In which I likely speak my last with regard to the 2008 Presidential Campaign
By docj Posted in 2008 — Comments (64) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From The Minority Report.
Life, as we all know, is about choices - and the choice to get involved in politics is one where there are, as we also all know, opportunities for both euphoric highs and unthinkable lows. For conservatives deep behind enemy lines, we know all too well about those lows and really not all that much about those highs. In fact, the last true “high” in politics I can recall feeling was on the evening of November 5, 2002 – when I heard on the radio that Massachusetts State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien had conceded the Governor’s race to Mitt Romney.
Man, that was some good stuff.
But there were plenty of Mariana-like troughs before and after that on my political journey through last evening, so I believe I speak from some pretty harsh personal experiences when I write what I’m about to write.
In honor of the man who now seems highly unlikely to carry our party’s banner into 2008, let me be up front and toss-out the net-net: I will not be voting for John McCain on November 4, 2008 for President of the United States. I will, instead, write-in the name of W. Mitt Romney of Belmont, MA for that office.
For what it’s worth, I long-ago made the decision to not support with my time, talent or treasure the seemingly inevitable (since New Hampshire, at least) candidacy of McCain, but had resigned myself to the notion that I would, for the 5th Presidential election in a row, hold my nose and fill-in the appropriate oval on my ballot.
Then came last Thursday – when John McCain, a man who has self-righteously cloaked himself in the Mr. Straight Talk banner his entire career – launched one of the most despicable lies I’ve heard come from a serious candidate for office in quite a while. Here’s a hint, Senator DoubleTalk – when Jeff Toobin of the Clinton News Network is calling-out the MSM’s and every Democrats’ (but I repeat myself) favorite Republican as a liar - you, my friend, have rammed the Straight Talk Express™ into a bridge abutment, and no amount of soft-balling from Timmy Russert is going to hide that.
Thus Senator, you have confirmed everything I ever thought about you. That far from being the righteous “Straight Talker”, you are more than happy to say anything – absolutely anything – in order to get elected, just like everyone else. Be it this slander of Romney’s position on Iraq or your “income maintenance” program for laid-off auto-workers that would have made FDR proud, you are more than happy to toss principle under your own tour bus if you think it will garner you a few votes. You have a whole lot of nerve holding yourself out as some-sort of honorable player in this comedy-turned-farce, Senator – yet, as benefactor of your status as the subject of raging MSM-Man-Love, you’re sure to get away with it… until about late-September, of course, when the MSM have to choose between their favorite Republican and the people (that being Democrats) they actually intend to vote for, that is.
You’ve also proved that you are more than happy to attack, viciously, those nominally on your side, or those who have the audacity to run to your right in a campaign, in a way that you would never attack a Democrat. You have never, ever deliberately misrepresented a Democrat’s position on any subject the way you’ve lied about Romney’s position on Iraq. And you have never, ever demanded an apology of those who actually have, unlike Romney, called for abject surrender in Iraq.
That I now have to endure reading of your minion tossing-out (a la Pastor Huckabee, appropriately) John Edwards’ Talking Points™ the morning after your Big Win is merely the Coupe de Gras. That’s just swell, Senator – certainly another Tax Cuts for the Rich moment is soon to be in the offering?
So no, Senator – you will not get my G*dd*amned vote any more than I expect you to build any G*dd*amned fence. I will write-in Romney, the man you slandered, and be happy about it, on November 4th.
But fret not, there are plenty of liberals, Democrats and so-called “independents” – you know, the people you’ve been relying-on to win Republican primaries up to know – here in the People’s Republic who will probably throw-in with you should The Wicked Witch of Westchester get the Democrat Party nod. Not so much if it’s Obama!™ though, I’m not really sorry to say. Good luck with that.
And now briefly, in an attempt to answer some of the arguments that I suspect are coming:
1) But Romney lied about Amnesty!™ First – he didn’t. Look folks, you can call letting illegals stay after paying a parking ticket and putting them on the fast track to voting in Democrat primaries whatever the hell you want – it’s amnesty. Second – wow, so “Straight Talk” has devolved into “Mommy! Mommy! Willard hit me first!!!” Color me unimpressed. Third – so Romney calling McCain-Kennedy an “Amnesty” bill is the equivalent of McCain making-something up about Romney’s position on Iraq and how it compares with that of Hillary Clinton? Sheesh.
2) But you’re just electing Hillary! Sorry folks, no dice here. The Republic survived Bill; it will survive Hillary if it must. Perhaps it’s that I’ve spent too long behind enemy lines and liberals just don’t scare me anymore. They are, in fact, a rather constant source of entertainment for me. Maybe it’s that I see the elevation of the John McCain – a man who has gone out of his way to gleefully jam his middle-finger in the eyes of conservatives and republicans since he elevated himself from unheralded back-bencher status around 1993 – as the standard-bearer of the GOP as, well, the middle-of-the-end of the GOP and I’d prefer not hasten that demise any further by putting him within spitting distance of the Big Red Button™ if I can avoid it. Whatever it is, that argument is just not doing it with me in this case. No sale, Sailor.
3) But really, it’s The Troops who will be hurt! Piss-off with that insulting line of argument. It’s not my fault that the GOP has chosen to nominate someone for whom I cannot vote and it’s similarly not my fault that the once-proud Democrat Party of the United States has long-ago ceded any right to be taken seriously on any subject remotely related to foreign policy. Stop using live soldiers in the same manner that Anti-War Democrats™ use dead ones.
4) But you’re only bitter because your guy lost. First, I’m long past bitter. I’m actually relieved that I will not be donating nearly as much as my money and time as I would otherwise be inclined between now and November. Second, I have signed no contracts regarding my participation in the Republican Party Primary Process and any and all future voting; don’t hold me to a contract I’ve never signed. And finally, I would have happily supported Fred, would have voted for Rudy, and could probably have been enticed into tossing a vote to Huck under extreme social pressure. But Johnny Mac is simply a bridge too far, folks. Apesadumbrado, no más. (Just getting in practice for what our future has in store.)
5) But, but, but – McCain is going to reach out to conservatives and unite the party now!
OK, this one deserves its own paragraph or three. So let me understand this – Mitt Romney, a man with a decidedly spotty past record, has gone out of his way to earnestly appeal to and represent conservative voters and those voters who actually identify themselves as Republicans over the last year or so. You can certainly question his methods, his style, and how he’s gone about it (I know I do) – but I don’t think you can argue that he’s failed to put-in the effort. With me so far? Good. And what has he gotten for all that effort? Well, would scorn and ridicule be too much? Flip-Flopper! Astroturfer! You get the idea.
Now, along comes John McCain – a man rightly nicknamed McPain on more than one occasion, a man who has done precisely nothing to this point to court conservatives and who has, it seems, gone out of his way to say, “Screw you all – I’m going to win Republican primaries with squishes and RiNOs – try and stop me!” What you’re seriously telling me he is now going to try and court conservatives? Seriously, that’s your argument?
So, here’s what I say to that – firstly, why? I mean, it’s not like he has to think he needs conservatives to win – and we all know he seems pretty allergic to political introspection – so what in the name of all that is Good makes you think he’s gonna start now?
And even if he does? Well, let me put it this way: so my abusive spouse climbs into bed and I’m supposed to roll-over and hand him the keys to the kingdom because, after smacking me around all day, he whispered a sweet nothing or two in my ear? And am I to seriously believe that those among you who have questioned – heck, flat-out denied – Mitt Romney’s overtures to conservatives are going to now, all of a sudden, believe a man who has just demonstrated he is willing, just like everyone else, to say anything to be elected?
Words like “ludicrous” and “absurd” spring to mind, but hey, I’m only the keeper of my own franchise in these matters.
OK, enough about McCain – please allow me to shift gears a bit.
To the many McCainiacs out there: Look folks, some of you have known me from this forum and others for a couple of years now – I’ve come to respect and even like a fair number of you. But we just flat-out disagree on this one. I don’t begrudge you your decision to support our Party’s nominee for President and I hope you will not hold mine against me. I think you’re wrong, you almost certainly think I’m wrong – let’s just do our best to leave it at that.
But out of respect for you guys if not for your “guy”, I do intend fully to henceforth live by the statement I made in the subject to this post. I do not intend to speak directly (or even tangentially, if I can avoid it) about the Presidential race from now until November 5th if all goes as it seems it will go from here (as in, McCain cruises to the nomination with enough delegates for a first-ballot victory at the Convention). I will speak no ill of McCain and, if I’m to comment at all, will do my best to reserve any such commentary for the Democrats.
In the meanwhile I will say this, it has been suggested that Mitt Romney demonstrate his “new-found” conservative bone-fides by “walking the walk” for the next 4-years. I think that’s a fine suggestion. In fact, to my mind the same goes precisely for John McCain. Let’s see if he’s willing to engage the eventual Democrat nominee and the congressional opposition at least as vigorously as he attacked his primary opponent. Let’s see if he actually follows-through on his promise for “enforcement first”. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Let him, in other words, “walk the walk” for the next 4-years as well.
And, if it should thus come to pass, I will happily return to the GOP Presidential debate (which will hopefully not start until after the 2010 World Series, at least), hat in hand, joyfully consume whatever size portion of batter-dipped, deep-fried crow you would like me to eat, and rejoin the fight.
Do we have an accord?
I just tossed Mitt some sheckles this morning, in fact. I know it's not quite over yet.
But you did notice I hope that I (an engineer, not a lawyer, remember) did try to sneak-in an escape clause into my proposal, eh?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'm interested to know if donating today for me was some sort of Psychological self therapy, because I do feel a whole lot better now. This thing is far from over, but unless something major happens, it ain't looking good. McCain had better pick a convincing conservative running mate or else I will look elsewhere. If he picks Huckabee, than it is good night and so long. I wish Romney would not have discarded the vp slot out of hand, I could get behind that ticket.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
how we Fredheads feel.No bashing just when you are convinced this is the guy and **POOF***Romney may be a moderate on some things but I could vote for him to beat Hillary if the party would unite around him.But like Fred the voters want someone to beat Hillary and haven't enough faith in any of them.So we may very well end up with a nominee who is more like her just to have a shot at it.
even Romney admitted the bill wasn't amnesty. But he still aired it in many ads to attack a Republican. He flipped on policy in MI (to the left). He attacked McCain in FL for voting against the Prescription Drug Benefit (from the left). He is everything to everyone.
But I most find it funny that you accuse McCain supporters of going "wahhh mommy mommy" in the middle of this diary. Projecting, eh.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Must have been a chip malfunction.
Where have I said Romeny was perfect or anything close?
And regarding "wahhh wahhh" - what is it I'm running for again? Is that the best you have to justify that bull(redacted)?
So, you going to let me walk away now?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The only reason it's not amnesty by the dictionary definition is because there are supposedly "fines." The only problem is that this definition doesn't discriminate between a $1 flat "fine" and a $5000 per year fine - an actual fine. Get this; if the fine is the equivalent of chump change (and with Ted Kennedy on board, you know it is), then McCain's legislation is amnesty in all but name. And you know it.
It is this same hyper-technicality that allows McCainiacs to scream that McCain-Kennedy does not make illegal immigrants eligible for social security. Of course, because it first makes them "legal" with automatically issued Z-Visas whereupon they are eligible for social security for work done while illegal.
How on Earth can you defend this with a straight face? Is that not every bit as devious and disingenuous as you regularly castigate Romney for being?
He flipped on policy in MI (to the left).
He did not. And repeating it would not make it any more true than it has made the falsehood that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts because of a lack of spending cuts instead of his own words at the time - that they were "tilted to the rich"
PS: What about McCain's income maintenance program - i.e. that the government would be laid off auto workers the positive difference in income between their old jobs and their current ones? How is that in any way any better than Romney's supposedly (i.e. fictional) promised bail out of the auto industry?
There was not even a fine or a fee to get an indefinately renewable "Z Visa". They were not required to jump through a single hoop to get one of these visas. This visa was even open to felons and gang members just so long as they could survive the toally sham impossible to effectively conduct 24 hour background check. The Z-Visa was an amnesty by every definition of the word.
If you get to keep what you stole, it's amnesty.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
They want their land back ;)
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
They lost. And if McCain/Kennedy passes, we will have lost as well.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Amendment:
If you get to keep what you stole, it's either amnesty or victory. Entiende?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Why should he bother? He has shown he doesn't need to win the conservative vote to win the nomination.
Now I'm just wondering how much further left he is going to move after he has the nomination all sewn up. He's already far to the left of the base, talking about carbon caps and what not. So what's in store for us in the general? I can't even imagine. Maybe a universal health care proposal?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
... barring some dramatic (and hoped for, if I'm being honest) turnaround in relative electoral fortunes between now and then, the "likely" in the title is actually entirely unnecessary.
Your decision to not place any bets on Intrade, though. I'm the last person on God's Green Earth who would ever give anyone advice on what to do with their pesos.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
and
I only bet on college football.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
items we possessed as individuals? I cannot and will never vote for someone who knowingly lies. What else are they lying about?
George Washington must be rolling over in his grave.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
Sort of like marrying a woman who has been cheating on her husband. What makes you think it won't happen to you?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Not exactly the plot you've laid out, but this movie has one of the funniest scenes (with Joey Bishop as the center of attention) I can remember seeing.
If I can find a clip of it I'll post. For the rest of you, find your local "marquee" movie rental post and rent this flik. It's very dated but very funny.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I think you have been one of the voices of reason in this primary battle. And I stongly concur with your sentiments regarding the candidates. But consider this:
It’s not John McCain’s fault if he wins the nomination. And much more than just him, it is Republicans – and their capacity to influence our national politics with an agenda, whatever it’s tack, which is certainly preferable to the D’s – that you may well be punishing by your write-in vote, if there are enough of you to make a difference.
I’ll swallow my vomit and vote for McCain because he will give us more of what we want than O’HillBilly. We will indeed survive O’HillBilly if it comes to that, but our agenda will suffer more. We will also survive McPain, but our agenda will suffer less. I respect your right to suffer more in order to give McCain the trouncing he deserves. But I wish you would realize that it isn’t just him that you are punishing. It is other Republicans; including those like me who are willing to swallow our vomit for these pragmatic reasons.
I don’t immediately see how we can build an accord that involves punishing each other this way.
... said "accord" has only to do with my agreement to "speak no evil" regarding McCain through the election should it come to that - which I think is the least I can do.
As to the rest, like absentee you make a compelling case: but sorry man, I've already crossed the Rubicon on this one.
FYI, to whatever extent you enjoy my "reason" as you put it (and thanks for the compliment, by the way), I expect to be posting more at TMR and less here for a while. Feel free to pop-by over there if the spirits so move you.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The case that docj generously referred to as compelling is here, though I daresay no case will be more compelling than that of Ben Domenech earlier today.
absentee
An unfortunate oversight on my part.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
As to Ben’s case, the only thing toward which it compels me is enjoining docj’s position. And the same goes for many, not all, but many of the main contributors here. As far as I am concerned Ben’s case is well written brainwash and its consumption makes me want to hurl. I looked at your case earlier today and found myself shifting into scan mode. I just looked again and the same thing happened. Sorry. I do have high regard for you and your methods but I think McCain is to Romney as bust is to boom. I don’t think you share docj’s sentiments like I do.
In my view, the case you made below is only partially about our Troops; and it is partially about our agenda. Bailing out of Iraq would actually save their lives and limbs. But it would negatively impact them in the heart-wrenching way that is symbolically felt when one walks from the WWII memorial to the Viet Nam memorial. Canceling our agenda and pulling out destroys the meaning of their sacrifice and depreciates their lives.
Docj has said he doesn’t want to go to prison for murdering the guy who taunts “well _you_ voted for him.” I don’t worry* about that. Our RedState archives will justify my “I told you so.”
What I would worry about, what would cut me to the quick, is the guy who in the face of a crushing defeat to our agenda – the discussion of Troops being a prime example – says:
“This is your fault because you couldn’t swallow your vomit and vote for that despicable Sir John McPain who would have been elected but for you; and if he had been elected, would have at least prevented this outrage.”
I should at that moment be shamed and naked before his scorn. That is what I dread. That’s what I think docj ought to dread. Denying the vote punishes the wrong people. The way I feel, I want to punish Sir John McPain too, and not just him. But how? I’m losing one of those that might have helped me figure that out and worst of all he may become an object of my own vomit-eating scorn. So woe is me.
*Except that I do worry about murderous temporary insanity being caused by those who defend against the I told you so by demonstrating, based on their own fantastical manufactured conceptions of Mitt, that he would actually have been worse if elected or effectively O’Hillbilly since he could never have possibly been elected at all. But I am going to have to deal with my spite for those folks in any case in which Mitt doesn’t become the pres.
Not to be disagreeable or to slight you, but I should have said that the case I pay homage to is Neil's recent Rhino repudiation.
Overall a well-done blog as always, docj.
Only 3) has prompted me to reply. It is not so much that you object, it is the grounds on which you object. It is not the fault of the troops that electoral politics are what they are, anymore than those things are your fault. But those troops will bear the burden anyway.
They cannot throw their hands up in disgust with the system and say "this will not stand". They are, in this regard, at your mercy. At the mercy of all of us. It is no stretch to suggest that the destiny of live American troops rests in the hands of the voters, and those troops well know it, believe me.
It is one thing to say you've been put in this predicament by the ill-will of others, and take the out available. Should the vote go wrong, they are out there in a predicament not of their making either, and honorably they will bear their burden.
Furthermore, it is not simply the troops as the general sense of the welfare of individuals. It is "the troops" in toto. It is our foreign footing. How critical is our position abroad at this very moment, as it compares to four years from now, or four years ago?
It is perilously critical. A precipitous withdrawal at the hands of a Democrat president would be disastrous, perhaps irreparably so for Iraq. It may seem an unfair or onerous burden, it may seem an unjust trap, it may seem an unrighteous predicament, but nevertheless, real human lives rest on the choice we make, because those lives will rest in the hands of the leader of the free world.
We aren't looking at a choice between a John McCain or Mitt Romney and a Harold Ford Jr. or Joe Lieberman. The Dem nominees have set themselves in opposition to our military interests, our might abroad, our troops, and our ability to prosecute the Global War on Terror. That is not your fault, true. But it is not my fault either, nor is it John McCain's fault, nor the citizenry of Iraq.
It is a terrible predicament. But this is the imperfect, fallen world that waited outside Eden. We must shoulder that burden, and make the choice given to us, not the choice we wish for. This is the burden of imperfection. Don't cast away your share.
absentee
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
And I'm smelling smoke...
Gotta run, meatloaf burning.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
And just to make sure it is understood that this was not a decision I've undertaken on a whim - far from it.
But as you allude, all we can do is take the very imperfect circumstances we find before us, make the best sense out of them our faculties will allow, and chose a course of action that we can live with - all else being even.
On balance, I have to live with the choice made because I have before me two people (whomever the Democrat doesn't matter) for whom I simply cannot, on balance, offer my franchise. That one (Clinton or Obama) is starkly, shockingly, bone-jarringly unacceptable and the other (McCain) is only unacceptable makes little difference to someone facing the decision of gallows or sword. And I cannot tell you how deeply it upsets me that I have to arrive to this decision - heck, that I even have to consider it, for Pete's sake.
So again absentee, you make an awesome case - and for the record I prefer yours to Ben's (and yes, I offer that as a compliment) - but I remain entirely unpersuaded.
Now, when can we start to discuss my agents' fees?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
that is why I am still alive. The most any troop can hope for is that the politicians will not "waste" them.
Troops know that they are expendable for cause. That does not bother them nor does being killed because of an error of judgement by political or military superiors. What bothers them and makes them angry is to be "wasted" by politicians who sacrifice them for political expediency.
What every remaining candidate for president should remember is the closing line from Kiplings poen "Tommy knows."
And thanks, for so much.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
While I have not served, this view accords with what I have read about wars, soldiers and political leaders.
I'm resigned to that. The question for me is whether the winner will matter insofar as national security. Even though he may revert to his MSM-pleasing ways even on this issue, so far McCain has shown spine against the liberal establishment on the GWOT. Broken clocks and all, I suppose.
So if McCain is the nominee, and I truly hope he is not but have to face reality, I will go and vote for him in a general election (and I'm more moderate on social issues than most here, so I can only imagine what the more conservative Republicans will do). That's it, too, I will vote. No money, no work, no effort, but he will receive the most valuable thing I own.
Then I will go home and puke.
So even though I don't agree with your decision to opt out, I share your sentiments expressed in this blog and will recommend it because you expressed them well.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
A little tough to read after eating burnt meatloaf - but thanks.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
1. I'm feeling rather bummed over the way the Rudy campaign turned out, having been a Rudy guy from way, way, way back. I don't love McCain, and have fewer illusions about him than I did in 2000. But I'm not taking my ball home.
2. I'd be madder at this if I thought your vote mattered, but we know John McCain ain't carrying the People's Republic of Mass.
3. Seriously, you were more excited about the GOP winning its fourth consecutive MA-GOV election than about sweeping the presidential and Senate races in 2004 and sticking it to John Kerry?
4. Anyway, hope you keep up the good fight to help us win back Congress and keep the heat on Deval Patrick. Lord knows, if McCain is in the White House we will need as many conservatives in Congress as we can muster.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
... because I have meat-cake burning:
1) 2004 was a very mixed year for us in the People's Republic as I had to personally witness a very close friend go down to horrific defeat in a State Rep race at the hands of the MA Kerry Tsunami (89% turnout - 89-freaking-percent) as part of Mitt's "Reform Team".
2) I wouldn't have written the voting part of this unless I was certain I would make the same decision if I lived in NH or OH.
3) I don't really see this as "going home" but OK, and your Number 4 is a given. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Despite all the low blows and rhetorical excesses committed in the first 4/5 of this post, I can live with your decision if you can henceforth stick to the commitment made in this paragraph:
But out of respect for you guys if not for your “guy”, I do intend fully to henceforth live by the statement I made in the subject to this post. I do not intend to speak directly (or even tangentially, if I can avoid it) about the Presidential race from now until November 5th if all goes as it seems it will go from here (as in, McCain cruises to the nomination with enough delegates for a first-ballot victory at the Convention). I will speak no ill of McCain and, if I’m to comment at all, will do my best to reserve any such commentary for the Democrats.
If you can stick to that, well, that's something I can live with. I hope the rest of the Romney and Fred supporters can do the same. Over the past nine to twelve months there have been so many Romneybots and Fredheads on this site that it's become something of an echo chamber for them. During all that time I, and a small contingent like me, have been a beleaguered minority around here. I might not be rich if I had a dollar for every time I've been told I'm "not a true conservative" or had as much implied, but I'd have a several free meals to be sure. In all that time I haven't pouted and threatened to take my vote and go home. I've consistently promised to vote for the eventual Republican nominee, even if it's Mitt Romney, whom many of you well know I hold in no particular esteem. All I ask is that the supporters of other candidates show the same same kind of respect, and back the decision the Republican Party to put McCain on the ticket.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Not sure about the "low-blows" but will grant perhaps a "rhetorical excess" or two.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Not "Deal" as in "Deal with it"
Just to be clear.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If you thought the war was important enough to send our soldiers into harms way how is that its not important enough to sacrifice some of your political preferences for four years. If you didn't support the war than I see no problem not supporting John McCain. But if you supported our soldiers dying in Iraq, and you don't think we've won the war yet, how can you in good conscience allow Hillary into office.
Can you live with yourself if you supported the sacrificing of our or men and women's lives while being unable to even sacrifice on your political preferences yourself.
... I was very, very much on the fence in October 2002. Once troops were on the ground however, a very different story.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
by all means support the Dems. I respect those who don't want to continue the war or didn't think it was right. My beef is if people are willing ot support sacrificing other people's lives for sometihng there not willing to even hold their nose and accept some politics they don't like for.
When given lousy options, all you can do is try to figure on the least lousy. I've given it my best shot.
To the extent I supported the mission so to speak, I volunteered for recall back into the reserves (Army) in both 2002 and 2004 - and got a "Thanks, but no thanks." both times. Can't for the life of me figure on why, but there it is.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Because ANY of the top 5 Republican candidates (RP does not count) is full-on with the war. And none of them made a business out of trashing SecDef Rumsfield while he was trying to conduct that war. None of the rest of them have called for Gitmo's closing, and none have run up in front of the microphones to yelp about alleged torture our guys were allegedly doing.
And since therefore all 5 are at the minimum "very good" on the war (and if there's ANY exception, it's McCain), then any Republican voter can in good conscience vote based on any and all *other* issues.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
YOU might have an accord. What I have is a Prelude! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA, OK I had to say it....
But other than that, yes, I'm inclined to sympathize with your position, and at the very least, let sleeping dogs lie.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Two, in fact (would that be Prii?) Happen to like them both a great deal.
Oh, and ha ha ha, very funny - smart ***.
Cheers -
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
given that we still have a war to win and at least one, possibly two or three, Justices to choose.
that principles do not matter... Oh well, they (you) well may win anyway (not sure what, but you may win).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
i find these kinds of attacks silly and beneath redstaters. we do not need to question each other's devotion to conservative principles.
this kind of attack is especially silly since most redstaters are going to support the gop nominee - so you are implying that most redstaters think "that principles do not matter".
get off your high horse.
Really, some of us believe in principles over politics... I guess that we are not Republican supporters is what gets your goat (is that it?). Well, just for you, some of us vote on principle, strange as it seems to you.
The Party is second to principle and always will be... I doubt that it is something that you could understand.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Stop that at once. The fact that one person starts from principles and reasons to conclusions different from yours does not make him unprincipled.
You're out of line.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Tiger only wants to win tournaments.
Dems only want to deny wars that are being waged against us, and the word "win" has been PC'ed out of their dictionary, whether it be Tee-ball, soccer or war.
Americans want to win wars.
McCain, Mitt and Huck want to win.
Fore!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
And "slim" packed-up and left town for good over the weekend.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.