AND their well heeled apologists. After four years Romney will look like a sage of Reaganism. Maybe we can even get rid of the “Jesus was a commie” crowd.
    4. Obama will be neutralized by Hillary’s incumbency in 2012. The GOP will be the ones bringing the message of hope.
    5. Hillary will remind people why the country ran to the right with the GOP, and that not all, or even most, divisiveness started in 2000.
    6. Hillary will win by hiding her real positions, but that can’t last forever, and every indication is that she will extend the current dissatisfaction, not end it. She is a sure-fire one termer, she is a revitalized GOP house by 2010 and senate & Whitehouse by 2012.
    -At least it’s something. Thanks again Rudy, Mike and Johnny boy for visiting this nightmare upon the GOP.

  6. tally says:

    sit out? oh hell no. i thought i was going to throw up after listening to obama last night. he’s worse than hillary. i don’t care how mad i get from guatemalans pissing in my yard, i’m voting for the republican nominee.

  7. benning says:

    The bickering won’t end. So let’s accept that it will continue. I will vote for the Republican nominee come November. My candidate is already out of the race, so who do I cheer for? Well, I’m pulling for Romney. And if he wins I don’t expect to get a solid conservative, but so what? If he loses to McCain I will get a nominee who knows the Islamic Terrorists are out there and not some imaginary threat. Will he be a disappointment for my Party? Yep! Will he appoint Leftist judges? Probably not – that’s not a McCain thing at all.
    But he won’t be a real conservative, anymore than either Bush is, and he won’t be a pleasant man to deal with. We know that. But I’ll be damned if I will sit out any election just because I didn’t get my way. How many so-called Republicans or so-called conservatives sat out the 2006 elections? Do they like what we all got? Wow! Did they show us?
    Screw that! I vote!

  8. seekeronos says:

    “— 1. Hillary will not be bad on the war once she owns it. Bill wants a legacy and it’s not going to be the fall of Bagdad. I also suspect that she’s a closet fan of waterboarding, military tribunals, and the surveillance of terrorists. I just hope that those things don’t get used on us. —”
    Mark, she could and will turn those things on us in a NY minute.
    NeoCons were questionable but accepteable as tey enabled this sort of horror upon our enemies.
    Dems – and hills in particular – is a Machiavellian who while denouncing it out of one side of her mouth, will gladly waterboard her enemies and tax evaders as she gins up the IRS to extort ever staggeringly higher sums of money from us.
    And guess what?
    Under Hillary, “We the Sheeple” will eat our poop sandwich, like it or not. Big Momma will be most assuredly watching.

  9. templar knight says:

    My take, seek, is that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. He will possibly move ahead of Hillary in the delegate count on Saturday following the Louisiana primary, which he will win handily. I’m not sure how an Obama candidacy will play out, nor do I have any idea how Obama would handle the Office of President. Or how people would react to having a black man in the WH. There are a number of variables that will play out. Let’s just say we live in interesting and dangerous times.

  10. templar knight says:

    My take, seek, is that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. He will possibly move ahead of Hillary in the delegate count on Saturday following the Louisiana primary, which he will win handily. I’m not sure how an Obama candidacy will play out, nor do I have any idea how Obama would handle the Office of President. Or how people would react to having a black man in the WH. There are a number of variables that will play out. Let’s just say we live in interesting and dangerous times.

  11. Corey Cronrath says:

    This is ridiculous! The idea that we should sit out the election because some of us did not get our way is beyond absurd. I have always been a McCain supporter(at least this time around). My reasoning is that of all the candidates, he is the one I want standing toe-to-toe with Putin, A-jad, Chavez, et al, in the next four years. Also, he has been one of the ONLY real conservatives on Capitol Hill on spending. He WILL appoint judges who interpret, not write, the law. If you believe that the principles we’ve been fighting for for so many years are just abstract talking points, and the future of this country means less to you than your ideology, than conservatism has taken a serious wrong turn. I call on all conservatives and Republicans to vote McCain in ’08!

  12. Henry Martin says:

    If you insist on supporting the party no matter what, you will get more and more candidates like McCain. Why should they track to the right when our primaries are skewed to more liberal states, ie N.Y., N.J., Ct., Ma. winner take all and none likely to be red in November. The south is proportional – if it was winner take all I might really believe the Huckster was in it to win – he would have a chance. The rational candidate is left of center in the GOP, and attracts independents and the press, and thus wins the nomination.
    The only way this fails is if the nomination is not worth anything. Look at JHWB, Dole, Ford. They all received our support to one extent or the other. If Rudy was walking away with this thing we would all be looking for a reason to support him (I would). But McCain has taken things a bit farther. He is not just too far left on many issues, he is abusive to the right; he disdains our opinions, and he thinks he can just say “war hero, Ronald Reagan” and we will come crawling back
    At some point we have to stand on principles or those principles are not worth anything. The lesser of two evils route is a slippery slope. How much do you give up? Win or lose in Iraq there will be more battles. We just need to win the war. that said, the only rationale for voting McCain is SCOTUS. And if you believe he will appoint good judges after all his other lies, well I have this bridge…

  13. layerguy says:

    “Sitting out campaigns to “teach the party a lesson” has never, ever worked.”
    Huh? Where does this line of thinking come from? I’m not going to sit out to “teach the party a lesson.” I’m going to sit out, because the party has nominated someone who passed a law stripping me of my free speech. This, the party of Lincoln.
    The party has nominated someone who corrupted his own children with Keating money. Hero? Do heroes corrupt their own kids with campaign cash? No, heroes don’t.
    The party has nominated someone who will “Build the Goddamned fence (only) if that’s what they want me to do.” Does that sound like someone you want as your leader? That quote is going to be used to very good effect in every Southern church come November. You just remember that.
    The Party gets to decide who its nominee is. I then get to decide whether that nominee gets my vote, based on whether that nominee represents my interests, and the interests of MY party.
    The Party chose.

  14. gregh says:

    docweasel, Thanks for the heads up, I am a Mormon and had no idea I was such a piece of human refuse until I read your post. Wow, do I feel…dirty. I see your a McCain man. Well, I would pray for him not to fall and break a hip any time in the next few months, but if I were to pray, it would probably incinerate all of the Bibles nearby and all the Christians would know someone like me was in the area. Could be dangerous.

  15. Chris K says:

    McCain is the only candidate running even remotely likely to cut spending, and by extension reduce the size of the government. Despite the protestations, the more conservative wing of the party couldn’t care less about cutting spending. Or at the very least, their candidates do not. This is the most important conservative issue and has been ignored by Conservatives as long as I can remember. That is the bulwark against European style -socialism. McCain’s opposition of tax cuts without spending cuts is the correct way of thinking. From what I can tell most conservative legislators merely want to have their cake and eat it too.
    The other major complaints I’ve seen are bizarre. Since when is Gitmo or torture a cornerstone of conservative principles? Campaign Finance Reform? Some undesirable effects, but the free speech argument is weak and the rank and file (Republican or conservative) aren’t motivated by this issue at all.
    Immigration seems to be McCain’s Achilles heel with most voters. I’m personally mystified by this issue. “Cubans? Let em stay. Mexicans, no thank you.” As long as he intends to strengthen the border going forward, some sort of gradual amnesty seems acceptabel to me.
    Reagan supported an amnesty bill at one time. He increased taxes, and spending. Bush 41 increased taxes. GW Bush supported amnesty, yet I’m sure the current malcontents would not be howling so much if he could have a third term.
    McCain will not be appointing liberal judges. Any conservative claiming that is weakly trying to justify their dislike of him by saying such a thing and at the cost of the country’s future.
    One other thing – the idea that people will find an Obama or Clinton presidency so horrid that it will scare them back to Republicans is wishful thinking. People will not be scared, they’ll love it. Health care will be promised and either it will pass and people will grow accustomed to it, or Republicans will be accused of standing in the way. That’s the problem we need to avert.

  16. Gary says:

    I’m a conservative. McCain hates me. I’m not voting for him.

  17. wef says:

    “Sitting out campaigns to “teach the party a lesson” has never, ever worked.”
    But yes it does. Just ask the Whigs.
    Winfield Scott = John McCain

  18. James says:

    “If he loses to McCain I will get a nominee who knows the Islamic Terrorists are out there and not some imaginary threat.”
    What is WITH this mindless pants-fouling fear you people have of “Islamic Terrorists”? You’d vote for Fiedel Castro if you thought he’d protect you from these dreaded terrorists. You’ll cheerfully accept anything, including the liberal-loving and conservative-hating John McCain, if only it will protect you from ……….. what?
    I know five year olds with more courage and less fear of the dark.

  19. James says:

    “As long as he intends to strengthen the border going forward, some sort of gradual amnesty seems acceptabel to me.”
    Why the hell is a plan to bring in tens of millions of new left-wing voters acceptable to you, unless you are left-wing yourself? We can survive a few bad justices more easily than McCains left-wing immigration ideas, which he cribbed from Teddy Kennedy.
    “Reagan supported an amnesty bill at one time.”
    That is a flat-out lie. Reagan reluctantly went along with a much smaller amnesty as the price for getting the border secured. McCain is one of the people who have worked hard to make the border unsecure. McCain is on the opposite side to Reagan on this, and you know it.

  20. Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?

    I’m a pretty fair and open minded person. It is a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it allows me to understand, empathize, and deeply consider where different points of view are coming from….even if they are…

  21. James says:

    “He WILL appoint judges who interpret, not write, the law.”
    Yes, I’m afraid that he WILL appoint judges who interpet the Constiution to permit the banning of political speech. And he WILL appoint judges who think that terrorists captured in Iraq are entitled to be read their Miranda rights.
    I’ll pass. I can get those results with a Democratic president.

  22. nash says:

    I’m not going to vote for McCain just so he can repeat the mistakes of Ronald Reagan. No more amnesty, no more tax increases (i.e. legislation for global warming).
    McCain may not apppoint liberal judges, but he won’t be appointing conservative judges either. Worse, he’ll probably nominate closet liberals like Souter.

  23. Chris K says:

    I don’t care what party those immigrants vote for. Getting them out isn’t going to happen even if you nominate Pat Buchanan. The jobs they work are real, as is the economy they contribute to. Besides, if the Republican party played it’s cards right, these people would be voting for them in 20 years. Religious, hard working, family-oriented people should be welcomed by the right, not demonized. They’re not so different from the Cubans. Taking care of the border today should be the priority.
    Why does McCain score so low on liberal scoring sites? Why do Clinton and Obama score so low on conservative sites? This “they’re just the same” crap is just that.

  24. Mike Goldstein says:

    You are the right wing equivalent of daily kos. In other words, you’re a dumbass. You completely within your rights to hold your views, and throw a tantrum when you don’t get everything you want. But you should just realize that that is what you are doing. And before you whine that I am just throwing mud, that’s been the level of your discourse lately against those that don’t agree with you.

  25. James C. Bennett says:

    Chris K.,
    Are you really claiming that Mr. John “patriotism not profit” McCain isn’t a socialist? OK, he’s not a modern, effete, European-style socialist. He’s an old-fashioned, manly, Mussolini-style socialist. You might not have noticed, but for quite some time the Republicans have been reaching out to the rather large portion of Democrats and ex-Democrats that love their country, hate the terrorists, and want the State to take care of them cradle to grave: the old blue-colar union worker Democrats that have been stuck supporting the Manhattan/Berkeley commie Democrats for so long. This is Karl Rove’s long-hoped-for “permanent Rebpublican majority”–national socialism. McCain may very well be the begining of a 50-year fascist majority in the United States, because it’s going to take a long, long time for us “far-right” capitalist patriots to figure out how to build a winning coalition with the “far-left” anti-american pacifist socialists who will be our only available allies.
    The only way I can see to stop this is to make sure McCain suffers a humiliating loss. Only this will prove to the political insiders who care about nothing but winning and power that national socialism is and will always be a losing platform in America.
    So, assuming McCain’s the candidate, I urge all good Republicans to not simply sit out or throw their vote away on a third party, but actively vote for McCain’s real opponent–the Democrat. Show them they can’t take the 50-50 nation for granted.
    Save the GOP from fascism–vote Commie!

  26. Zee-Man says:

    I’m sorry, but I can’t quite square “[a]ny great, imagined center doesn’t vote” with “[i}ndependent registrations are growing . . . [m]any that would normally support the GOP simply won’t show up.” Exactly how do independent voters comprise anything other than the “center”? Why else would they not register their party affiliation? This “purity” kick you are on is sickening. I have spent the last eight years laughing, out loud, at the Kos-acks and the Huffsters who vent their impotent spleens on the percieved lack of liberal “purity.” Seeing it from quarters I previously deemed reputable and reasonable is very disheartening. Just because an election isn’t going exactly your way, you want to take your ball and go home, for the sake of your “principles.” Got news for you, Ronald Reagan would not have been “principled” enough for you by the standards expoused today. G.H.W. Bush would have failed by a long measure. Same with Nixon. And boy, wouldn’t we have been better off with four more years of Jimmy Carter. And that Dukakis guy would have made a swell President. Not to mention Hubert Humphrey. (Are you even old enough to remember HHH?). But hey, “W” was one of “ours”, and that turned out just swell. Shame on you. Grow up.

  27. Mark says:

    Indeed, we should stay home out of principle. That way our principle can keep us warm at night when we have a person in office who is little more than a European-style socialist. I can’t wait for a court full of Ruth-Bader Ginsburg’s, a revocation of the prohibition on overseas abortion funding, socialized medicine, increased taxes across the board, an almost withdrawal from Iraq, kow-towing to labor unions, new entitlement programs, a weakened military, etc. Why support McCain when his lifetime conservative voting record is only around 83%. What better way to show how petula… I mean principled you are then by allowing Hillary Clinton to win. That will show ‘em; Go Hillary. Now if you will excuse me, I have to take my ball and go home. Oh wait, you guys already did that.

  28. Micajah says:

    I was willing to support Rudy, even though I disagreed with him on several points. National defense is my priority. I respected him for not denying the differences between us.
    I hoped Fred would be the one, since I agreed with him on almost everything. He wasn’t. He quit.
    I hoped Mitt might pick up the flag, even though he struck me as “Plastic Man.” It looks bleak.
    I looked at Huckabee and saw Nixon.
    I look at McCain and see — well, little that is inspiring, and some that is dispiriting. Unlike Rudy, he seems to want to hide our differences; but they slip out once in a while — his suggestion of jail for people on Wall Street because of the subprime mortgage problem, for example.
    I had hoped to have a candidate whom I could wholeheartedly support, but it looks as though November’s election will be one of those nose-holding election days.
    Too bad.

  29. gunjam says:

    Looking for a few (many, actually) good, mature Republicans who recognize that there isn’t two cents’ difference between McCain and Romney and to support whomever wins the Republican nomination in the Fall.

  30. JeanE says:

    If Mitt Romney were to win the Republican nomination his supporters would expect conservatives who do not particulary care for Mitt to graciously accept the results of the primary process, and would encourage them to vote for Romney in November. They would be justifiably angry if prominent evangelical leaders argued that they could never support Romney because of his flip-flops on abortion and other social issues, and that social conservatives should sit out this election and work to nominate a more palatable candidate in 20012. It’s one thing to stand by your principles in the voting booth, but quite another to undermine the campaign of a duly elected nominee through constant harping.
    The reality is that McCain has won substantially more votes from Republican voters than other candidates. Perphaps the conservative vote has been split, and perhaps not all Republicans are as conservative as some would like. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to expect supporters of any Republican candidate to accept, if not embrace, whichever nominee is ultimately selected. There is a place for the old adage “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” The constant attacks on the likely nominee do nothing to strengthen the conservative movement, but they sure do help the Democrats.
    If you don’t like McCain then don’t vote for him, but don’t villify him and make it harder for me to keep the Democrats from gaining control of the White House and gaining more seats in the House and Senate. The conservative blogosphere has done a great job of promoting good conservative policies and explaining the reasons to support them. Talking about the policies you like will do a lot more for the conservative cause than criticizing the candidates you don’t like.

  31. M. Simon says:

    Not if one wants to retain their credibility and integrity.
    Are you kidding? This is politics.

  32. Neil G says:

    Actually I think sitting this one out is a great strategy. After all conservatives have been sitting this one out in New York, New Jersey and other solid blue states for many, many years now. Its worked out great. Conservatives know that as long as there is a landslide victory that can override automatic high delegate counts from certain blue states they can win. Unfortunately those blue states are free to lob political grenades at an opposition party candidate during a time of war and start building pockets of activists outside their own geographic areas to start eating into that landslide. After all they only need a few states to swing it their way and money talks.
    The only real issue conservatives have had besides defense and tax cuts (both important I’ll give you that) has been school vouchers and people will stop caring about vouchers once tax cuts puts more money in their pockets. The best strategy will be to win the White House and this time try to create an opposition party in the blue states able to fight the corruption and put some real ideas into place. That of course would take time, money and work. Better to just beg off of it and claim ideological purity.

  33. bl says:

    McCain say he now gets it; secure the border, enforce illegal immigrant hiring practices, and send the criminals home. Now, my question is why did he not get it when steamrolling through the Amnesty bill last year? Because our political system REQUIRES that politicians constantly campaign for funding. So, the easiest way is to accept support from the US Chamber of Commerce. The USCC supports amnesty to retain their cheap supply of labor; ie hotels, restaurants, landscaper, construction, etc… To compromise your belief system for expediency is not an indicator of good character. I believe Senator McCain was willing to subordinate his principles when suppporting the amnesty bill. By making perhaps 20 million illegals (and their dependents still in home countries) legal, could only contribute to our crisis in funding entitlements. Medicare currently operates in the red, Social Security by 2017. By 2030 entitlements will require 50% of tax revenues, 2040 66%, 2050 75%, 2070 100%. By not penalizing employers of illegal workers, McCain is literally threatening our very survival. The US must be choosy who it accepts as immigrants, not this stupid blanket amnesty which rewards anyone with 2 legs.

  34. James says:

    “Looking for a few (many, actually) good, mature Republicans who recognize that there isn’t two cents’ difference between McCain and Romney”
    Did you just get interested in politics last week? McCain has more in common with Clinton than he does with Romney.
    Gitmo, civil rights for terrorists, global warming, opposition to “tax cuts for the rich”, support for amnesty, support for restrictions on free speech, etc, etc, etc. And both are loved by the New York Times.

  35. James says:

    “Indeed, we should stay home out of principle. That way our principle can keep us warm at night when we have a person in office who is little more than a European-style socialist.”
    McCain IS a European-style socialist. Maybe some of you people need to take a look at his record over the last several years.

  36. Kevin B. says:

    Democrats who voted for Nader did so choosing principle over pragmatism. How did that work out for them again? Voters in Iran sat out the election, with considerably greater justification than anything that could possibly occur here, and got Ahmadinejad, and now swear that they won’t sit out the next one. The Kos kids who drove Lieberman from the Democratic party (with the same level of rhetorical fury now directed by some against McCain) did so out of principle. Am I supposed to admire them for that? I thought that they were deservedly made a laughingstock for their over-the-top attacks on a decent man and their inquistorial approach to political heresy. I remember thinking that my fellow conservatives were better than that.
    In any event, I think you are confusing principle with petulance.
    You say: “I’ve been hearing that from plenty of people who are not bloggers, and such.” Ah, yes, the old Pauline Kael fallacy: “How can Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him.” Reading actual poll results is generally a pretty effective antidote to this type of argument.

  37. Derek says:

    I will be voting split ticket, Republican Congress, Democrat for President if a true conservative isn’t on the ticket. Huckabee doesn’t count, sorry, his record of fiscal liberalism as governor is proof enough of that. We can’t survive BOTH the president and the VP to be completely clueless on the economy and taxes.
    If McCain rolls up with some “moderate” RINO as his VP then why should I enable him to destroy America and put the GOP on the blame seat for it? McCain is as unacceptable as Hillary or Obama. Let the Dems take the blame for destroying America a la Jimmy Carter. The GOP had to live through the MISTAKE of nominating FORD instead of Reagan in 76 and got JIMMAH CARTER for it.
    But hey, that gave us 8 years of Reagan, I see a possible parallel in this election.
    Give me a serious conservative as VP and I’ll take that in the hopes J-Mac dies a week into his presidency.
    But all of you saying give up your principles for party unity can go die in a fire. There is no party worth having without the principles that made it once great. McCain is the result of our losing our way slowly over the last 4 years. We need to reverse that trend.

  38. Jon Swift says:

    Can John McCain Be Stopped?

    Many conservatives hate John McCain even more than we hate Hillary Clinton.

  39. Loren says:

    I swear some people would say that if Hillary had an (R) after her name, we should support her. Party uber alles!
    Just a few years ago, McCain was trying to cut a deal to drop the (R) and replace it with a (D). Seems rather dumb of the Republican party to name him as its new standard bearer.

  40. Zee-Man says:

    ” . . .in the hopes J-Mac dies a week into his presidency.”
    Derek: get help man, really. You need it. You just expressed a wish, for all the world to see, that a human being should die so that political “purity” could be served. Therein lies the path to madness, as commonly espoused by the Left. You are apparently no different from all those moonbats who wished for the untimely death of V.P. Cheney in a terrorist attack. Think about it.

  41. Fern R says:

    Well, you’re “principles” are going to get us liberal Supreme Court Justices and a surrender to terrorists. Quite frankly, I want nothing to do with your principles. I don’t see how anyone who loves this country could sit this election out (or vote third party, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing as not voting).
    Some of you must be delusional. I am no fan of McCain, but he is not a European style socialist. If you all want to leave the party, good riddance.

  42. Bob1 says:

    Over the last few days, I’ve read some commentary that, no matter how repugnant our party’s candidate is, we need to vote for him anyway, because the other side’s worse.
    That turd ain’t gonna flush this time.
    The parties are playing us for suckers. They know that we’ll indeed hold our noses and vote the party line. We’ve been drinking that kool-aid for years.
    What that actually does is enable their behavior. The parties can offer up candidates that are marginal, that many dislike, even revile, because they know we’ll kowtow and pull the lever out of fear of The Other Side. In fact, they count on it. We are like the spineless family member who feels pity for the family acoholic and gives him booze when no one’s looking.
    Enough of this enabling behavior.
    For one thing, not one more thin dime.
    For another, get “None of the Above” on the ballot. With that, we won’t have to throw away a vote on a write-in protest. We need a mechanism to return politics to “of, by, and for the people,” not politics at the convenience of the incumbants.
    Get “None of the Above” into some polls too, as a way of gauging voter discontent. Let’s see how many people would opt for it before the actual election.
    I’m tired of the same old shenanigans every four years. Time for revolution.

  43. Rich Rostrom says:

    McCain would be a mediocre President at best, in my opinion. If Clinton is elected, it could be the end of real democracy in America – almost certainly the end of any effective opposition to the Democrats.
    McCain says he’ll seal the border. Maybe he’s just pandering. Clinton will, _certainly_, leave the border open and naturalize everybody. Millions of new voters, all taught to vote Democrat by government-funded community groups. Oops.
    In 2000, the Democrats complained that the Census undercounted minorities, and demanded that the numbers be “adjusted”. This was rejected – IIRC because the Census Bureau ultimately answers to the President. President Clinton will order “adjustments”, shifting tens of House seats and electoral votes to the Democrats. Oops.
    The Democrats are proposing a new “Fairness doctrine” to stifle conservative talk radio.
    McCain says he opposes it; Clinton would push it. Oops.
    Beyond all that: the Clintons learned a lesson in the 90s: you can get away with anything if the Right People cover for you. And they are completely unscrupulous. They will use the FBI, the IRS, the SEC, and any other agency to silence critics and opponents. Clinton U.S. Attorneys will gin up indictments of conservative activists, Republicans who make trouble, and wealthy individuals who fund the Right. Oops.
    Federal regulation and contracting will be used to generate donations for Democrats and suppress donations for Republicans. “Pay to play” will be the rule. In all future elections, Democrats will have overwhelming money advantages. Oops.
    By 2012, the Democrats will be entrenched so deep, the election won’t even be close. By 2016, the U.S. will be like Mexico under the PRI. There will be a handful of Republicans left in Congress, and probably almost as many far-left “Greens” and such from places like Berkeley.
    And don’t think that Hillary will be “responsible” in office. Ex-60s radical, Black Panther fan, longtime crony of semi-ex-Communists and fellow-travelers, sneers at the military, closet lesbian. Bill had to be semi-moderate to get elected in Arkansas and to deal with a Republican Congress. _Nothing_ will constrain Hillary.
    She will abandon Iraq in a flash – and possibly Afghanistan too – blaming Bush for the irrevocable defeat while simultaneously proclaiming victory. (Obama would too.) Letting the Democrats win this year would be pissing on the graves of all the heroes who have fought and died in this war. It would also be a betrayal of the Iraqis and Afghans who have rallied to this cause, many thousands of whom have died for it.
    McCain is far from ideal. But if you check his ratings by the American Conservative Union, he is well to the right of the Democrats. He averaged 65-75 in recent years. Obama and Clinton were under 10. The ACU rates on 25 selected votes each year. Of the 50 votes in 2005 and 2006 (2007 is not up yet), McCain differed from Clinton and Obama on about 30. That’s not trivial.
    Oh, and Bob1: the party didn’t offer up McCain. Republican primary voters did. Arguably, a lot of these voters were independents. But he’s not an “establishment” candidate.