Time to Shut Up, Suck It Up and Vote for McCain?

[justaguy]

Came home to a box of high capacity mags sitting on my step. I highly recommend it to anyone.

[JoeH]

Condi For President !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Skilled at international Relations
- Smart as a whip
- Likeable
- Damn Talented and personable a self made woman
- Conservative
- Did I mention Smart

Hell I like her a lot - too bad she is too smart to run for president.

What if Condi was a running mate for McCain? VP Condi?

I think that they'd have a shot against the Dems.

[someone1980]

Came home to a box of high capacity mags sitting on my step. I highly recommend it to anyone.

What are these "High Capacity" mags and where do I get them? I had a box full of normal capacity 17 round mags sitting on my step this afternoon and that was a good feeling. I can't imagine how happy I would be with beta mags for my XDs or Sig showing up.

Just remember there is no such thing as a hicap mag. There is normal, and politically reduced. Don't bend on this issue unless you like empty space in your firearm. The first trick of your enemy is for their ideas to be stuck in your vocabulary.

Condi For President !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Skilled at international Relations
- Smart as a whip
- Likeable
- Damn Talented and personable a self made woman
- Conservative
- Did I mention Smart

Hell I like her a lot - too bad she is too smart to run for president.

Oh boy. Do I ever like that. All of a sudden I don't get chills when I hear "first" descriptors about someones race or sex and holding the position of president. I get a feeling that she would be the next Margret Thatcher, or Golda Meir. The Ds wouldn't have a thing on her. They are trying to get the first woman or the first black to hold the position. Lets one up them.

[cmj685]

Ok, I am authentically confused here and need some help from my fellow conservatives. As I said in the original post, McCain wouldn't have been either my first or second choice, but, to me, the issue seems to be simple--my first and second choices are no longer electable. So the choice comes down simply to this: either vote for the Republican candidate, or for the democratic candidate, because those are the only real choices. Every vote for somebody else takes away a vote from the conservative and gives the democrat another one-vote edge.
I hear the arguments against McCain something like this:
1) "I will never vote for McCain because I don't agree with him on this issue or that issue." What is confusing to me is that we certainly disagree far more with the democratic candidate on virtually every big issue than we do the conservative. So how will refusing to vote for the conservative solve the problem?
2) "I will teach the Republican party a lesson about fielding candidates I don't entirely agree with by writing in a vote for someone else." What is confusing to me here is that the Republican party won't change a thing because of our write-in votes. Indeed they won't notice a few protest write-in votes, whether they win or lose this election. The two parties are massive machines which hardly care about you and me, whether they win or lose. They are not going to field an ultra-conservative next time to placate us. It just is not going to happen. So don't we have to get over ourselves here?

And, in the end, if the conservative candidate loses, we will lose at least four years of our lives, and probably the Supreme Court and the federal courts for the rest of our lives, to rampaging liberal rule, a huge expansion of the nanny state, monstrous increases in taxes to pay for the nanny state, and gun-control by what is now a majority with a sitting president. After four more years of the population sitting at the government feeding trough it will become just that much more impossible to turn the clock back on an entire country which believes that the government owes them a living. So we are setting the course for the country probably for decades by voting our little protest write-in vote, a course that will deny and reject all our values, aren't we? Help me understand a little better here!

[cmj685]

Happened this morning to run across this in the National Review by Bill Bennett--again saying precisely the same sorts of things. It is a somewhat long read but thoughtful, and might provoke some more thinking and comments.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Ym ... VlMmNlMTc=

Conservative Sense & Sensibility
The Right’s choices right now.

By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn

Today, many in the Republican party and the conservative movement are saying some strange things about the prospect of our very likely nominee, Senator John McCain, and his ascent to the GOP nomination. Many think he will destroy the conservative movement if not the Republican party, and many have even said they simply will not vote for him in a general election if he heads the GOP ticket. Moreover, others have even said they would consider voting for Senator Hillary Clinton or that there is simply no difference between Senators Clinton and Barack Obama on the one hand, and Senator John McCain on the other. Some who have said the foregoing are our dear and close friends, allies, and callers.

This sense and sensibility is simply wrong.

We know the conservative indictment against Senator McCain — we hear it every day, and even recite some of it ourselves some days. We concede much of it. There is a great deal on which the senator and we do not agree. And yet there is another brief that needs to be submitted in light of some of the latest things we’ve heard from friends, callers, and others. Namely, that it will not matter to them whether Senators McCain or Clinton or Obama are elected if that is their ultimate choice.

There is a great deal of difference between Senators McCain and Clinton (and Obama), and those records become important as we recognize a few simple facts: We are in an existential war against Islamic terrorists throughout the world. This very week, Senator Clinton was asked what her first act in office would be. She stated that first act would be the beginning of the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq within 60 days. Her first act. That is a surrender to the enemy — there is no other way to portray such a withdrawal and there is no other way it will be portrayed by our enemies and other observers around the world.

Some will say, “She can’t mean it, she’s stronger and more sensible than that.” Caution: Recall that Senator Clinton will be our commander-in-chief from a party that also runs the Senate and House — and the leadership in the Senate and House, not to mention the most active members in them, want us out of Iraq. Even on her most “sensible” day do we think she can be relieved of that pressure? The Democrats on the Hill have been chomping at the bit to make good on their 2006 promises; will she really turn on them? Can she?

Second, we come to the realization that at least one Supreme Court justice is about to retire, and several others will be over age 70 come January 2009. Do we really think the nominees Senator McCain or Clinton (or Obama ) would appoint will be no different?

Let’s go to their records, to the very time-period opponents of Senator McCain cite in their indictment of him.

McCain voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year, Clinton didn’t and would likely expand Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding.

McCain voted to ban partial-birth abortion, Clinton didn’t and would likely reverse the partial-birth abortion ban.

McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and made the case for them in the media, Clinton didn’t.

McCain has never voted for a tax increase, Clinton will increase taxes.

McCain will continue the Bush tax cuts, Clinton will end them.

McCain will end pork-barrel spending, Clinton supports the endowment of projects like the Woodstock Museum with taxpayer funding.

McCain will not cut and run in Iraq, Clinton will work with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid to do just that.

McCain sponsored legislation to keep the Fairness Doctrine from rearing its head again, Clinton has not and has signaled moves to revive it.

McCain supports school choice, Clinton does not.

Clinton will mandate health insurance, McCain will not.

McCain voted to convict Bill Clinton on impeachment, Clinton was a witting accomplice in President Bill Clinton’s scandals.

McCain has an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 82.3; Clinton has a rating of 9.

McCain has 0-percent rating from NARAL; Clinton has 100 percent.

McCain is endorsed by Tom Coburn, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Tim Pawlenty, Phil Gramm, Jeff Flake, Jon Kyl, and Ted Olson. Hillary’s endorsers? Barbra Streisand, Maxine Waters, Gray Davis, Robert Kennedy Jr., Jennifer Granholm, and she will have the endorsements of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid if and when she becomes the Democratic nominee for President.

As for those who have taken to labeling Senator McCain a liberal, we reject that.

A liberal does not have a zero rating from NARAL and a 17-percent voting record with the AFL-CIO (the same rating as Sen. Jim DeMint, by way of comparison).

A liberal does not have this written about him by Sen. Jon Kyl: “On the ever-important issue of life, Senator McCain has a record of voting for pro-life legislation: He has voted for bans on partial birth abortion; he has supported Unborn Victims of Violence Act and parental notification for minors; and he has voted against using federal money to distribute morning-after contraception in schools. He has repeatedly cosponsored the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits the transportation of minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws, requiring instead the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.”

A liberal does not vote to defund Planned Parenthood.

A liberal does not go on television and radio to defend Sam Alito and John Roberts.

A liberal does not go on the road to campaign for Social Security retirement accounts.

A liberal does not support the surge or the stay in Iraq.

A liberal does not support extending Bush’s tax cuts.

A liberal does not get the endorsements of Tom Coburn, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Tim Pawlenty, Phil Gramm, Jeff Flake, Jon Kyl, and Ted Olson.

Senator McCain may have some liberal positions, but he is not a liberal. He is a conservative with some liberal positions. But on life, taxes, and national defense, his record is, in fact, very strong.

Let us repeat. We know the “yes, but,” argument against Senator McCain — and agree with some of it. But let us not fool ourselves that there is no difference between Senator McCain and whomever the Democrats nominate. (What we have written above about Senator Clinton holds true of Senator Barack Obama as well).

Over the past two years, the conservative movement has lifted Senator Joe Lieberman onto their shoulders higher and higher (rightly, in our view), and yet many of the same people who have done that have sworn off of Senator McCain. Notwithstanding much of our praise for Senator Lieberman, he is far to the left of Senator McCain — with a lifetime ACU rating of 17 percent and an ADA (Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal counter-part to the ACU ratings), in 2006, of 75 percent.

Senator Clinton’s respective ratings? Nine percent from the ACU and 95 percent from the ADA.

Senator Obama’s respective ratings? Eight percent from the ACU and 95 percent from the ADA.

Senator McCain’s respective ratings? 82.3 percent from the ACU and 15 percent from the ADA.

We do not have perfect nominees and never have. As John Hinderaker pointed out recently, since Calvin Coolidge, we haven’t even had a pure “conservative ideologue” in our party elected president. And even that one “purist” was not free of blemishes and criticism, much as we rightly venerate him.

Let’s admit the concern: Some people predict that a President McCain will open the borders, close Guantanamo, and tie our policies to some false premises related to global warming. We hope he doesn’t, but even critics must admit it is just as likely — if not more so — that his legacy will be the following: He pursued al-Qaeda to the ends of the Earth and vanquished them; he cut deficit spending and vetoed pork-barrel spending over and over again; he appointed four good justices to the Supreme Court; and he reinvigorated a sense of thoughtful patriotism, citizenship, and unselfish devotion to the Republic.

Senator John McCain has a great deal to recommend him. He has a great deal more to offer the country, and it is our sincere hope that, as we move toward the general election, more and more people will see that. In the interim, it is our equal hope that Senator McCain will take the next several months to build his support among conservative doubters within our party. We deserve that, too, so that — come September — we will all be confident we have nominated the right man.

We have endorsed no candidate in our party as of yet, but we wholeheartedly unendorse any notion that either Senator John McCain or Governor Mitt Romney will ruin the party, the movement, or, for that matter, the election. They are both heads and shoulders above would-be presidents Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and once we see the whole record, and these men in the totality of their careers and records, we will, we pray, realize that.

— William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and the host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America. Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute and the producer of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America.

[Old Dude]

If conservatives sit on their hands out of dislike for McCain, they may very well be in a position to go to President Obama/Clinton and say, "We helped put you here because we didn't support McCain" and then ask for help on some issue. Should they decide to take that course, they risk facing gales of derisive laughter.

Conservatives can support McCain and then claim some share in his victory--should that occur.

Were I a Democrat, even one who really likes Clinton, I would be leery of nominating her because there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't vote for Hilary unless she was running against Satan--and even then they would probably waver. That woman carries more baggage than a rock group on a world tour, and it will come back to haunt her. Every bit of it.

I think a McCain vs. Obama race would be interesting, exciting, and a campaign that I would hope would be fought over issues.

[GregM]

Well, I'm pretty much a single-issue voter these days. For me, the threat of militant Islam trumps all others. Including immigration, abortion, taxes, and gun laws. McCain understands this threat. He has never wavered in his support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was calling for a surge years ago, when many Republicans were silent.

McCain is more than a veteran who served commendably. He descends from a long line of military officers. His father and grandfather both served in WWII. He understands war --- it's in his blood. Literally.

Things in Iraq may be settling down, but Afghanistan is heating up. The war against the Jihad Boys is far from over. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress will decide whether we remain on the offensive against the terrorists. We will need a president who can make a strong case for pursuing this war.

[cobb]

Every vote for somebody else takes away a vote from the conservative and gives the democrat another one-vote edge.

What conservative, there is a conservative running? The only conservative that will be on the ballot is the one that you or I write in. So me writing in a vote for a conservative only take a vote away from the liberals on the ballot, that is what it is suppose to do.

[princewally]

Every vote for somebody else takes away a vote from the conservative and gives the democrat another one-vote edge.

What conservative, there is a conservative running? The only conservative that will be on the ballot is the one that you or I write in. So me writing in a vote for a conservative only take a vote away from the liberals on the ballot, that is what it is suppose to do.

+1

I won't vote for McCain because I disagree with him on almost every issue. He's NOT a conservative.

If enough people write in a conservative, or vote for a conservative(or libertarian) third party, they WILL notice. They may not do anything about it, but it's possible(in my fantasy land) that it will provide the motivation necessary to spin off a real conservative party that won't be a meaningless third party, but a replacement for the republican.

[plblark]

So,

McCain/ Thompson '08 - How would that affect your decision?

Thompson would help McCain gain back some of that conservative street creds that he’s been lacking in recent years, and would definitely help sweeten an otherwise bitter medicine. Fred Thompson is pretty clearly McCain’s best choice for Vice President. Let’s hope it’s McCain/Thompson ‘08.

hat tip: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=2633

[princewally]

So,

McCain/ Thompson '08 - How would that affect your decision?

That's a much different issue. I would vote for that ticket and hope for:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States......Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh, my heart!"

[someone1980]

If a conservative votes cross the aisle, it is actually a 2 vote swing. R has one less and D has one more. This doesn't send a message because it simply looks like someone liked the D more then the R.

If a conservative votes for a third party they are hurting the R by one vote. With all of the talk about the very issue of "won't vote for McCain because he is not conservative" being brought up, a message might be sent if someone is smart enough to pull their head out of their hind end.

The problem is just as cmj685 stated, who would screw the country over worse in your view? Given the demographics of this site, and that this is a presidential election*, I would bet that *anyone* with a D after their name is worse then *anyone* with an R after their name. Jumping the aisle makes no sense as nothing happens other then you screw yourself and your country.

If the race is not close *in your state* cast your protest vote for a third party. It won't hurt the R nationally and it could send a message.

Now it starts to get complicated. If the race is close you will have to ask yourself if you think a protest vote is worth the chance of living to watch your country reamed a new one, or if it would be better to vote for someone that isn't *as* bad.

*please remember the reason we had enough votes to pass the MPPA is that a lot of in state Democrats voted for it. We need to make sure that they get reelected if their seat is up.

[plblark]

+1

Good post as usual, someone1980

[princewally]

I would bet that *anyone* with a D after their name is worse then *anyone* with an R after their name.

[url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html"]Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP[/url]

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

His 'R' doesn't mean anything.

*please remember the reason we had enough votes to pass the MPPA is that a lot of in state Democrats voted for it. We need to make sure that they get reelected if their seat is up.

Does anyone have a list of the people that voted for the MPPA?

[DeanC]

That's a much different issue. I would vote for that ticket and hope for:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States......Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh, my heart!"

Well, as I pointed out in another thread, there have only been two senators elected directly from the senate in all of U.S. History and both of them died in office.