Sunday, February 03, 2008

Neo-Neocon on conservative's disdain for McCain and their subsequent faulty logic in saying they will vote for a Democrat or sit out the election should McCain get the nomination: "The logic—if you can call it that—is to allow the nation to hit rock bottom, somewhat like an alcoholic, in order to finally see that its true salvation lies in electing a conservative purist."

I'm with Neo--alcoholics often hit rock bottom and stay there.


Blogger KG2V said...

Living in NYC - it makes no difference how I vote - the state is going to go blue no matter what

10:00 AM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger David Foster said...

I would certainly vote for McCain over any of the Democratic candidates, if it comes to that. But I hope it *won't* come to that. In addition to his temper, his arrogance, and his apparent disregard for free speech, McCain has demonstrted a considerable contempt for our free-market economic system and the people who make it work. See my post John McCain: Victorian or Elizabethan?

10:14 AM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger dienw said...

Iamgine, for year Rush Dhimbaugh - "its just capitalism" - and other "conservative" commentaters have been criticizing Blacks because they are an automatic, captive vote for the Democrats. Now, when the Republican Party Rockefeller-Ripon Society wing rams a RINO/Democrat down our throats, we real conservative are to suffle our feet and sheeplike, go into the polling booth, and vote for a socialist lite candidate. We are being told to behave like welfare Blacks whose only purpose is to vote Democratic.

Yet, these same RINO Republicans have had no quams about not voting or voting Democrat when a conservative wins the Republican ticket.

I am not aw-shuckin' and shufflin' and voting for a Repuiblican socialist and hater of his own country: shamnesty indeed. For those of you silly enough to give us that jive about McCain's "service to our country"; well, Benedict Arnold was one of the Revolution's greatest generals: a fact that was honored by a monument to his boot. Give McCain his marble boot and stop using his service as an argument.

11:02 AM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger Sid said...

I am not in love with McCain as a nominee, but if my choice is him or one of the two likely other Democrats...

I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson. He is no longer in the presidential race. My choice is now a pick your poison moment. Which can I tolerate, President McCain or President (fill-in-the-Democrat blank).

In the words of Rush - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

1:35 PM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...


One of my favorite lines is, "No response IS a response."

1:44 PM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger Francis W. Porretto said...

Dr. Helen, dear, there is a point to abstaining from voting. It's a matter of principle to me that I not conver power on a man I wouldn't be willing to have in my home. Besides, when a party chooses a standard-bearer, there are unintended consequences, foreseeable and otherwise, to consider.

We cannot confer power on a man in the hope that he'll be more principled, more honest, and more what we want in an executive than his past behavior and statements indicate. That's just plain irresponsible. In the worst case, it could tarnish the name of American conservatism for decades to come.

Vote your conscience, always.

2:59 PM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger Mark O. Martin said...

True enough on some level, Mr. Porretto:

"Tarnishing American conservatism for decades to come"? Let's see. In 1992, folks were so upset with GHW Bush and with the "conservative" movement that they "voted their conscience" for Perot. Which led to 8 years of Clinton. And the RNC sure learned its lesson after that, with GW Bush, right?

The "sitting it out" approach to "teach the party a lesson"...Does. Not. Work.

Further, any strategy for conservatives that makes Hillary Clinton smile seems a bit off to me.

And I'm with Ronald Reagan, who was above all a pragmatic conservative. Sure he was conservative. But shall we talk about his signing into law a pro-abortion bill in California as governor? Or his handling of immigration reform as President (=amnesty)? The list goes on from there, despite the "Saint Ron" image.

My favorite quote from Reagan on this subject of "ideological purity": "Would you rather have 50% of something, or 100% of nothing?"

Unless you are a Goldwater conservative.

You have a perfect right to vote your conscience, of course. But don't start saying bizarre things like "McCain will nominate the same kinds of Supreme Court judges as Hillary." Look at the voting records. McCain voted for both Roberts and Alito. Clinton II and Obama voted "no" to both.

That is the record.

Also, look at the ACU ratings. McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82%----the last few years in the middle 60s. Sounds bad. Until you ask about Clinton II's rating (8%) and Obama's (0%).

That is the record, too.

So your comment that you need to look at a candidate as they are is important. What concerns me is asymmetry: putting McCain under a microscope, but putting a blindfold on with regard to Clinton II or Obama.

I'm no fan of McCain. I hope Romney gets the nomination. But I know, without a doubt, what Clinton II or Obama will do. And so do we all.

Thus, just go ahead and vote for Clinton, if you feel as you do about McCain (and I am assuming you have worked grassroots during the primaries, instead of just complaining that you don't get the candidates you prefer, right?). That is what sitting things out will accomplish.

What some conservatives want to do is to "sit things out" and then complain for the next four to eight year. "Purity" is an elusive goal in the electorate.

Everyone needs to vote. Sitting things out accomplishes nothing---you are still "voting" for the winner by your inaction. Some conservatives think it will give them "cover" when Clinton II is elected...but they helped make it happen.

5:35 PM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I'm not crazy about McCain because of his questionable free speech views and stance on illegal immigration. But, he's better than anything the Dems offer. I will vote for him if he's nominated.

Plus, who will be more likely to listen to conservatives - McCain, Clinton or Obama? The president doesn't run amuck either. Congress and the courts act as controls. That's why we have three branches of government.

Considering his age, he may be a one term president. If he does a good job, a replacement more to our liking may step in. I see too many important issues to give up my vote.

6:03 PM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger Adrian said...

I think some of you guys have it wrong. It isn't "to teach the party a lesson", like it is "our party" or something. You shouldn't ever vote along party lines like that. You should always vote your conscience. Period. If you don't like the guy, then you shouldn't throw your vote away on him. I can see voting for "the best candidate" rather than writing in a candidate or something. But, don't just vote along party lines.

On the same token, don't vote for the Democrat, either, which is not the best candidate. Vote libertarian if you think the Republican is a closet socialist. And, don't think it can't happen, either. People like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt really helped to ruin this country. So, don't just vote for him because he's a Republican. What a republican is should be defined by the way republicans vote -- not the other way around, defining the way republicans vote just because people say he is a republican.

9:05 PM, February 03, 2008  
Blogger EN said...

I'm a conservative and if the Republican party wants to be Neo Democrats then fine. But I won't join in with that. I will likely not vote for Hillary, there's always other options. However, McCain is more liberal then Hillary by any standard. The real issue is the war where Hillary will continue it but, not like it... and Insane McCain will expand it. On every other issue they are in solid agreement. It's a strange time to be alive. McCain hires Juan Hernandez and I'm supposed to not take that as a big sign? Madness. The big difference is that if Hillary were elected she would be evil opposed. If McCain were elected it would be evil unopposed as the Republican party fell in behind him.

I'm sick to death of being told that I must vote for Neo Democrats like Jorge Arbusto because he's only heading towards the cliff at 35 MPH to the Old Dems 65. That argument was thrown on his head when Jorge stepped on the accelerator. I didn't vote for him either time and my conscience is clear on the wisdom of my choice.

1:19 AM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger William said...

Forget it, McCain is a moot issue.

Who could possibly believe the future of America would be based on a stogy cantankerous old fart like McCain, a purveyor of war - with his jokes about bombing Iran and staying in Iraq for 100 years? You can’t really believe, especially after the miserable failure of the Bush presidency, that any GOP candidate represents the future of America.

12:40 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger Jeff Y said...

The Republican Party lost me years ago. It really is a party controlled by big business interests as against the people. McCain is emblematic of what the party has become.

The H-1b program is a good example. Even otherwise sane fellows like Dr. Helen's hubby, Glen think of it as a free market initiative. Codswallup. It's a government run, private market for foreign labor funded by their tax-paying domestic competition.

Pork spending is another example. Republicans are worse than Democrats on pork-barrel spending. How in the hell did that happen?

I hate the Democrats, but I hate the Republicans more for betraying me. I'm a conservative, and I vote straight Democrat. I will continue to do so.

Hows that for bottom of the barrel?

1:23 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger Larry J said...

"Tarnishing American conservatism for decades to come"? Let's see. In 1992, folks were so upset with GHW Bush and with the "conservative" movement that they "voted their conscience" for Perot. Which led to 8 years of Clinton. And the RNC sure learned its lesson after that, with GW Bush, right?

The "sitting it out" approach to "teach the party a Lesson"...Does. Not. Work.

Except you're forgeting what happened in 1994. That was when Republicans ran as conservatives and won control of the House and the Senate. You may also be forgetting what happened in 1976 when President Ford was challenged for the nomination by Ronald Reagan. Ford won the nomination but narrowly lost the election. Some say that conservatives weren't motivated to vote for Ford. Four years later, Reagan was elected by a substancial margin.

It sounds like I'm supposed to take McCain on faith. Even though he headed the Gang of 14, I'm supposed to believe that he will appoint conservative judges. Even though he opposed tax cuts and demonizes business, I'm supposed to believe he's a conservative. Even though he now says he understands about amnesty, his actions last year tell a different story. And there's nothing to indicate that he respects the Constitution or regrets McCain-Feingold. Go ahead, pull my finger.

Give me something to vote FOR instead of just something to vote against. If all you really have to recommend McCain is that the other side would suck even more then count me out. McCain calls himself a Republican and that's supposed to make me overlook so much of what he has done in the Senate. He has no executive experience beyond being a squadron commander but I'm supposed to believe he can be the Chief Executive. Sorry, but no. I honestly don't believe he's trustworthy or qualified for the job.

1:42 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

Two reasons to hold your nose and do it anyway (though quite honestly I don't know what I'll do):

1. As others have said, we didn't actually need the Carter catastrophe, which we're still being affected by, to get Reagan into office; likewise, we don't need 4+ years of socialist lunacy to allow for a decent candidate. We just need to freakin' support a decent candidate.

2. Speaking of legacies, the next POTUS is going to appoint at least 2 SCOTUS members, and I think we can guess what the lesser of two evils will get us in this case - and for a matter of decades to follow. Yeah, McCain is a bit of a Bill of Rights disaster, but he at least has a hope of appointing people who know what the Constitution is.

1:57 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger Patrick said...

This screed is directed against the McCain haters:

I am utterly flabbergasted by the degree of hatred in the conservative blogosphere directed at John McCain. I thought Neo-Neocon's post was spot on. Many of the reactions I'm reading are completely childish, and these right wing nut-jobs are essentially willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. These commenters are absolutely putting their party ahead of the United States of America.

Parties are coalitions of interest groups, but these coalitions should have the freedom to form and dissolve as events change. This is the nature of democracy. The level of hatred directed at candidates who dare to vote their conscience, as opposed to blindly adhering to party orthodoxy is something you would see in the Taliban. Such rigid requirements within a political party are anti-democratic. Democrats don't behave like this, and you know what? Because of that, they're about to kick our ass in November. Loyalty, shmoyalty. I don't agree with McCain on every issue but the man seems to be loyal to his principles , which is honorable. But I suppose it is better to take positions you don't really believe in, just so long as it pleases your party leadership, right? Because then they will take care of you in turn? Bah! That is selfish, dishonest, and shallow.

I do not agree with McCain on every topic, but anyone who calls him a liberal is a complete whack job. Is he pro-choice? Uh, no. Does he want to cut and run in Iraq? Uh, no. Does he want to nationalize health care? Uh, no. How is he on spending? Better than Bush, for sure! He is not a liberal. Learn how to make a point without exagerating.

You hard-core conservatives are throwing a tantrum like my four-year-old. If she doesn't like the flavor of ice cream that we serve her, she runs to her room and slams the door. You're not getting the candidate you want, so you will just stay home on election day. The difference is, my daughter is four years old and will eventually grow out of this; what's your excuse?

7:35 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger EN said...

Exaggeration? looks an awful lot like a huge federal program without calling it that, which is a McCain Specialty. Say one thing and then vote another

He opposed Jorge's tax cuts, the only time the Mispeaker ever did something correctly. I would also suggest looking up, "gang of 14" and check out how McCain stopped Bush's judicial appointments. Not that Bush seemed all that disappointed, but hey some of those candidates conservatives.

There's so many articles on McCain's methods I can't post them all, but here's a nice one.

9:04 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger EN said...

"You hard-core conservatives are throwing a tantrum"

Nope, it's called standing by your principles. It's amusing that you accuse me of being a four year old... but have no qualms about voting for McCain?

9:08 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger EN said...

And BTW Patrick, I do get it that for some people it's all about the war and McCain has already said he intends to expand it. OK, I've used up enough bandwidth for one day.

9:10 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger Jeff Y said...

McCain is a liberal. There exist nary a hair's difference between his policies and Hillary's.

11:44 PM, February 04, 2008  
Blogger Eric said...

"Vote libertarian if you think the Republican is a closet socialist."

In 1976 I voted for Roger McBride, because I didn't think there was a dime's worth of difference between Ford and Carter.

Over the next few years I watched skyrocketing inflation and high interest rates, the creation of asinine programs like the thermostat police, the rise of Khomeini, the taking of American hostages, the failed rescue attempt, and more.

I sure showed 'em, didn't I?

Now, you can argue that the loss by Ford the centrist to Carter the socialist was good in that America eventually saw the evils of its ways, and like a reformed alcoholic, eventually elected Ronald Reagan.

But for that argument to hold water, there not only has to be a Ronald Reagan, there also needs to be an unpopular incompetent in the White House, whose policies are overwhelmingly seen as ruinous.

The problem with the "reformed sinner" argument is that the sinner or alcoholic has to recognize he's at rock bottom. Unlike Jimmy Carter, the Clintons were wildly popular, and even after countless scandals plus impeachment, they'd have been overwhelmingly elected to another term. (Future demographics might worsen this phenomenon over time.)

Cal me a RINO, but letting Hillary win, and then praying for desolation and ruin (and for a charismatic conservative savior to come along) strikes me as poor strategy.

10:00 AM, February 05, 2008  
Blogger Serket said...

I will probably vote for Huckabee, because I would like to see him come in 2nd on delegates. McCain is probably the only Republican who can win and I will vote for him in a general election. I realize both of them have strayed away from conservative principles on a few issues. However, I get really upset at the talking heads who spend all day blasting McCain and praising Romney and nobody wants to talk about Romney's record. If he says he is a conservative, by golly you better just shut up and vote for him. He is perceived as being great for the economy, but job growth was near the bottom for his state and he raised taxes and pushed universal healthcare. When he ran for the senate in 1994, he claimed he was more liberal than Kennedy. He was definitely not a conservative while he was governor. In my opinion he governed as a socialist and a liberal. It also seems he is not very honest about his life and record, but perhaps they are all like that.

Dadvocate: Considering his age, he may be a one term president. If he does a good job, a replacement more to our liking may step in. I see too many important issues to give up my vote.

Reagan was one month shy of his 70th birthday when he was elected and he managed to do two terms. McCain's mother is still alive. I agree with you that if McCain does a good job, it will help the next Republican. I wonder if another Republican can win his senate seat. A lot of liberals complained that Bush avoided military service, at least that won't be a reasonable argument against McCain.

William: Welcome back. Is that your blog? You used the same paragraph. Have you seen the polls showing McCain would beat Clinton and Obama? So who do you think is the best candidate to carry on the Republican values you love so much?

Jeff: I'm a conservative, and I vote straight Democrat. I will continue to do so.

What conservative policies do the Democrats support?

I've heard that it is the moderates who are big supporters of McCain. I consider myself a conservative, although I wonder how others would judge that. Some of the things I differ with the party on: intelligent design should not be taught in science class, global warming is partially caused by humans but socialism is not the answer, and flag burning is protected under the first amendment. Some of things I might be considered radical on: all abortions and IVF should be banned, we need freer trade agreements and removal of government subsidies. Something I might be in line with the party on: we need a strong border that is practically impenetrable and companies should be fined for hiring illegal immigrants (there should be a way for the companies to check this). The way I see read this election: All three (sorry Paul) are poor on immigration, Huckabee and McCain are better with government budgets, Huckabee and McCain are better on the life issue. McCain actually has military experience and supports a strong military presence in Iraq. McCain is probably the best on the 2nd Amendment (although I don't know Huckabee's record on that issue).

6:05 PM, February 05, 2008  
Blogger EN said...

"I didn't think there was a dime's worth of difference between Ford and Carter.

Over the next few years I watched skyrocketing inflation and high interest rates, the creation of asinine programs"

Eric, you just made a good case for not voting for McCain. Nixon and Ford were both RINOs whose policies lead to the massive inflation and perhaps you've heard of Detente, where Nixon was cutting deals with the Soviet and anyone else in order to fix the foolishness of our past liberal policies (of which Nixon was partly responsible). I have no doubt that Ford, a Liberal by any other name, was spared terrible embarrassment, and the fate of Jimmy Carter, as being the worst president ever (until Jorge). The more I think about it the situation is exactly the same (even the inflationary pressures, last time caused by Nixon, this time by Jorge) are almost impossible to stop now. If the Dems get the presidency and both houses of the legislature we'll be set for another save by the Republicans. If McCain gets the presidency there's no place to go.

I also voted for McBride in 76 and have never been prouder of a result in my life. I remember Ford all to clearly. At least with the Dems we won't enlarge the war, which would seal our economic fate for many years to come.

10:23 PM, February 05, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

5:48 AM, May 20, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


3:55 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home