There seems to be some misunderstanding, even among Conservatives, about this idea.
Let me try to simplify it in a way all Conservative and libertarians (small L) will understand:
1) Big, nosy, busy government is the enemy. The less government does, the better for The People. Unless what it is busy doing is repealing most of the anti-freedom, rights-violating, unconstitutional laws already on the books—or cutting taxes.
2) Since the chance of any of the current crop of candidates doing either of these things is below zero the next best thing we can hope for is TOTAL GRIDLOCK.
3) The best way to get that is to elect a Liberal Democrat that the Congressional Republicans can happily unite against and obstruct like crazy for the next four years.
4) Congressional Republicans will not be able to obstruct a "Republican" President McCain, even though he will, generally speaking, propose the same Liberal excrement as either Democrat.
5) Thus, our chance of getting the best we can hope for in the next administration, which is TOTAL GRIDLOCK, is to make sure John McCain is not elected.
6) It won't work in reverse. The Democrats will support most of McCain's idiocies. After all, it's basically their agenda. Party pressure will make enough Republicans go along to make the crap law. Which is precisely what we must prevent.
I hope that is sufficiently clear.
***It is most definitely not the plan to let the Democrats win and implement all their sorry policies, let the country crash and burn, possibly lose the war, be attacked by terrorists, tank the economy, fuel an endless recession...and hope that voters choose us next time. That's lame, self-destructive and un-patriotic.
In fact, it is exactly what the Democrats have been doing for the last eight years. "Fuck the country, the war, the soldier, the economy and the future, as long as we win the election!"
It looks like it may have worked too. But if winning is all you care about you're not a Conservative anyway. It's more important to be right, than to just win the argument.
If you hear anyone arguing against Suicide Voting on this basis...set them straight!
The Gunslinger
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
1 year ago
Gun,
ReplyDeleteAfter a long weekend of introspection I've transcended my personal animosity toward McCain and will be grudgingly flipping the lever in his favor come November for one reason; Supreme Court Justices.
This one issue alone is too important to leave to the libtards. If you think the Republicans wouldn't allow the appointment of a liberal justice I only have to offer the incomparable Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example.
Basically, we're fucked. But I cannot intentionally allow the future of our highest court (second amendment M'dear) rest in the hands of the Demonrats.
It IS a conundrum. But I don't believe McCain about judges any more than I believe him about anything else.
ReplyDeleteThat's a real "pig in a poke" your buying there...in hopes it's a good one.
Not that you're wrong...just than we can't be sure.
But I AM sure he will do so many other bad things, I don't know if I'm willing to accept the tradeoff.
But it is a consideration to be taken seriously, for sure.
I'm one of those (somewhat liberal) independents who likes McCain and Obama, but doesn't like Clinton. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I'll probably vote for him. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'll probably vote for McCain.
ReplyDeleteI love McCain and Obama's "screw the establishment...I won't do what the partisan party hacks want me to do" attitude. Partisan party hacks , both liberal Democrat and conservative Republican, have gotten this country into lots of trouble. Lots of people recognize that, which is why Obama and McCain are doing well.
As for who McCain might nominate to the Supreme Court, there's no way he could get a very conservative candidate onto the court with a Democratic Senate, and there's no way he would nominate a liberal, so he'll end up choosing a moderate. I think that's a good thing. If Obama or Clinton are President, expect a very liberal judge to be nominated, which I don't necessarily think is a good thing.
Are you planning to sit this election out, Carol?
I know, without a doubt, what I'll get with either of the dem possibilities. Though gambling is one of the few vices I lack, in this instance I've gotta roll the dice.
ReplyDeleteBTW, it wasn't a decision I came to easily.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteObama promises HOPE and CHANGE. But without specifics, the words are meaningless.
What exactly is he hoping for and what, specifically does he want to change to?
Alpha...the whole things sucks, that's for sure.
ReplyDelete"How did it come to this?"
as Hamlet asks...
Carol,
ReplyDeleteI don't pay too much attention to what politicians running for office say they want to do, since they almost never do it. A checklist of promises or "what I stand for" doesn't mean much.
After 7 years of incompetence in the White House, I'm looking for competence. I think Clinton, McCain and Obama are all competent.
What I don't like about Clinton is that she says what she thinks people want to hear, rather than what she really thinks. And I don't think Republicans will work with her.
What I like about both Obama and McCain is that they don't have overly-simplistic, ideological views of the world. They sound pragmatic. When they say something, it sounds like they've thought about it. They tell you what they think, without throwing in gratuitous insults against those who disagree. Obama and McCain seem able to work with the other side, which is a trait I think we need.
McCain works great with the OTHER side, just not too well with his OWN side...(!)
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as I can tell, Obama's never actually DONE anything but talk pretty.
And the fact that Republicans won't work with Hillary is what makes her so attractive!