Comments on: Will the Right Support McCain?

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:46:38 +0000

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.

By: Zhombre

Zhombre — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:20:33 +0000

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?

By: suek

suek — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:57:16 +0000

>>I don’t appreciate rule by physical force.>>

Do you object to the police?

By: SGT Dave

SGT Dave — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:51:58 +0000

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

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:44:59 +0000

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.

By: rockdalian

rockdalian — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:16:15 +0000

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.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:31:53 +0000

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.

By: Helen Losse

Helen Losse — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:28:33 +0000

As mayor of New York, Giuliani gained control by kicking ass, so to speak. I don’t appreciate rule by physical force.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:47 +0000

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.

By: suek

suek — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:33:32 +0000

Helen…why did you find Giuliani “scary”?