Will the Right Support McCain?
Don Quixote on Feb 20 2008 at 8:47 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
It seems certain McCain is going to be the Republican nominee. Just as Bookworm doesn’t “get” Obama’s charisma, McCain’s is completely lost on me. As a result, maybe I’m not the best judge of his chances, but it seems to me that he can only hope to win if he gets the enthusiastic and active suport of the activists on the right, especially the religious right. The question is, will he get the support he needs.
Many of Bookworm’s readers are exactly the kinds of supports McCain needs. So, are you going to turn out and fight for him? Why or why not? Does it matter whether the opponent is Clinton or Obama? What are the Bookwormroom readers going to do for this election?
While I’m so full of questions, how do you think McCain, Clinton or Obama would govern if elected? How would America change from their presidency? Bring out your crystal balls and tell me what you see.
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “Will the Right Support McCain?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] [Discuss this post with DQ over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL [...]
Well, there’s support and there’s support. Obama’s a pretty scary guy to fiscal or security Republicans, and there’s the judge thing to boot. So the question is if fear of a really bad candidate is just as good as excitement for a really good one. I actually think it’s stronger, but we’ll see.
Right now, I’m thinking that if you’re a Republican (or an Un-Democrat) but don’t like McCain, it’s still better to vote for him rather than sit home and let Obama or Hillary (if she surprises us) take it, because whatever McCain’s going to do, it’s not going to be as bad as what the Democrat will do.
I think there will be a lot of people holding their noses while they vote. I just hope enough of them decide to disregard the stink and make it a little harder for the Socialists to gain control. I don’t like having to choose the lesser of two evils and I am disappointed that there’s nobody to get excited about. But sitting it out on election day is equivalent to choosing the greater of two evils, and I can’t see the logic in that.
Would I go out and campaign for McCain? Nope. All in all, I’m viewing the next four (or eight) years as something we have to survive. I just hope the winner doesn’t do too much damage, and that whatever damage he or she does is not irreversible.
I am so glad I am a Democrat, who doesn’t feel like I’m voting the lesser of evils. I’m glad that Clinton (my choice) or Obama is an acceptable change (after the last eight years) and that the Republicans will most likely choose McCain, who is much less scaryl that say, Guiliani (or however the heck he spells his name) would have been. McCain is Bush-Lite! If we can endure eight years of Bush; we can surely make it through McCain.
Helen…why did you find Giuliani “scary”?
McCain is Bush-Lite! If we can endure eight years of Bush; we can surely make it through McCain.
Which is exactly why many conservatives don’t like McCain. They have had it up to here with Bush’s soft treatment of internal sedition and Supreme Court shenanigans blocking military tribunals in GitMo. McCain with his attempts to outlaw waterboarding and his attempts to ally with Democrats, mirrors too much of Bush’s compassionate conservative platform. People tolerated and supported Bush because he was the only guy available on 9/11 to lead the country. Keeping to the status quo with McCain oftentimes is seen as suboptimal compared to bringing in new blood, as opposed to old Senate politickers.
Helen…why did you find Giuliani “scary”?
Probably because Rudy ain’t a light version of Bush.
As mayor of New York, Giuliani gained control by kicking ass, so to speak. I don’t appreciate rule by physical force.
Pretty much a much heavier version of Bush, without the compassionate part, of course. Which is a good thing.
Humanity has been ruled by force ever since we offed the cro-magnons.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. McCain is evil in the sense that he will use government power to take away my God given rights. Most everybody knows his social liberal positions that will ruin the America I was born in.
I have asked before, if the trend continues and the Dems gain more seats in Congress, how does a President McCain wage the war on terror? The Dems will certainly defund the war and would not authorize a new war. Then what are we left with? A liberal conservative that would surely sign legislation for amnesty for illegals, legislation to curb global warming, and who knows what else the Dems will dream up.
That being said, I am willing to wait for the VP nomination. No solid conservative for VP, no vote. McCain will be a one term President, and we need someone in place that would be a frontrunner. Another social liberal will just continue the cycle.
I will vote this election, no matter what. It remains to be seen whom I will vote for.
Neither Clinton nor Obama has had to answer a direct question about Israel. Their policies toward Israel concern me, since I consider Israel to be the canary in the coalmine.
Both of them would “keep America safe” and respond to any agression by a foe. But no one directly attacks the U.S. militarily - and that’s the scenario they’re talking about. Obama *apparently* supports a stronger military response in Afghanistan, but that might just be the excuse of convenience. If we hadn’t gone into Iraq, would all the protesters be agitating against our role in Afghanistan instead? Would Obama still support the military fight in Afghanistan? It’s not clear to me.
On the economy… well, I’m nearly a 100% fiscal conservative, and there’s not a word that Clinton or Obama say that appeals to me. This is the issue that drives me to say I could never vote for either of them.
It seems to me that we are past a tipping point: Americans, as a general rule, now expect their government to help them whenever possible, NOT only in emergency situations. Americans are ready for a socialist agenda, and I fear what will happen to us if we enter this mode long term. But, as with Carter, any socialist agenda tends to produce terrible results quickly, so I’m not ready to throw in the towel. Carter brought is Reagan, after all.
McCain is a complete mystery to me. I have no idea how he would govern.
All,
I don’t like McCain much, but I dislike Hillary and the great hyped question mark more. At the very least, McCain is former military and his son serves - that means I can at least respect his service. His stance on earmarks (NONE!) is impressive. At the very least we can expect that he will understand or listen to those who tell him what the military can and cannot do (Yep, talking about Bill - and to a lesser extent the advisors to G.W.). He understands the intelligence fight; I cannot underscore that enough. Hillary’s husband gutted our services (I left active duty in ‘98 for the Guard because of their policies towards my profession) and there is sufficient circumstantial evidence from my point of view that she and her husband bent or broke the rules on security. The actions of Sandy Berger disgust me, yet he’d be one of her top advisors on national security. That I have no idea who Obama would tap for leadership in the intelligence and military fields is a daunting proposal. I’m fairly well informed and my sources are coming up empty except for possible long-time political hacks.
It isn’t the best choice, but I cannot in good conscience allow the other choice.
As a side note, Helen - I understand your enthusiasm for your candidates based on “change”. What, exactly, are they going to change? Clinton started the affair with the Balkans (where I am now); he fired the opening shots in our current situation with Afghanistan (cruise missile fire that led to the anti-American surge in that nation). His lack of enforcement of the UN resolutions on Iraq left us with the situation we now have in that nation (though, having been there in ‘05-06 and with friends there now the situation is improving). Are we going to open ANWR and domestic energy development? Are we going to enact workable reform for Social Security so it remains when I get there in thirty years or so? Are we going to de-regulate medical care to encourage doctors to enter critical fields that have suffered because of government-driven price controls? (On this one, look at the cost of elective surgury, especially Lasik, over the last ten years in terms of cost and quality against the “regulated” care items.)
I have friends in Illinois that don’t trust anything from Chicago; the place has been and still is a synonym for political corruption. In other words, things from Chicago represent change by returning to the bad old days of bribes, back-door deals, and influence peddling. Not the kind of change I want in my government.
At least McCain votes for or against things, not “present”. I can hate his positions on several items (especially immigration, but this is a self-correcting economic issue that needs only a little work on enforcement), but at least he HAS positions.
The democratic choices are “the woman” and “the black man” (sorry if non-PC). Not “control the border” or “strong defense” or “pro-choice” or any other. Two stuffed shirts with no real positions or backbone. Just “hope” and “change” and novelty.
I may be a bit crazy, but I stopped selecting candidates for the sake of novelty in my junior high class elections.
Enough rant, back to promoting democracy and fixing an error from the Clinton years.
SGT Dave - “Why is it that these people get angry and burn down their own stuff? It’s like I’m angry at my neighbor so I’ll burn down my own house to show the city how mad I am…” - Jeff, a co-worker and cynical observer of human nature, on Serbia’s protests
>>I don’t appreciate rule by physical force.>>
Do you object to the police?
Mike D writes: “McCain is a complete mystery to me. I have no idea how he would govern.” No, but Juan and Evita, I mean Bill and Hill, are certainly a known quantity and you can be fairly certain Obama will veer far to the left. Need I say more?
I just want to comment on Hillary’s Saturday attempt to vent outrage against Barack Obama. As a poster at another blog described it:
“…Ms. Hillary bringing a slightly synthetic version of her inner Ratched into public view. She has hauled it out in an attempt to make Obama defensive, to take him down a notch. In the background of the video clip Ohio Governor Ted Strickland nods dutifully and looks a little uncomfortable…”
Did you see the video? Did you know that that guy off to her side and behind her was a GOVERNOR? I was howling at the fellow each time I rewound and rewatched it. He looked like a mindless bobblehead. Bobble nodding every few seconds, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh. It was hilarious. It was actually truly bizarre - if you watch just him and not her. And the guy’s actually a governor. I actually finally became quite wierded out.
I also thought, what if someone photoshopped a videa of a bobble head doll on Hillary’s other side, also behind her, nodding in perfect conjunction with Strickland’s bizarre nods. It would be hilarious. And instructive.