Posted on 02/03/2008 8:40:11 PM PST by Dawnsblood
My argument - that it’s crazy (IN MY OPINION) to prefer Clinton or Obama over McCain - was in no way a statement of preference for McCain over Romney. The whole thing was based on the fact that McCain is ahead in the polls and that in that context, people like Coulter, Malkin, and many conservative bloggers were saying that IF IT WERE McCain, they’d rather have a Democrat, which I hold to be nuts. I obviously prefer Romney.
(Excerpt) Read more at rachellucas.com ...
McCain likes to work with Democrats. With a Democrat majority in Congress, he could get a lot done -- all of it bad.
Clinton and Obama's ideas maybe (slightly) worse, but at least then the Republicans would act the part of an opposition party and try to block their worst impulses. I expect to vote for Hillary. I think the resulting damage to the country -- and especially to the GOP -- will be less than if McCain achieves the White House.
I may be wrong, but I think the argument goes that if McCain gets the nomination and somehow gets elected, that it will ultimately be the end of the republican party. However, if a democrat gets elected, the republcan party will survive and possibly be reinvigorated.
Yes, that seems to be the argument and I think it is a mistake. It appears to be a post-factum backdoor explanation for the Reagan presidency - if not for Carter’s royal screwup we would not have him. So’ let’s try it again. Only this time completely artificially.
Carter won Presidency not because conservatives went and voted for him over imperfect Republican. On the contrary. My experience always tells me that fancy elaborate schemes and calculations never work. You go and fight for your ideas and you fight for them not by supporting a candidacy that runs completely opposite to your values in hope that this elected official will make things so bad that it will be a cakewalk next time for your "perfect" candidate.
I’m not entirely happy with McCain, but I’m not going to vote for a socialist whether it is a pompous ass socialist or a crooked one.
That's because you're too obtuse to foresee the inevitable damage McCain will do to the Republican party, in spite of the history of two Bush elections. Never mind that Coulter tried to point that out to you: "With Hillary we get the same liberal policies, but none of the responsibility."
The author needs to understand that there are a lot of conservatives who want to lose. (This malady exists among many far-left liberals also.) This desire has nothing to do with principles, country, party or politics. It has to do with personality problems, and a desire to punish others for transgressions and “impurity.”
There ceratinly are transgressions and impurity, how could there not be, in a party with tens of millions of members?
The idea that letting Democrats assume power will lead to Democrats quickly losing power back to “true” conservatives is idiotic. Study of American political history will quickly diabuse some of such a foolish notion. Those mentioned above will not be so convinced, but that is a different matter.
I don't see any reinvigoration with the looming possibility of a Democrat house, senate and presidency.
Great comments.
The reinvigoration would supposedly come from when the democrats lead us to the brink of destruction and the nation swings conservative. The problem is that this is a very different country compared to when Carter screwed us and the nation swung to Ronald Reagan. Far too many more potential voters now who are psychologically and economically dependent on a nanny state.
I just feel that we are in deep do-do whether it is Clinton, Obama, or McCain, and would rather that the Democrats got to take the blame for sending us down the drain.
Yep. Ridiculously destructive. We are a different, more polarized nation now. We give up our side, it’s gone.
Well, look who is here! ping to read later. Thanks for the post :)
Well, look who is here! ping to read later. Thanks for the post :)
Cockfights are much more fun than this shite we’re having to eat.
McCain IS a Democrat. There is nothing in his legislative record that says anything else. The only thing that distinguishes him from the other two Democratic candidates is his experience as a POW and comparatively dismal academic record.
I wonder if McCain is still waiting to speak with German Chancellor Putin. Moron.
McCain has his tit in another financial scandal wringer. The NYT is holding a story to torpedo him...if he is the Republican nominee.
It's insanity to just sit down and let the RATS (including McCain) win. It's a race of sitting Democrat Senators (Clinton, Obama, McCain) vs two ex-Republican governors (Romney and Huckabee). Romney and Huckabee keep pissing in each others cornflakes. If that continues, one of the Democrat Senators is going to be in the White House.
When I recall how Conservatives rallied to prevent the amnesty bill and Harriet Miers’ nomination to the SC, I am hopeful that we could do that again.
With both houses controlled by the Democrats, we need a Republican in the Whitehouse....even a bad one. Clinton or Obama on the WOT scare me to death!!
As badly as I hate allowing the RNC to rub our Conservative noses in it, I will have to wait awhile to “teach them a lesson.” We do have collective strengths and are not a group to be taken lightly. 2012 is not that far away and we can re-group by then.
Alas, the proverbial “rock and a hard place.”
I thought that the supreme court ruled that cock fights could no longer be made illegal?
17 days though... that’d make a fella awful sore...
Thanks for the ping. I love Rachel Lucas’ writing, but I disagree with her on this one. Isn’t she the youngest curmudgeon on the internet?
:o)
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.