Posted on 07/05/2008 10:45:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. John McCain is making surprising headway with religious conservatives - that part of the Republican electoral coalition he was expected to find the most resistant.
For a campaign that Republican critics have called ill-managed, disorganized and message-challenged, the Arizona senator's organization has, from all outward appearances, been doing things right in its appeals to evangelicals and other religious conservatives.
In the past week, Mr. McCain won over a major group of social conservatives, thanks to personal appeals, and the campaign has made personnel moves appealing to religious voters.
In Denver last week, a meeting of nearly 100 religious conservative leaders and activists resulted in about 75 of them deciding Mr. McCain is their man. Some of those present told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity that distrust of Sen. Barack Obama was a big part of their conversion to the McCain cause, though the Arizonan's own persuasiveness on the values issues generally impressed them the most.
McCain
Mr. McCain, who had attacked evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" during his failed 2000 nomination bid, has reportedly met with hundreds of leading evangelicals in recent weeks and, by all accounts, turned them around by the force of his personality and personal credibility.
"We - I mean the values voters - said about a year ago that John McCain doesn't like us and we don't like him," Ohio-based evangelical insider Phil Burress told The Times. "About the same time, we said McCain and [Rudolph W.] Giuliani were the two unacceptable Republican candidates."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
There it is, at last. Unvarnished truth. Unvarnished spite.
"Abandoned me." Me. Unvarnished egocentrism.
It's no longer just RINO's, CINO's, and LOTE's who have abandoned poor little ole you, but conservatives. You sure it's not everyone on the entire planet?
Yep, and they aren't always Dem voters. ;-)
I gotta break down and ask. What is LOTE an acronym of?
The primaries is where to fight. Now we can choose between resistance (McCain) or surrender (Hussein).
LOL! Again.
As for McCain, he can't fool me or anyone else. He's been around too long and is too much of a known quantity.
Look. I get it. You're comfortable with seeing Obama elected. Fine. Just own up to it.
I have been practicing medicine since 1979 and face many situations where I have to advise patients on choices where none of the options may be good. It requires weighing out a risk-benefit ratio and sometimes choosing options one would rather not while simultaneously hoping for the best given the situation. It is what practical decision making in medicine is all about. I think that weighing out the risks and benefits in this situation is what practical political decision making is about also and the two options are not good.
As I said in a much earlier post in this thread, I think most people here want the same things, i.e., more liberty, smaller government, strong national defense, lower taxes, and a successful economy. The biggest dispute seems to be about what constitutes the best method for accomplishing it.
The only rationale I see for voting for Obama is the hope that the country lurches so far to the left that, after one term, the electorate is so disgusted with governance that a neoconservative or paleoconservative movement of tidal wave proportions takes place. Given the likelihood of a Democratically controlled House and Senate, this is a possibility. The risk would be socialistic legislation passed with no visible means of preventing it and the difficulty that would be involved with turning that around in the future. The potential benefit would be a return to more conservative ideals. Other than this, I don't see the benefit. This seems to me to be a very high risk scenario.
The rationale I see in voting for McCain is that he would either slow the socialistic process down or, hopefully, attempt to reverse some of it. The risks here have been clearly pointed out, i.e., McCain will turn his backs on conservatives if elected and roll over for the Congress. Clearly there are significant risks in voting for McCain also.
Given my age, 55, and the fact that I want to retire in two years to be able to become a deacon in the Catholic Church (this thread did start out as an "Evangelical" one), my decision tends to be more risk aversive. I see the McCain choice as less risky.
The decision to not vote or to vote third party is a vote for Obama. The rationale usually employed is to "show the GOP a lesson". However, if the conservative makes this choice and McCain wins, it will further embolden the GOP to ignore the conservative base seeing them an unnecessary.
Again, I admire those standing on principle in this thread. Perhaps my own situation influences some timidity on my part. However, there is no guarantee that an Obama presidency will result in a new conservative movement just as there is no guarantee that a McCain presidency will do anything to prevent the march of socialism.
I just dislike the risk-benefit ratio less with the McCain option. I wish our choices were more clearcut and attractive.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that religious Christian voters are eventually all going to vote for McCain, UNLESS he picks a pro-abortion VP.
I know a lot of people who really can’t stand McCain but trust me, they won’t be voting for Obama because of it.
ping
Your's is a very reasonable approach to this year's election, and a fair summary of the problems we all face given the two major party nominees.
The only difference between your point of view and my own is that I genuinely believe Obama is extremely dangerous, while McCain is merely same-old-same-old Washington politics. I most definitely could be wrong about Obama. I'm pretty danged certain I'm not wrong about McCain. So I come to the same place you are, which is that I think the costs of sitting on my hands while Obama is elected are unacceptable.
Here is the basis of my decision. For so long I have gone the LOTE route, thinking just like some do now eventually the next time the GOP will help support a conservative for me to vote for. In 1994 something happen where conservatives got the gall to run on a conservative agenda despite the odds and not only run and win for the first time in 40 YEARS, but clean the DBM/dems clocks! 10 short years later conservatives have lost power because of Bush and the moderate agenda conservatives ALLOWED to pass.
It's very simple, if you keep electing moderates/rino's that's the only kind of politician you're going to get to vote for...Enough is enough.
VOTE ONLY FOR REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES. It's the best thing FOR America!
Never mind, I figured it out.
But now I gotta ask. What conservative Republican is running?
“Why, here I thought RINOs viewed values voters as the crazy aunt in the basement and wanted nothing to do with them.”
Thankfully, logic won and Huckabee lost.
One definition of "ideal," when it is used as an adjective is: "existing as a mental image or in fancy or imagination only; lacking practicality." When used as a noun, "ideal" commonly means "an ultimate object or aim of endeavor; goal."
We must never lose sight of the fact that the Left has ideals also. A great many of them are quite idealistic in the utopian sense.
My point being that possessing the quality of idealism isn't something admirable in and of itself. What matters is that which results from implementing one's ideals.
There is no conservative running this time. What are you going to do?
And, of course, that was the point of my post.
Yep. I just wanted to reinforce the part about idealism.
Really? I heard this same argument for years about Liberals and Socialist in this country. I even made these LOTE arguments. However, America is still strong, the best country in this world, and Conservatives are still around, despite over 45 years of liberal control of congress and almost every institution in this country. You can either keep trying to do the same thing election after election or you can finally put your foot down and say enough is enough and fight for REAL CHANGE of the way the Stupid party operates!
Every friggin time this is the same old lame ass tired argument the republican LOTE's make and it's time to stop whinning and start either kicking these namby's out of this party, or they must join in the fight to give real conservatives control.
Are you really frightened so bad you don't have the nads to beat Obama's ass back if he comes after your freedoms, would you allow your freedoms to be taken away by cowaring and acquiesce to moderates and rino's? One day you just might not have a choice and have to rise up and politically fight, are you prepared?????
Yes, really. What do you think I'm doing? Playing patty cake with you? Of course, really!
BTW, folks have raced through acronyms like RINO and CINO. Now you're using "LOTE." What the heck does that one mean?
Whatever it means, when you reduce millions of people down to mere acronyms with which you disagree, you inadvertently reveal just how marginal you are.
start either kicking these namby's out of this party
Everytime I see someone express this sort of thing, I realize one serious fundamental problem we have is that too many people don't have a clue what a political party is. For that matter, I think too many people don't have a clue what politics is.
Yup! Well said.
The Virginia primaries came too late. Fred Thompson dropped out. Ron Paul had some good ideas (not necessarily regarding the war) but got toasted by the Party's leadership.
I never got to choose in this matter.
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.