Why are conservatives claming that they'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain?

[Drift3r]

"100+ years in Iraq McCain" is not the answer. Anyone with brain understands that our stay in Iraq will have to come to a end because maintaining a military presence there is killing us politically, economically and militarily. If you are traditional "Pat Buchanan" style conservative or a "Ron Paul" style conservative you must be completely disillusioned at the thought of McCain being "THE" GOP candidate for the presidency right now.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html

P.S. Will the Swift Boat Shills come out against McCain this time?

 

[ProfJohn]

The Swiftboat guys have already came after McCain, but it won?t work this time.

What worked on Kerry was what he said when he got home and started to protest the war and make outrageous statements such as ?Genghis Khans army.? That really turned a lot of people away from Kerry.

McCain on the other hand has a pretty clean military record and is subject to that type of behavior.

BTW the swiftboaters don?t like McCain because he was at the front of helping to reestablish relations with Vietnam. The Swiftboaters, or some of them, want the war with Vietnam to continue on forever. Go to the link posted by Jhhnn to see how awful their arguments are this time around.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The Swiftboat guys have already came after McCain, but it won?t work this time.

What worked on Kerry was what he said when he got home and started to protest the war and make outrageous statements such as ?Genghis Khans army.? That really turned a lot of people away from Kerry.

McCain on the other hand has a pretty clean military record and is subject to that type of behavior.

BTW the swiftboaters don?t like McCain because he was at the front of helping to reestablish relations with Vietnam. The Swiftboaters, or some of them, want the war with Vietnam to continue on forever. Go to the link posted by Jhhnn to see how awful their arguments are this time around.

Right...except that's NOT what the Swiftboaters were basing their anti-Kerry attacks on. Sure, his post-war record was mentioned, but the impact of the Swiftboat assholes came entirely from the various lies they told about Kerry's military service. They weren't making an argument, they were just lying...I don't see a reason that wouldn't work just as well on McCain.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think it is a matter of personal opinion as to what upset voters when it came to the Swiftboat issue.

Any way you look at it Kerry came out of that looking really bad.

Kerry threw his medals away... well not really, they were someone elses...
Kerry won three purple hearts, yet he doesn't have a scratch to show for it etc.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think it is a matter of personal opinion as to what upset voters when it came to the Swiftboat issue.

Any way you look at it Kerry came out of that looking really bad.

Kerry threw his medals away... well not really, they were someone elses...
Kerry won three purple hearts, yet he doesn't have a scratch to show for it etc.

I agree, it's definitely a matter of personal opinion...but at the very least, I would think we could all agree that it was a very manufactured issue, that the Swiftboat folks largely created and shaped the issue, and that without the careful market research and painstakingly conducted focus groups that helped create the Swiftboat campaign, the 2004 election would not have been "reliving the Vietnam War".

That was more my point, the voters weren't driving the issue so much as they were reacting to it, and let's face it, most people react like Pavlov's dog to almost all political situations...if you provide the proper stimulus, they will react in a very predictable way. Since that's true, I'm not sure how much a different set of facts really matter.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why not go out and vote for Paul if those issues are so important?

I'd rather sit home than waste a vote. :laugh:

It's that very attitude that makes it a waste.

I consider sitting at home to be treachery to anything you hold dear.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: bamacre
That is retarded.

But maybe you aught to re-consider the intentions of those who say this. In order to do so, forget the R and D next to their names.

But it's too late and they already realize this. There is literally no reason for all of these Republicans to be saying these ludicrous statements.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: reeserock
Instead of bitching about McCain being too liberal, maybe those folks should just realize that at this point in time, the majority of the country is more liberal than before.

Republicans are voting for McCain or he wouldn't be the front runner (on the R side). Even though the radio guys are super extremest and don't like him, obviously the country as a whole does not feel that way since they are voting for him. The majority of America is more liberal than the few talk show hosts want to make them out to be. Even with conservative values, intelligent people know that we have to act as a country as a whole not just greedy individuals.

The majority of the country didn't magically become more liberal - most of the country was already liberal. More liberals came out to vote. There's a big difference.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: rpanic
Republicans and epically the more conservative ones shouldn?t vote for him. There is a time when a party needs to learn a lesson. Republicans should have figured it out when they lost the house and senate. I can?t believe that Mc Cain is the best the party can come up with so they should loose. Come on they come up with Bush and now McCain the Republican Party has turned into a joke. I don?t like the Democrats but I am tired of the stupidity and hypocrisy of the Republicans if they want to win they need to return to their roots and stop acting like Democrats.

Those roots are dead and haven't been around in the *actual* Republican party in decades. Those individuals who consider themselves conservatives are no longer actually part of the Republican party, even though the neocons who control the party love having everyone believe that the Democrats are still the enemy.

A) Fiscal conservation - Republican presidents have been openly supporting high levels of spending. They support tax breaks AND high spending. I know Congress actually writes the budget, but the president is usually able to influence this to some extent (and is able to fire anyone they want in the executive branch, thus cutting costs - there is a lot that can be done there). How about that Iraq War?

B) Small government - Republican presidents have been champions of federal expansion. Dare I say Homeland Security? How about proposing that we amend the constitution so that gays can't get married?

 

[sportage]

All ready at it.
Here's just a taste.
The press must think Obama will be the one.

So here they go

Mr. Obama, then known as Barry, also joined in the party scene.

Years later in his 1995 memoir, he mentioned smoking ?reefer? in ?the dorm room of some brother? and talked about ?getting high.? Before Occidental, he indulged in marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine as a high school student in Hawaii, according to the book.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is knee jerk plain and simple. What do you really know about McCain that you didnt hear from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingram?

I've been watching McCain flip and flop, dance and spin for the last decade or better. I think he feels he was shafted in 2000 by W and now he is claiming what he feels is rightfully his. Very similar attitude to Hillary.

He towed the party line on immigration. Republican leadership and Bush wanted that bill passed. He is a bad republican because of that?

And the people spoke, and killed it. I'll never forgive McCain for trying to ram amnesty down our throats, and Bush supporting it is not exactly something for the highlight reels.

Global Warming, yes and?

Global Scamming. McCain's plans to implement tough new regulations and restrictions on Detroit would absolutely destroy what little is left of American Automakers. These kind of ideals are espoused by liberals, not so-called Conservatives.

Taxes, so he is against giving tax cuts to the wealthy without a defunding of programs to pay for it. What a terrible terrible man

Bullshit. That's the excuse he gives now (depending on day of the week). One may have been able to give him the benefit of the doubt ONCE...but he voted TWICE against the Bush tax cuts, citing principle. Yet a few years later, he votes to EXTEND the very tax cuts he voted down and railed against. Does this sound principled to you?

 

[Jhhnn]

You think admitted youthful experimentation with drugs is an issue, sportage?

Shee-it, Sherlock- it might matter to the Rightie-Tighties, but they won't vote for Obama anyway. Many Americans, if not an outright majority, are guilty of the same offense, and it's refreshing to find a politician who'll come right out and admit it.

Kinda takes the issue off the table, as far as most Americans are concerned...

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

As usual, Pabster is devoid of logic. McCain is less conservative than you want hence you distrust him, but you cite zero nada zippo zip reasons you should trust Obama more.

Just more image over substance. The fact is that Limbaugh loved Regan who, up until GWB, was the biggest expander of Federal government size in history. But somehow Limbaugh called it fiscal conservatism when it was all financed with public debt.

And now that Obama has all the positive image press, Pabster goes seeking Obama?
And the very second Obama gets elected, I predict Pabster will become his greatest critic.

Exactly what I posted above regarding the Limbaugh strategy.

As the other Republican on this board I have to say that I agree with Pab, come election day, if it is between Hillary and McCain I am just staying home as my vote is wasted as I dislike both candidates equally. However I would hope for a Hillary win, and the chance that she gets railed by the media for four years and then someone else has a good shot of getting in that is more in line with my views.

If it comes to Obama or McCain then my vote goes to Obama as I feel even though I don't agree with his views and policies he represents more change than Hillary or McCain.

As for my dislike of McCain, well it really stems from a strong disagreement with his immigration policy, from someone on the left I would expect it and stand for it as I realize it is their partys agenda, but from someone claming to be a republican...well sorry but no. The Feingold thing doesn't help either with me...

 

[ScottMac]

Conservatives don't like McCain because he's poked 'em in the eye and "gone against the party" too many times. He tended to concede too much to the other side of the aisle (frequently at critical times) and weakened the Republican members' bargaining position.

I believe Mr. McCain's "Swiftboat" moments will come from events that occurred from the many "Tailhook" parties he attended (as do/did many/most /all Navy pilots). Things might grow from that. Time will tell.

I just saw a disturbing thread over in OT: Did you know that Girl Scout Cookies contain absolutely no Girl Scout?

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why not go out and vote for Paul if those issues are so important?

I'd rather sit home than waste a vote. :laugh:

You constantly rally that this country needs "change" yet you would rather not vote if your candidate is off the ballot? The only think funnier is your hypocrisy Pabster.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
You constantly rally that this country needs "change" yet you would rather not vote if your candidate is off the ballot? The only think funnier is your hypocrisy Pabster.

I was making a point vis-a-vi Ron Paul.

One of the great choices we have as Americans is to vote, or not. And I suspect there will be a significant number who do not, more so than usual.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
At this point, it seems clear that McCain will be the Republican nominee.

A lot of Republicans have come out and said that they would rather vote for Hillary than McCain because he is too liberal.

Does that not seem utterly retarded to anyone else? "Candidate A is too liberal, I would rather vote for the even more liberal Candidate B!"

It's simply a bluff. McCain doesn't uphold the status-quo that neo-conservatism has taken to; All of the commentators are nothing but arm-chair quarterbacks who know sh!t about holding a position in the US Government, let alone serving one's country. It's about time a Vietnam Vet was elected as President- I'll take the experience and rebelliousness of McCain over whatever new "agent of change" message Obama's speech-writers have written for him this week.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
It's simply a bluff. McCain doesn't uphold the status-quo that neo-conservatism has taken to; All of the commentators are nothing but arm-chair quarterbacks who know sh!t about holding a position in the US Government, let alone serving one's country. It's about time a Vietnam Vet was elected as President- I'll take the experience and rebelliousness of McCain over whatever new "agent of change" message Obama's speech-writers have written for him this week.

So you think War Hero status alone is sufficient to become POTUS?

Enjoy being relegated to irrelevance just like Bob Dole in '96.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
You constantly rally that this country needs "change" yet you would rather not vote if your candidate is off the ballot? The only think funnier is your hypocrisy Pabster.

I was making a point vis-a-vi Ron Paul.

One of the great choices we have as Americans is to vote, or not. And I suspect there will be a significant number who do not, more so than usual.

I'm not asking about the general American people. While not voting is indeed a choice It's silly to say you want change yet you'd rather sit at home then participate in that change, no matter how useless your vote is. At least do a write-in.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
It's simply a bluff. McCain doesn't uphold the status-quo that neo-conservatism has taken to; All of the commentators are nothing but arm-chair quarterbacks who know sh!t about holding a position in the US Government, let alone serving one's country. It's about time a Vietnam Vet was elected as President- I'll take the experience and rebelliousness of McCain over whatever new "agent of change" message Obama's speech-writers have written for him this week.

So you think War Hero status alone is sufficient to become POTUS?

Enjoy being relegated to irrelevance just like Bob Dole in '96.

The comparison fails. Dole was running against an incumbent who had assumed presidency during an economic growth period. We we're also not fighting a foreign war on many fronts so military experience was of little relevance.

I never said he was a war hero, he could have been drummer boy for all I care and that would give me the same amount of respect for him. I may not agree on everything he stands for, but between him and Obama (at this moment) I'd rather have the man who has "been there and done that" than the man with the political pacifier still in his mouth.

 

[smashp]

The conservatives of the Talk radio crowd are never going to be happy with a presidential candidate until they figure out how to reannimate the corpse of Ronald Reagan

 

[Mavtek3100]

I'll vote 3rd party as I can't stand either of them. It's a toss up for me, fiscally Clinton isn't that liberal actually, or at least to her voting record. McCain and her are about the same socially with the exception of Abortion, which isn't going to change anyway. So 3rd party it is!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
The majority of the country didn't magically become more liberal - most of the country was already liberal. More liberals came out to vote. There's a big difference.

You are so far from reality with that statement that it is almost funny.

Let?s go back to 1968 and look at the national elections:
Republicans 7
Democrats 3

And the Democrat victories were not based on the candidate being a liberal. Carter won after Watergate at which point any Democrat could have won. And Clinton won because of Ross Perot, a bad economy and by telling the American people that he was for a middle class tax cut. Clinton was also a member of the Democrat Leadership Council which a group of moderate Democrats.

Also if you look at polls that ask people if they are liberal or conservative you will find that the conservatives out number the liberals every time, moderates outnumber both.
CNN 2000 exit poll
Liberal = 20% Conservative = 29%
CNN 2004 exit poll
Liberal = 21% Conservative = 34%
CNN 2006 exit polls
Liberal = 20% Conservative = 32%

I challange you to find me any real proof that 'most of the country was already liberal.' I highly doubt you can do it.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

You constantly rally that this country needs "change" yet you would rather not vote if your candidate is off the ballot? The only think funnier is your hypocrisy Pabster.

What??? how is not voiting for one of two dud candidates being hypocritical?? why bother voting if you feel neither candidate represents change and both suck?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Eeezee
The majority of the country didn't magically become more liberal - most of the country was already liberal. More liberals came out to vote. There's a big difference.

You are so far from reality with that statement that it is almost funny.

Let?s go back to 1968 and look at the national elections:
Republicans 7
Democrats 3

And the Democrat victories were not based on the candidate being a liberal. Carter won after Watergate at which point any Democrat could have won. And Clinton won because of Ross Perot, a bad economy and by telling the American people that he was for a middle class tax cut. Clinton was also a member of the Democrat Leadership Council which a group of moderate Democrats.

Also if you look at polls that ask people if they are liberal or conservative you will find that the conservatives out number the liberals every time, moderates outnumber both.
CNN 2000 exit poll
Liberal = 20% Conservative = 29%
CNN 2004 exit poll
Liberal = 21% Conservative = 34%
CNN 2006 exit polls
Liberal = 20% Conservative = 32%

I challange you to find me any real proof that 'most of the country was already liberal.' I highly doubt you can do it.

Of course I can't - I'm going by what I see every day in the paper, on television, on the streets, etc.. It's an opinion I've formed. There is no way to prove it (or disprove it).

Also, going back and finding opinions from FORTY YEARS AGO is not helpful to your case.

You do, however, fail on an epic scale. What about :More liberals came out to vote, that doesn't mean the country suddenly became more liberal is so hard for you to understand? 122 million people voted in the last presidential election. That's much less than half of the population. You can't treat it as hard evidence that the political leanings of most of America (since it's less than half of the population) and you can't treat it as a random sample for statistics purposes (because it's not a random sampling).