"Look out, ol' Mackie's back!" ~ Bobby Darin
I've asked this before, and I'm still asking. Has the Republican party in this country gone crazy? Is there a worse Republican candidate than McCain? Is he really a Republican? He doesn't bear much resemblance.
Is he some kind of Svengali? Why are so many voters so infactuated with this man?
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a President McCain is a President Clinton. Any President Clinton. Especially Hillary.
The Virginia state primary is next Tuesday, and although it is probably an exercise in futility, I will cast my vote for Romney.
I think.
At this point, I'm not sure which of the several evils to choose. I really don't trust Romney. Something about him just doesn't seem right to me.
It could be that he managed to get himself elected Governor in a state which is arguably the most Liberal state in the union. There's something wrong with that picture. I figure he must have misrepresented himself to the people of Massachusetts to get their vote.
Is he misrepresenting himself to the Republicans now?
I don't know, and what's more, I think I'm becoming completely disgusted, disgruntled, and apathetic about the whole thing.
I suspect many Republicans feel the same way. I feel like just not voting out of protest.
That's a dangerous thing. The only thing that would more insure a victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, would be to vote for the Democratic candidate.
I would encourage all Republicans to vote Republican, regardless of the candidate.
This country would have difficulty surviving under the Socialist regime of Hillary or Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Could it be that those that live by being Dividers, not Uniters, will die by that same sword?
Dan "uniting" with Progressives is like teaming up with an illiterate to win a spelling bee. What I think we in the right wing majority are looking for is a candidate that will not try to please the anti-US left (that you, by the way) instead we want someone who will aggressively combat their terrible ideas founded on false notions (peaceful Islam, global warming, etc . . . )
I think to stand for anything you have to be a "Divider" why would you want unite people just for the sake of uniting people. . . ohh that’s right to consolidate power. now I get it.
Well said Mark. A non-vote protest insures a Hillary/Obama White House and the slide to Socialism, surrender and defeat.
Hey Dan, not sure if I'm misunderstanding you there, but the most divided party around at the moment looks like the Democrats to me!
BTW has anyone noticed how much this election is coming to resemble the last series of West Wing? An old, respected Republican who's a bit too liberal for a lot of the party base, the almost-annointed establishment Democrat candidate threatened by the upstart campaign of a first-term politician from an ethnic background, the contest tied so close that it carries on right to the nominating convention?
Somebody should maybe check McCain's old lobbying record for potential time-bombs!
"Could it be that those that live by being Dividers, not Uniters, will die by that same sword?"
Dan, let me ask you a question...
When, in the history of modern politics, have the Democrats ever attempted to reach across the aisle to compromise with Republicans?
When have the Democrats EVER conceded a single one of their priorities or political goals in order to achieve "bi-partisanship"? (Whatever THAT means...)
Democrats as a political tactic divide the American Public up into groups and cliques (white v/s black, rich v/s poor, men v/s women, us v/s them, enlightened rational Darwinist Atheists v/s knuckle-dragging right-wing evangelical kooks...), and pit us against each other, and then try to position themselves as the arbiters of our squabbles.
What have Democrats done lately to unite the American people?
The Democrats have put themselves into the unfortunate position of making their supporters decide and declare whether they are more racist, or sexist.
So far, the racists are winning. (But the battle is not yet over.)
By the way, Dan...
Which are you?
Since Kook-Cinich is out now, are you going to vote against the black man, or against the rich white woman?
As to your post, Mark...
In a perfect world, yes, you would be right.
But, for some reason, we are being force-fed a bad candidate.
ANY of the other Republican Candidates would have been okay. Yes, there would have been things that some Republicans disagreed with them about, but they all would have been alright when compared to a possible Hillary Clinton Presidency.
EXCEPT McCAIN.
If HillBillary won the Democrat Nomination, this election should have been a cake-walk for any Conservative Republican Candidate.
She would most assuredly have re-defined Negative Turn-out.
But along comes McCain.
The Trojan Candidate.
It's like someone has decided that we have to have a candidate who is just as crappy as the other side has, so that there is not a 48 state landslide.
McCain stinks just as bad as Hillary does. If the truth was really known, NOBODY wants EITHER of them. Not really...
I stick by what I have said before...
If we are going to get a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive agenda either way, then we should step aside, and let the Democrats own the problems that their ideas create.
I will write myself in, I will vote for the Green party Candidate, I will vote for the Libertarian Candidate.
I will vote for Hillary, if it comes to that.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN.
As Jimmy Carter proved, no one man can destroy this country. One thing about John McCain is that he has the courage of his convictions. This is a POW who declined to be released after two years and stayed four more, to be tortured in ways that make waterboarding seem what it is -- pouring water in a person's face. He makes confessed war criminal John Kerry look like a titmouse. The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat. I have more to say, but I'll say it on my own blog.
Mark, there is nobody to blame for not having a true Conservative Republican candidate than ourselves and the media. We did not scream as loud or draw enough controversy to get the media's attention. I guess we needed some fist throwing and some serious mud-slinging to gain the attention. Whatever the reason, I am so disappointed, I can not say.
Re, "there is nobody to blame for not having a true Conservative Republican candidate ..."
Um, yes there is. George W. Bush and just about every Republican in the House and Senate. Conservativism a majority? Hardly. Not these days.
Y'all done went and pissed it away -- thank God.
Just tween you and I, Mark, what's up? I've not been rude in my comments, they've been on topic and/or in response to questions posed to me, what gives with the not posting comments?
You're posting ER, which means you're willing to post contrary opinions.
Have I in some way offended you? This just seems unusual to me.
Not that I'm worried about your not posting my comments: I write because I enjoy writing and because it's a way to think through things, so I do this mostly for my own sake, so no big deal - posted or not.
I'm just curious.
Interesting. I post "Just tween you and I" having nothing to do with the topic and you post it. I post comments on the topic and you don't.
Squirrely.
It's kind of a judgment call, Dan. When your comments include references to an "illegal war" and/or numbers or percentages that have a questionable basis in fact, I reject them.
We all know your opinion on the war, and continuing to repeat the same old argument gets old. I will never agree with you on that so no point in rehashing.
When you make blanket statements about the percentage of Americans that agree with you, I won't allow those comments because as far as I can tell, you are the only one with the particular views you espouse, so when you say "most of the country" or "50-60% of the country" agrees with you, I think those statements are not just disengenous, but are outright lies, made up out of whole cloth to support your extraordinarily extremly radical opinions.
Now. You have your explanation. I will not entertain further arguments on this subject, either.
By the way, if you want to discuss something off topic and "between you and me", there is a link to my e-mail in my profile.
Oh, BTW, I gladly take Coulter's vote, and anyone elses.
And I applaud the likes of Abouna for standing by their principles and staying home.
there is a link to my e-mail in my profile.
Umm, no there's not. At least not in my browser when I go to your profile.
fyi.
When you make blanket statements about the percentage of Americans that agree with you, I won't allow those comments because as far as I can tell, you are the only one with the particular views you espouse, so when you say "most of the country" or "50-60% of the country" agrees with you...
If you would bother to read my comments, you would see that I said no such thing.
I was asking a question, saying that IF 20% of the population was Right-ish, 20% was Left-ish and 60-70% was in the Middle-ish, why would you think it wise to insist on the Right-ish 20% have their way?
It would seem that for those on either extreme to accomplish any of their goals, they would have to work with the great majority in the middle.
In saying that, I was wondering why some here seem to think compromise in the context of setting national policy is a bad thing. Seems like if you're in the minority (as I clearly am - never indicated otherwise), you have to work with the majority to push your agenda. Which is not the same thing as compromising your values, rather it's acknowledging that you're a minority and you have to work with others to get society to be more to your ideals if it's going to happen at all.
Now, as to my numbers (20-60-20%), those were mostly made up for the purpose of asking the hypothetical question, not to indicate that those are hard and fast realities.
However, given the low support for the most conservative (or at least apparently conservative) of candidates, I'd suggest that my numbers are in the neighborhood of reality. Do you doubt that? Do you think the majority of the US is as far right as Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter? If so, then how do you explain that even in the Republican party he was a no-go candidate?
McCain's voting record:
*opposed to abortion, voted to repeal Roe v. Wade
*opposed to gay marriage BUT thinks it should be handled at the state level (he *opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage)
[Conservatives are very strong on State Rights]
*voted YES on ban on flag burning
*Wants more death penalties, stricter penalties
*Strong supporter of the War on Drugs
[this is contrary to the more Libertarian of conservatives, but more in line with "popular" conservatism]
*Thinks teaching Creationism should be a call for local schools to make (although he personally believes in evolution)
*Wants more school choice, thinks Charters, homeschooling, & vouchers are key to success
*Thinks Economic & environmental interests not mutually exclusive
*Voted Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track
*Mostly opposed to bans on guns, Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban
*Supported Reagan tax cuts because matched by spending cuts
*Opposed to a timeline for withdrawal in Iraq
*Has otherwise supported the war in Iraq
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
THIS is a liberal?
How far Right does a fella have to be to not be considered a traitor by the Marks and Limbaughs and Savages of the world?
Not that I mind y'all kicking the poop out of poor McCain - I don't want to see him be president. My point is only that this fella is mostly Right in his voting record and positions and that it seems like the "conservatives" out there are looking for some sort of Rightwing Purity litmus test that is going to write them out of the history books.
Ironically, it's sort of Darwinism in action...
What McCain says and what he believes and does are often two different things. He is very weak on illegal immigration, with his McCain/Kennedy legislation. He has also assaulted our first amendment right to free speech with McCain/Feingold, not to mention he wants to close Guantanamo and bring the terrorists into the mainland to be tried by our criminal justice system, and he thinks waterboarding is torture.
There's more, but that is enough.
re:
How far Right does a fella have to be to not be considered a traitor by the Marks and Limbaughs and Savages of the world?
So, then, your answer, Mark is "Pretty insanely FAR Right"?
Cool.
Good luck with that election stuff...
If you think sticking to the Constitution is leftist, you are seriously misguided.
Money has no inherent rights to free speech.
People do.
No conflict with the Constitution.
McCain-Feingold isn't about money. It's about denying Americans free speech. It is much more about free speech than Pornography is.
Oh, and by the way, another indication that McCain is Liberal:
He buys into the myth of Global Warming.
"McCain is Liberal:
He buys into the myth of Global Warming." So does Bush. You need to dig deeper to find some politico who buys into the myth
that there is no global warming.
Yeah, McCain and a majority of the world. He also believes in evolution and that the world is flat.
I suppose you have read where it appears Romney is ending his campaign (!).
owwwch.
Now what? Huckabee or McCain?
Sticking to the constitution is liberal. The founding fathers were the liberals of their day.
BTW - thank you for the Bobby Darin video...it's cooler than coolio, Daddyoh!
(I played Bobby Darin @ my wedding.)
The founding fathers were neither Conservative or Liberal. They were rebels, but they were rebels for the cause of freedom. Today's Liberals bear little or no resemblance to them. The founding fathers were willing to fight and die for thier principles. Liberals not only will not fight for their principles. They are willing to surrender them for political power.
Thanks, Kitty. Mack the Knife is my all time favorite song, and Bobby Darin was a true musical genius, the likes of which we may never see again.
Rebels are always the liberals of their time.
Yeah...Darin was a great. Even Frank Sinatra felt threatened by him. Keep the music coming! So sad Darin had to die young, but he lived a full life.
Post a Comment