I don't think the differences between McCain and Hillary are enough to warrant voting for him.
By dskinner11 Posted in 2008 — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First off, I would never in my entire life vote for Hillary. I would however vote third-party in an effort to restore the Republican party to it's conservative principles.
I'm sure some people will disagree with me and that's fine, but I really don't see McCain putting the country in a much better place in 2012 than Hillary. The only difference will be what are our election prospects in 2012 and what will be the potential for the future of the GOP.
If by some miracle McCain wins in 2008 either he or his VP will lose in an historic landslide to Barrack Obama or some other Dem lucky enough to win their nomination. McCain's record will be amnesty, mediocre judges, no new tax cuts, a terrible economy and a country not much safer than if Hillary were at the helm.
I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that in 2012 our nation will be in pretty bad shape. I would rather have Hillary take the blame for that than McCain, and by association the entire GOP.
If Hillary wins in 2008 the GOP will almost be guaranteed to win in 2012. That would mean that Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty, Palin or Sanford would have 8 years to fix her mess and restore the good name of the Republican party. The results of her liberal policies along with ridiculous levels of Bush/Clinton fatigue will ensure she loses and Jeb Bush isn't on our ticket.
Don't agree with me on the issues? Fine explain where I am going wrong. This is how I see things:
Any advancement of conservatism in the next 4 years will take someone who will fight liberals and win. Rudy, Romney and Thompson all would have done an excellent job at pushing the liberals to enact their conservative agendas. McCain instead would be convinced to sign liberal policies in the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. (convince may be generous term. As I outline below, he probably will sign liberal policies with that damn little smirk on his face knowing it irritates the hell out of the base.)
The only conservative thing McCain has ever FOUGHT for was the Surge, which he then took credit for when instead he should be praising Petraeus. He fights for liberal issues against conservatives and he quietly votes for conservative issues so as not to annoy the fawning MSM fans he develops with his passion for liberalism.
JUDGES - Best case in a Dem controlled Senate, McCain gets a Kennedy on the court who rarely sides with conservatives, worst case Souter. The difference between Clinton giving us Ginsburg and McCain giving us Kennedy is not enough to merit voting for McCain.
TAXES - McCain was a key vote against the death tax in addition to voting against the Bush Tax cuts. He will have a hard time pushing his new-found love for tax cuts that he voted against twice and that he said he still would vote against if he had it to do over again. Hillary or McCain the Bush tax cuts expire and we go into a recession.
IMMIGRATION - Both of them will do whatever is necessary to get an amnesty bill through Congress and only enforce the borders if they have to do it. Republicans won't fight as hard to stop Amnesty if it is McCain as opposed to Clinton. We are more likely to get amnesty with McCain than Clinton because the base will rally to oppose Clinton faster than it will to oppose McCain.
WAR IN IRAQ - In the Dem primary Hillary is still towing a moderate position on this issue. In one debate she refused to promise that all US Troops would be out of Iraq by 2012. She is desperate to prove that she is tough on terror and will not risk the fact that withdrawing troops too fast from a stable Iraq will leave her to blame for the mess, which would really hurt her chances in 2012. I think Hillary will keep troops in Iraq and trust her Generals. No major difference between the two candidates.
GWOT - Both candidates will close Guantanomo and both will end refuse to save lives by pouring water on terrorists faces. One legitimate difference is that McCain will support the Patriot Act while Clinton would make some changes. I don't think she would change too much because it won't seem so bad when she is the one with the power as opposed to Bush. Also the base will fight her and she won't want to seem weak on Terror. Maybe McCain is a little better.
GLOBAL WARMING - Both will enact policies that will cripple American manufacturing and cause a serious economic downturn. No difference other than who takes the blame.
ECONOMY - Both Clinton and McCain blame business for all the problems we face. Both will demonize the people who create jobs, pay taxes and power the country all because they do it for profit. No difference. Even with all his wonderful economic advisors, McCain still is anti-Capitalism and anti-freemarkets shows it in every debate.
HEALTHCARE - McCain has no plan so it's not like he would do anything positively and there certainly is the risk that his real "friends" like Kennedy and Lieberman will convince him to socialize the system. Conservatives will unite against Hillarycare like you have never seen. It will be 1994 all over again which means she won't be able to advance the issue at all.
If it is part of the training of our soldiers it can't be that bad. Effective yes, but it's not like we are doing Jack Bauer interrogations down there.
A freaking reporter let them waterboard him for a story.
If you think that it wasn't worth the information we got from the terrorists then we just disagree. I think that making a terrorist feel like they are drowning when if fact they are in no danger at all is perfectly reasonable, especially given that it is so effective and so rarely used.
it takes an honorable man to admit that fact. Thank you
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
For me, it's not so much that I think McCain is wrong, or right on waterboarding; my problem with his stance is that it is another example that comes across like he thinks he knows more about anything military related than anyone else. I don't think he is an expert on this, despite having been tortured. For example, I had back surgery but I'm not an expert on all different types of back surgery and what's best.
*I will never surrender to John McCain*
considered waterboarding to be torture. Honestly, I don't want to get into this tonight. I know this is a very contentious issue and we already have enough violent disagreement on this blog with the whole Romney vs McCain thing. It just really ticked me off how the poster described this form of torture "a little water on the face". I'll be in better fighting spirits in the morning. Good night, Red Staters.
but I see what you're saying. I think it is poor form to refer to this as "a little water on the face", or "pouring water up their nose." There is a reason this is such a hot topic and it's obviously because this is either torture, or as close as you can get.
My point is really that I don't like McCain's arrogant attitude about anything related to the military.
*I will never surrender to John McCain*
I said "pouring water on terrorists faces", which is exactly what waterboarding is.
I did not however say "a little water on the face" or "pouring water up their nose". How on earth are you using those quotation marks when that isn't at all what I said. Your phrasing demeans it and acts like it is no big deal, which is not what I was doing.
I do believe it is a big deal and so does the Bush administration which is why waterboarding is rarely used. I think that there are certain situations where its use is justified by the lives that are saved.
and referring to other commenters in general, not necessarily you. Sorry if I offended you. I agree with your overall stance on waterboarding. I don't agree with people who minimize what it is and don't recognize the viewpoints of others.
*Tagg Romney 2038!*
OK, so we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for these crimes after WWII. Didn't we also force Japanese Americans into concentration camps for the crime of.....being Japanese?
There are good arguments against waterboarding, but this is not one of them.
The difference between these 2 is someone who votes us 75% of the time and someone who votes with us zero percent of the time. Anyone who says there is no difference between the 2 does not understand the Supreme Court. Kennedy votes with us on the partial birth abortion ban as just one of many examples.
I disagree with your decision but you might be right. Then again you might be wrong. What then?
I suggest it is important to bear in mind that you are predicating your decisions on predictions. They will not be facts unless and until they actually happen. If I were smart enough to speak with certainty about these predictions, I’d probably have billions of dollars acquired from that skill.
That said, I will risk claiming that you made a plausible case if I can qualify it as somewhere in the worst case quartile. Other cases have been made on this board that I’d say are in the best case quartile. If you doubt my qualification we can examine its substance.
If you accept that claim, then here are some follow on points. If we succeed in getting Sir John – and in the nomination race I absolutely dread that result -- rather than O’Hillbilly, at least all the noise we make over future policy scraps might not be quite so easily dismissed, since it will be coming from the Party to which he owes his victory. More generally, there is a potential upside for us on all our issues that simply doesn’t exist with O’Hillbilly. And where he would pull the Republican Party and the country to the left, it is solid Republicans who will be best positioned to restrain him and brand his tact as anti-Republican. So that’s my case for swallowing our vomit to get him in. And it is we who are choking this down who most need folks like you to join our self-immolation, so that we aren’t left to drown in our own vomit for lack of quorom.
BTW, if a viable more conservative third party were to develop, I would give it strong consideration. If that were the product of a McCain presidency that tacked recklessly to the left it would be salubrious, no?
Geez, if I knew they were just pouring water on people's faces, I wouldn't have been so upset. You see, I thought it was like the torture that was perpetrated on American soldiers in WWII. Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of these crimes. Maybe our government didn't realize it was just a little water on the face.