Anybody but Clinton — but McCain???????

Home Forums Politics Anybody but Clinton — but McCain???????

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • Author
  • #586361


    I’m really impressed by the knowledge, passion, and civility of the political discussions on these forums. So, I have a question — could someone who thinks (s)he will vote for McCain if <Hill/Barak> is the dem nominee please explain how (s)he came to this conclusion? I’m really trying to understand — OK, so I can argue more effectively.But I do want to learn :-)



    My wife has taken that position. She’s a staunch Clinton supporter. But will vote for McCain if Obama get the Dem nomination. She has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in her life.

    And I don’t get it.



    I have liked McCain for years and think he has the perseverance that we need. Just a few months ago they were saying he was washed up in the election and he was running out of money. Now look where he is at. Now if he can work some of that magic for our economy.I do have issue with a few of his stances (a womans right to choose, and the war in Iraq.)

    I have never voted Republican and never agreed with the party or their outlook.

    I do think that McCain can work side by side with both parties and is actually respected by both parties. Clinton I feel is constantly talking in circles. Barack I think is a great orator, but I think he might cave if pressured enough.

    At this point I am heavily weighing towards McCain.



    Some people fall in love with candidates or even specific issues.

    Love often defies rational explanation.

    Sometimes only time can fix it. Sometimes even time cannot.

    I try to keep some distance between my soul and political issues and candidates since the long term effects of what we do in the near term can be devastating.

    The long term issue is supreme court justices.

    This was also the issue in 2004 but too few paid attention to it so we now have 5 hard right christianist ideologues 4 of whom are young enough to outlive many of us and warp the republic out of shape for our children.

    It might be hard to wrap your mind around, but Bush is not incompetent. He accomplished exactly what the hard right neocons and theocons wanted of the long term game plan. (The theocons are finally noticing how they have been used by the neocons and the corporate core of the GOP) The country is in a war that is draining the treasury at a far faster rate than simple tax cuts and wild industry subsidies could have done. New Orleans will be rebuilt by developers and real estate speculators into a reliably white southern city with the Dem (if a little bluedoggish)majority dispersed to the winds.

    The coming economic melt down was engineered by giving the global corporations and wall street financiers all the rope they would take. History shows they have no restraint of their own so the repeat of the Robber barons was inevitable.

    If we do not have in place our FDR (or as close as we can get) then the reactionaries will indeed strip government and the social saftey net down to the size that Grover Norquist want, small enough to drown it in the bathtub.

    The failure we see is in republican, or more exactly, ultra conservative policies and an authoritarian world view.

    Neither Hillary nor Obama are going to appoint far right wing justices to the court.

    McCain will not be able to resist doing so even if he is (a big question) more moderate than the current pResident in the Whitehouse.

    So I will support either one in the General but because I could not entirely filter out Obamas soaring rhetoric, I will probably end up there at the end of the caucus. (I try to stick to print media just so I am not effected by crafted PR hype and oratory)

    Here is a quote for inspiration. It really applies to us all whether we are black or white, if we want a progressive future for our children and grand children.

    J.C. Watts, a former congressman, African-American, and a Republican, inspired this comment from his father:

    “A Black man voting for the Republicans is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders”



    I agree with the need for a D in the White House, if only because of the effect on the Supreme Court.

    Justice Stevens is already the second oldest Justice to sit on the court in history. He’ll be 89 when the next president takes office.

    Justice Ginsberg, while 13 years younger than Stevens, is in poor health. Stevens, who reportedly still plays tennis a couple times per week, is actually in better health. She successfully battled colorectal cancer 8 years ago, but is still frail and often needs help entering/exiting the stage at recent speaking events.

    The Supreme Court has already tipped too far to the right. The last last thing we need is for these two to be replaced with more justices with an ultra-conservative agenda. We the people can not stand by and continue to let our personal liberties be eroded by a court that thinks the government should tell them how to live their personal lives or believes that individuals should have no recourse against illegal actions by huge corporations.

    Voting for McCain would likely be a death knell to the middle class.



    I am torn as to whether to post this here, or in the Chuckle forum…

    It is a short, succinct analysis of the worst case scenario some republicans are already advocating.

    Snagged from daily Kos front pager Hunter.

    McCain-Huck: You Got Your Christian Crusader Rhetoric In My Crazy-Ass Foreign Policy

    by Hunter

    Fri Feb 08, 2008

    There’s talk on the Republican side of a McCain-Huckabee ticket? Seriously? Because Huckabee is doing so well, and McCain needs to prove his right-wing social credentials, and CPAC-styled movement conservatives need their heads to spin a little more vigorously, I suppose?

    I have to admit, it sounds like a brilliant plan. In the middle of a hugely unpopular war, take the most aggressively pro-war candidate and make him Commander in Chief. Then, what the hell — add a heavy dose of hardcore, far-right evangelical Christian rhetoric to the mix. “Bombs for Jesus”: doesn’t that sound like the bestest idea ever? The whole problem with Bush, you see, was the annoying subtlety with which he pursued his highly complex and well-thought-out positions. Can’t we just distill that down to even more explicit support for unending “preemptive” military action, and explicit declarations of Jesus-based manifest destiny? Why have Bush when we can have a double-dose, Mecha-Transformer-Wonder-Twin-Powers-Activate-Super-Bush?

    Hey, why the hell not? Here’s another idea: let’s get everyone in America to drive a six-inch railroad spike into the back of our heads. That way we’ll all have a place to hang our raincoats.

    I love modern conservatism. No matter how disastrous any outcome of conservative policy is, there’s only one possible response — let’s do more of it!



    My major long-term concern is the disappearance of the working middle class, who have lost income and buying power in the last twenty five years, while the top 1/10th of 1 percent of income earners have seen increases of almost 500 per cent. The trend is a threat even to our economic system, as we lose the market for consumer goods, not to mention the overwhelming social ills we leave for our children. The only one who can respond to this trend is Obama, in my mind. Clinton is too close to the source, and McCain, it goes without saying, would exacerbate the problem.



    Even if I agreed with McCain (I don’t), the temper problem is a dealbreaker for me.



    Kayleigh…I’m with you. Have you seen the article that was in the PI about a week or so ago re: McCain, his growing up, his heritage from his father, grandfather, and his anger problems even going back to then? Interesting reading. I’ll see if I can find it…




    Lest we forget. There is plenty of time for the current administration to do irreparable damage to the country. These people live in an alternative universe where everything is backwards. The difference between what they say, and what they do, can be breathtaking.

    Today Cheney spoke to the CPAC, “the conference for people for whom reality is just an illusion foisted upon them by a cold and liberal universe.”

    As conservatives, we believe in a government that takes up a smaller share of the national income, that treats tax dollars with respect and restraint. And we believe in a government that keeps to its limits under the Constitution, never expanding beyond the consent of the governed.

    As Hunter at daily Kos put it:

    “And then, he farted candy and rainbows. And all the little woodland creatures came out from under the floorboards to help sew him a magnificent new dress for the ball.”



    Gosh you know I have always liked McCain but a possible *Gasp* McCain/Huckabee ticket. NO WAYYY!! All the candidates have their “downfalls” or “failures” do you not think Hilary doesn’t get her panties in a bunch??? You are kidding yourself if you don’t.

    I think I wasn’t clearly thinking in regards to the Supreme Court. If that is the case then Obama just gained another vote. I just hope he can deliver on his promises.



    I am basing my vote for Obama on his polcies and sound judgement. In addiiton, I happen to believe what Noonan said today on his blog is true:

    “Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase “Republican and Democratic attack machines” from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line–lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible–in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

    He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy–or professionally desirable–to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they’ve learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They’ll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

    With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. “He’ll raise your taxes.” He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won’t go low.

    Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they’d be delighted to go at her. They’d get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

    The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it’s fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He’s not Bambi, he’s bulletproof.

    The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented–“He’s too young, he’s never run anything, he’s not fully baked”–the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

    The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell. “

    Enough said.




    Tish.. i am confused.

    after reading your post a second time, i asked myself.. who is Noonan?

    the only Noonan i know of is a political reporter named Peggy.. a conservative political reporter.

    You can’t be quoting conservatives like Peggy Noonan to be making points about political strategy for democrats… so i must have missed something.

    enlighten me please.

    in the meantime, i will follow your other link.


    ok did that. pretty impressive video by Lawrence Lessig.

    But it is based on some fundamental assumptions that might not be true…

    That a the image of an unknown black man as a president will be more effective than that of a woman to signal America’s willingness to change.

    That Obama has more moral character than Hillary based on selected quotes from her campaign.

    That Obama’s speech about opposing the war while a Senate candidate (after we had begun the war if i remember the timing accurately) was equal in weight to Clinton’s vote for a war that we (all of America) were assured would only be a war of last resort.. not an immediate engagement.

    That Obama was not inconsistent between his moral stance and his actions because his vote funding the war was a separate matter from his disapproval of the war… overlooking the fact that he campaigned as a progressive yet does not have a more progressive voting record than Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

    That because Bill Clinton was unable to carry through his campaign promises with a hostile congress… (and military by the way).. that he lacked moral coourage.

    And that implies Hillary will do the same.

    Lots more assumptions, but those are some of the basic ones..

    I think i could probably sit down with a point to prove and write an equally measured response cherry picking both Obama speeches and Obama campaign materials to support it if i spent the time.

    i won’t. (and yes, i hear that immense sigh of relief from the entire blog).

    Suffice it to say that he had a point to make and he made it.

    it is up to each of us to look at the underlying assumptions and ask ourself if you truly believe them to be accurate.

    His arguments, unfortunately, are about the appearance of things.. not necessarily about their substance.



    I agree with Ken: we must remember to think long term. It’s very hard to keep people focused on anything farther out than next week, but ideally our choices take into account, first, the longest-term consequences.

    With that in mind, I’d argue that the Supreme Court, while crucial, is actually second. Environmental decisions (or lack of action) have longer-term effects even than makeup of the Supreme Court.

    But we might come down on the same side, anyway; McCain would be destructive to both these long-term causes.



    The thought of McCain choosing our next supreme court justices is enough to keep me awake at night… and those justices will ultimately have a lot to say about the environment as much of the pressure will have to come from laws which will need to be backed by them.

    You are right, regardless of our reasons, we have plenty to make sure that McCain is not our next president.



    just in from my mailbox.. from a vet’s organization…

    where McCain and the war in Iraq

    it speaks for itself.




    from Charlabob on another topic:

    follow this link. here is the contrasting opinion to Lawrence Lessig… and it puts my feeble attempts to shame.

    please, let me know what you think.



    You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, but you will vote for someone else.



    Huckelberry has his admirers as well

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.