now, this pisses me off

[franksolich]

Okay, John McCain was not my first choice, or second choice, or third choice, or fourth choice for the Republican nomination, but under the theory proven by time and practice, even the worst of the (R)s in the White House is much better than the best of the (D)s. 

So I have no problem, as a conservative Republican, with whichever candidate the Republicans select, even if that darkest of dark dark horses the ultra-liberal George Pataki or, God forbid, that guy down there in Texas.

It's all good.

Anyway, this was posted on freerepublic this morning:

Ok. Like most posters here, I'm disappointed with the results of last night's Florida primary. I simply cannot understand the mindset of Republican voters who want McCain to be our standard-bearer.

HOWEVER, in the spirit of Reagan optimism, I thought it might be productive to posit some of the benefits of nominating McCain.

Don't get me wrong: I'm an "anyone but McCain" primary voter. Just thought it might be an interesting (and amusing) exercise.

Here are my top 5 reasons why McCain might be ok:

1) National Defense He will reinforce the GOP's reputation as the party of serious foreign policy. I have no doubt that McCain will continue to take the fight to Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors.

2) Spending Call it grandstanding if you will, but McCain has always been aggressive in fighting wasteful spending. Will he have the intestinal fortitude to take on the *real* problems: entitlements, as opposed to earmarks? Who knows--but at least he has a well-earned reputation as a budget hawk.

3) Hispanics Exit polling suggests that his win in Florida was at least partially due to overwhelming support from Hispanic voters. I'm not under any illusions about winning a majority, but I think McCain at least keeps us in the game with this large and growing voting bloc.

4) Independents/moderates We've been losing ground with Independents for years. McCain has spent a career cultivating them. Say what you will about the squishy middle, it helps to have those votes in your pocket. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and McCain is ours, I think we win big among young voters, independents, and moderates.

5) Judges Almost any GOP nominee beats the pantsuit off Hillary in this departmet. I don't necessarily think McCain will nominate another Clarence Thomas, but neither do I see him nominating a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Plus, his credibility as an "independent" will make it harder for Democrats to filibuster his nominees.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961928/posts

I am appalled, truly appalled, at the attitude of members of freerepublic, many of whom were utterly negative about this idea.

"Demanding" ideological purity is the surest road to defeat.

One wants the whole loaf, and gets not even a crumb.  Just like the primitives on Skins's island.

Me?--I'm happy if I get a third of the loaf, and that's a rare occasion, as I'm sure it is with most conservatives.

If John McCain ends up with the Republican nomination, though, since he already has the "moderate" and "independent" vote tied up, I suggest he name Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-California) as his running mate.

But anyway, I can't believe the piss-poor reaction on freerepublic; this is going to cost us, if we don't act against this "ideological purity" stuff.

And there's another part to this too; traditionally, Republican presidents have tried to woo their adversaries (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, the first Bush, the current Bush) by taking their conservative support for granted--they have traditionally turned leftward.

If John McCain ends up with the Republican nomination, in the same tactic used by his predecessors in courting adversaries, one can quite reasonably expect him to.....turn rightward.

[Chris_]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Since there are no Conservatives left, we have to hope that Romney gets the nod. Don't let this flash for MCain both you too much.

A week from today, we'll know if he has lasting power.  I think he'll fade.

[DixieBelle]

I think we are our own worst enemies at times like this. Say what you will about the factions of the Democratic party, they seem to be better at putting party above all else when it comes down to actually voting. I think GOP'ers get their feathers ruffled and stay home out of protest more often than Dems.

A McCain presidency concerns me for many reasons. But, a Democrat in the White House terrifies me. I think I know which way I'm pulling the lever in November. I can only hope that we have "balance" in the legislative branch. When you think about it, our system is really beautiful and requires the proper amount of "friction" to work. Not to minimize the accomplishments of the GOP in years past, but dominance seems to breed complacency. I can only hope the GOP wises up. They seem to only pay attention once their power is gone.

[Chris_]

I think we are our own worst enemies at times like this. Say what you will about the factions of the Democratic party, they seem to be better at putting party above all else when it comes down to actually voting. I think GOP'ers get their feathers ruffled and stay home out of protest more often than Dems.

A McCain presidency concerns me for many reasons. But, a Democrat in the White House terrifies me. I think I know which way I'm pulling the lever in November. I can only hope that we have "balance" in the legislative branch. When you think about it, our system is really beautiful and requires the proper amount of "friction" to work. Not to minimize the accomplishments of the GOP in years past, but dominance seems to breed complacency. I can only hope the GOP wises up. They seem to only pay attention once their power is gone.

Witness the change in Congressional power last cycle. 

Any dumb asses who say "I am staying out" or "I am writing in" deserves and will get my complete contempt and, should Evil take over the USA (choose your evil commie from the bitch or the muslim), my blame.

[DixieBelle]

^exactly! I'll also throw in the those who think Dr. Nuts is the only viable option.

[NHSparky]

This all-or-nothing attitude is why the libertarians will never draw more than 1-2 percent in a national election.  If the FR types (of which I'm one) would learn to make the most of what you have, we wouldn't be whining about losing elections, Congress, etc...

[franksolich]

This all-or-nothing attitude is why the libertarians will never draw more than 1-2 percent in a national election.  If the FR types (of which I'm one) would learn to make the most of what you have, we wouldn't be whining about losing elections, Congress, etc...

Well, that's my deal.

No one, but no one, is ever going to get the whole loaf.

Remember how Reagan expanded social services.

So even Reagan had his down side, not to mention that when governor California (1967-1975), Reagan was the most liberal governor that state ever had, giving the hippies just about everything the hippies wanted (although it did him scant good; he might as well have done nothing for the hippies, and suffered none the more for it).

But given that the majority constituency of the Republican party is conservative, this means conservatives rule, even when they have to "share" power with moderate and liberal Republicans.....and if we need the votes of moderate and liberal Republicans, hey, we shouldn't be shy about giving them a slice of the pie.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) used to get a lot of grief from conservative Republicans, who conveniently omitted to remember that his seat was instrumental in maintaining Republican control of the Senate--and besides, Specter served conservatives well, what with two stellar nominations for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suspect that if McCain is the Republican nominee, he's going to deal, and deal successfully, with the more-conservative elements of the Republican party.....and one of the best ways he can do that is by naming Duncan Hunter his running-mate.

[DixieBelle]

^I hope you're right. Any reason why you think Hunter would get the nod or is that just your desire politically? I have to admit, I didn't follow Hunter and I'm not aware of any relationship between McCain and Hunter. Thompson would be my choice but he's not going to accept. I really believe him when he says he's done.

[franksolich]

It's probably a wish, but not an impossible dream, Duncan Hunter as John McCain's running mate.

Hunter has a great many similiarities with McCain--the military service and all that.

Hunter is solid, substantial, like a rock, like a Richard Cheney.

But at any rate, it's reasonable to suppose that if McCain gets the Republican nomination, he's going to name someone to the "right" of him as his running mate.

[Chris_]

It's probably a wish, but not an impossible dream, Duncan Hunter as John McCain's running mate.

Hunter has a great many similiarities with McCain--the military service and all that.

Hunter is solid, substantial, like a rock, like a Richard Cheney.

But at any rate, it's reasonable to suppose that if McCain gets the Republican nomination, he's going to name someone to the "right" of him as his running mate.

That's a pretty good pick.  Let's hope.  Or maybe Fred.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Romney out-polled McCain solidly among conservatives.

Florida ****ed us because they allowed independents to vote in what was supposed to be a closed primary. McCain is only viable where independents are allowed to muddy the waters. I'm not worried about the indies in the general election, they'll take us over Billary or Obama but we need to tell them to STFU when it comes to OUR primaries.

[DixieBelle]

^good point. I am leaning more towards Romney when pitched against McCain. I'll still pull that lever though.

[NHSparky]

Frank, the only flaw I see in your logic is geography.  To balance out the ticket  you need someone more ideologically conservative than McCain (not hard to do) but also someone who will identify with those on the opposite coast.

For that reason I'd want a Southerner or someone from the northeast, say someone like Michael Steele, Fred Thompson, or Rick Santorum.  All are well-known social conservatives.  In fact, if you had someone like Steele or Ken Blackwell, it would take the Obama "race-card" ammo away from the dems.  Not to tokenize, but these two gentlemen would be an asset to any GOP candidate.

[DixieBelle]

Micheal Steele! I LIKE him!!!! Wouldn't that really put a kink in things Especially after the horrible treatment he recieved from liberal operatives.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Frank, I understand your sentiments but Romney IS my compromise.

McCain is strong on defense and his BS tax policy can be endured. McCain-Feingold can be undone...perhaps even in the courts...

BUT

Immigration and SCOTUS nominees are existential threats that will take generations to undo. We've endure Roe v Wade for THIRTY-FIVE years with many years yet to go until an adequate challenge can be mounted from the states level. This is literally a matter of life and death for millions.

If McCain-Kennedy gets ram-rodded down our throats it will take decades to undo but the millions given amnesty and subsequent social welfare doles will send our economy into an immediate skid and they will bolster DNC rolls for generations to come making the undoing of the damage that much harder to effect and once they are in they could never be deported. They become a 20 million person voting bloc overnight...1/15 of our population. We are handing the keys to our consensual government to the first SOB willing to turn illegal immigrants into his personal voting machine.

It's that serious.

[BEG]

So Snuggles, if McCain get's the nomination would you sit this election out?

[Chris_]

This all-or-nothing attitude is why the libertarians will never draw more than 1-2 percent in a national election.  If the FR types (of which I'm one) would learn to make the most of what you have, we wouldn't be whining about losing elections, Congress, etc...

Well, that's my deal.

No one, but no one, is ever going to get the whole loaf.

Remember how Reagan expanded social services.

So even Reagan had his down side, not to mention that when governor California (1967-1975), Reagan was the most liberal governor that state ever had, giving the hippies just about everything the hippies wanted (although it did him scant good; he might as well have done nothing for the hippies, and suffered none the more for it).

But given that the majority constituency of the Republican party is conservative, this means conservatives rule, even when they have to "share" power with moderate and liberal Republicans.....and if we need the votes of moderate and liberal Republicans, hey, we shouldn't be shy about giving them a slice of the pie.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) used to get a lot of grief from conservative Republicans, who conveniently omitted to remember that his seat was instrumental in maintaining Republican control of the Senate--and besides, Specter served conservatives well, what with two stellar nominations for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suspect that if McCain is the Republican nominee, he's going to deal, and deal successfully, with the more-conservative elements of the Republican party.....and one of the best ways he can do that is by naming Duncan Hunter his running-mate.

To an extent, Frank, I agree with you.  Inasmuch as any of our candidates are decidedly better than the opposition.  However, the resistance to McCain from conservatives  (like myself) stems from the fact that he has made his career of selling out conservative values when the "going gets tough".....he has never failed to run in front of a TV camera crew and announce some brand of grand compromise with the liberals, and that really pisses me off a lot.......

There is much to be said for not demanding "purity" in our candidates in order to win, but as president, I simply have no confidence that McCain wouldn't resort to nominating someone to the Supreme Court that was somewhere in the "squishy middle" in order to avoid a partisan fight amoung his old buddies in the Senate.

When you look at McCain in the stark light of the most important conservative issues today, he is, in reality, not very much different from George W. Bush........

.....He supports some forms of gun control such as an "assult weapons ban"

.....He supports granting some form of "amnesty" to illegals.

.....He is a "hawk" on the WOT.

.....He supports some form of "global warming" initiative.

I could go into the differences, although I think thay would be minor.....however, I think that all of the reasons that many Republicans are very dissappointed with our current president, are the same characteristics that we see in McCain's platform.  Bear in mind that GWB presently enjoys approximately a 35% approval rating, so I guess my real question is.......do we really think that a candidate that is virtually identical politically to our president (with 35% approval) can actually win the presidency........unfortunately I think not.....

Do we really want to run another "compassionate conservative".......or do we want to do something different.....I'm not sure that I could pull the lever in November for McCain, and keep my breakfast down.....

doc

[paladin0]

Romney out-polled McCain solidly among conservatives.

Florida ****ed us because they allowed independents to vote in what was supposed to be a closed primary. McCain is only viable where independents are allowed to muddy the waters. I'm not worried about the indies in the general election, they'll take us over Billary or Obama but we need to tell them to STFU when it comes to OUR primaries.

Not true, the only way an "independent" could vote on the Republican ballot was to be registered as one. There is nothing stopping someone from doing that. I know Democrats who shifted their registrations from moonbat to Republican just to vote for Paul.

Paladin0

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So Snuggles, if McCain get's the nomination would you sit this election out?

It makes me sick to the gut to even contemplate sitting out what I so vehemently defend both in dialogue and in uniform.

I find myself saying repeatedly: I can't vote for a liberal-Democrat.

For the most part that includes McCain.

Against Hillary I suppose the choice would be easier but apart from the Iraq war can you smell a difference between McCain and Obama...except Obama doesn't resort to dirty politics, race-baiting of have the Keating 5 in his history?

He'll get savaged in the general election because the race will be between 2 liberals--the war will be a diminishing factor--making the choice between sleazy white-guy and articulate, unscathed non-white guy.

[Lauri]

Romney out-polled McCain solidly among conservatives.

Florida ****ed us because they allowed independents to vote in what was supposed to be a closed primary. McCain is only viable where independents are allowed to muddy the waters. I'm not worried about the indies in the general election, they'll take us over Billary or Obama but we need to tell them to STFU when it comes to OUR primaries.

i was wondering about that ... i tend to think McCain is not going the distance. he didnt even win his own state, Romney did and you didnt hear much about that in press (big surprise!)

Romney needs to get out there and fight harder now... he needs to attack Hilary and McCain and bring up McCain's voting record and legislation screw ups (Amnesty) and push it hard for the next week.

[DaSaintFan]

I think we are our own worst enemies at times like this. Say what you will about the factions of the Democratic party, they seem to be better at putting party above all else when it comes down to actually voting. I think GOP'ers get their feathers ruffled and stay home out of protest more often than Dems.

So holding on to our principals and beliefs takes a back-seat to making sure our party of choice stays in power?


I'll be honest, I'm scared by teh thought of a McCain presidency in terms of spending and illegal aliens and what they're allowed to do.

I'm scared to death at the though of a Romney health-care plan being enforced nation-wide.

I'm HORRIFIED that a Huckabee presidency would result in a HUGE bloated spending govt.

ANd I'm TERRIFIED by the thought of a Paul isolationist country.


However, that being said, none of those four are worse than a Democratic "big spending/socilaistic/illegal aliens/chicken-coward "surrender" moniey" president.

[paladin0]

I'll vote for McCain or Romney, why?

I know that if they want to keep the office, they'll have to please the Republican conservative base with at least a few bones, which is better then none at all from the democrats. I also know that democrats in the office is going to be much worse.

So tell me, how well did sitting out the '06 election work?

Paladin0