Posted on 01/04/2007 6:49:01 AM PST by bondjamesbond
Link Only. Click link for article.
This is a real test for single-issue voters like me.
McCain is a lying opportunist that loves to grandstand whenever possible. I would NEVER, under ANY circumstance, vote for such a person. He stands for NOTHING, which is why it doesn't bother him to be such a blatant hypocrite and he sees YOU as stupid.
Ask Joe Lieberman.
I guess the questions comes down to whether or not McCain is genuine in his commitment to victory in Iraq. Given his habit of posturing shamelessly on almost any issue, it is a tough call, but only because I don't see the political advantage in his current position. There are not that many folks like me out there to convince.
Not only did you express my views exactly, you even capitalized the right words........
If every other available candidate indicates that they would be happy to let us lose in Iraq, would you still be against John McCain? Because it may come to that...
NO.
Is that because you don't trust him on Iraq? (A perfectly rational position, of course) Or is it because the other issues where McCain is wrong matter more to you?
CFR. Any man with that much contempt for the Constitution shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency.
Yeah, that's the killer for me, too...
Even if it means not neutralizing someone else's vote for Hillary?
"Even if it means not neutralizing someone else's vote for Hillary?"
This is such a worn out scare tactic ... I don't know why I respond to it.
No vote for McCain is just that. NO vote for McCain.
Not voting for McCain, is NOT a vote for Hillary.
I have a conscience and I will NOT be compromised into voting for someone else, nearly as bad as Hillary to run the country in the ground. I want NO parts of it.
I'd look to a third party to vote for that shared my values and beliefs to send a message to RHINOS and anyone interested that I don't want more trash in positions of authority. I consider McCain humanistic trash.
And it looks like you have supporting evidence right here in the article. It says:
Just after the Republican convention of 2000, a malignant melanoma was removed from the left side of McCain's face, leaving a track of deep and angry red scars that are only now receding.... There has been no recurrence of the cancer...
The clear implication here is that the surgery in 2000 was his first and only cancer. It wasn't. His first melanoma was in 1993. In 2000 he had a recurrence, and not just on his face but at multiple sites. As for the claim that it hasn't recurred since 2000, baloney! In 2002, he had surgery again. When he came out of the hospital he had the nerve to tell the press that it was a "nonmalignant melanoma." Of course there is no such thing; all melanomas are malignant, and his office put out a statement shortly thereafter admitting he had "misspoken."
An honest disclosure would acknowledge that McLiar was first diagnosed with malignant melanoma in 1993, and since then has had surgery twice for recurrences.
You can be quite certain the Democrats will be more than happy to point that out, come the Fall campaign, if McCain is the nominee.
Suddenly Dick Cheney and his bum ticker starts to look like a much better deal...
The fact of the matter is, that if McCain is nominated, droves of people on the right will just not vote. You can't force somebody to vote for somebody they just don't like.
I just wish there was somebody else who was saying the right things on Iraq, and would voice a committment to win. So far Senator McCain, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the only ones to do so.
It is the MSM strategy. Fawn all over McManiac until he clinches the nomination. Then destroy him during the general election campaign by harping constantly on his age and his health. Knowing him, he'll go into one of his famous temper tantrums over the constant talk about this. It will become the Howard Dean moment of 2008 and he won't have a chance.
What you say is no doubt true. And while I share many of the negative opinions about McCain -- especially his being an opportunist and an egomaniac -- I find it hard to believe that he is stupid. And he (and his people) would have to very stupid indeed if they don't fully expect the media to turn on him as soon as he gets the nomination. I mean, propping him up as a 'maverick' when he's ripping Republicans is one thing, but when he faces off against Hillary, or Obama, or any Democrat, the media will not hesitate to try and destroy him. In addition to incessant talk about him 'pandering to the Religious Right', I think we could expect to hear a lot about his health and temper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.