My Attempt To Inspire The McCain-Haters

Okay, guys, many of you can’t stand McCain – you’ve made that perfectly clear.  I don’t need to tell you what a Hillary Clinton administration means – some good, lots of bad, and the return of the Billary soap opera.  Obama seems a lot more palatable – but appearances can deceive.  While Obama talks a good game of bipartisanship (or ‘post-partisanship’), his voting record tells a far different story:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. “The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter,” said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

If Hilary Clinton is elected president, the Republic will survive.  Ditto, Senator Obama. And yes, under a McCain administration, the sun also rises.  But ask yourself, my Romney-supporting friends – which of the three do you prefer?

As I’ve said before, support your candidate and place your vote where your heart and mind tell you it should be…but please be aware that, for a conservative, there are far, far worse fates than a McCain administration – and that includes what appears to be the only two realistic alternatives…

14 comments to My Attempt To Inspire The McCain-Haters

  • Bob from Ohio

    I looked up the Conservative Union ratings for senators the other day. The most conservative Dem (Ben Nelson) had a lifetime rating of 55. Most all the other Dems were under 20, many single figures. True “liberal” GOPers like Snowe and her twin were around 50.

    McCain is in the 60s for the last year, mainly because he missed many votes running for president. His lifetime rating is 82.

  • too many steves

    I’ll support the Republican nominee, even if it is McCain, because I believe in a conservative approach to governing and government, and align most closely with Republicans on the various issues of the day. McCain is imperfectly conservative, but so are all the GOP candidates. I prefer Romney, even though I differ with him on abortion and gay marriage, but he hasn’t a hope of being the nominee.

    I think your jab at Barrack Obama’s talk of bipartisanship is a non-sequitur. Being a reliable, leftist liberal (or rightist conservative) does not prevent one from attempting to govern in a bipartisan manner. Bipartisanship speaks to a style of engagement, not simply a voting record.

  • Andy

    Lessee, I vote straight ticket for conservatives, but I leave the RINOs blank or do a write in. When tallied, the GOP will see that a significant % of Conservatives like me supported the conservative/center-right candidates, while withholding support from the CINOs.

    Four scenarios in Nov 08, predicated on McVain as nominee (in the order of my preferred/hoped for outcomes):
    1) McVain wins & GOP gains at least simple majorities. The anti-CINO vote is enough to deny him a mandate, while giving the Legislative Conservatives a mandate to check McVain at every turn. After 4 years, McVain would be wore out & like Papa Bush, a 1-termer, as the Conservative gain back control.

    2) cHillary/BHO wins & GOP gains at least simple majorities. The anti-Liberal vote is enough to deny her/him a mandate, while giving the Legislative Conservatives a mandate to check her/him at every turn. After 4 years, she/he would be wore out & like Jimmah, a 1-termer.

    3) cHillary/BHO wins & DNC gains/maintains at least simple majorities. It would look pretty much as it has been since ’06, with the Dems blocked or stalled at most every turn. The stuff that does get thru would be enough to get more than a few to switch course away from socialism. After 4 years, she/he would be wore out & like Jimmah, a 1-termer.

    Bottomline, I think the odds of the DNC holding the WH for 8 years is remote.

    4) However, if the GOP caves to McVain and/or GOP doesn’t gain majorities, the Rockefellerians will have cemented their control of the GOP. We could well see McVain in for 8 years and the GOP ripped asunder by the GOP leaving the Conservatives. This scenario is even more likely should McVain receive the “mandate” support from all Republican voters. If that’s our destiny, so be it, but I’m not voting for McVain, thus complicit in the diminishment of Conservative principles.

    Ultimately, this is about leveraging the Legislators’ instincts for survival informing them as to how supportive they will be of CIC McVain. To whit, many conservative politicians have come out in support of McVain because they sense he will be the nominee and want to be in front. Even here in OK, which shocked a lot of us, as they toss up all kind of pretzel-logic to support their calculations. We aim to show them, that in sacrificing principles, they thot long, as a result, thot wrong. Once again, this will only work if McVain fails to get a clean sweep of the republican ticket, otherwise, all bets are off.

  • Here’s an idea. If you don’t like the candidate, don’t vote for them because they’re in “some party”. That’s what has gotten us into this mess. The continued march of the sheep who refuse to demand a real candidate.

    As long as you keep voting the party line you’ll end up with the sorely lacking candidates we have before us today. Each election they get worse and worse or haven’t you noticed that? It’s because we are accepting it and not saying “enough is enough!”

    And no I’m not some Ron Paul wacko or Bloomberg pusher. Something needs to change though and it’s obvious the parties don’t have the backbone or the will to end their “good thing” of enjoying power and decision making at the expense of the American people.

    Don’t pull the “R” or “D” lever, pull the “A” lever… as in American.

  • Sean P

    Andy/ Digger:

    I would like to point something out to you. Part of the reason McCain is in the driver seat right now is that even though he lost the primary in 2000 he campaigned for the winner, GW Bush, while continuing his critique of Bush’s policies. And — while you may not consider Bush to be a conservative now — he campaigned as one and received unanimous support for the conservative elites (pretty much the same folks currently backing Romney, come to think of it). Conservatives vouched for Bush, and now even the Republican Party wants a change of direction. And since Bush was backed by conservatives, he is seen as conservative, like it or not. If you want to see conservatives gain more influence in the party than you will need to do what McCain did — swallow your pride, campaign for the party standard bearer and save your sniping and arguing with him until after the election.

    Don’t get me wrong, do what you’re going to do but you are deluding yourself if you think that walking away from the party will give you more control. To the contrary, one of two things will happen — McCain will win anyway, proving yourself irrelevant, or McCain will lose, and those who promised to walk away from the party will be blamed for it. Think I’m wrong? Ask Ralph Nader how much influence he has in the left/ liberal movement these days.

  • But Nader is about to come to the rescue again! Yeesh – how big is this guy’s ego?…

  • Clint


    Dems are never going to be fooled into voting in large numbers for Nader again… not after 2000. November 2000 is still the defining world-changing event for the left (sort of like September 2001 for many of the rest of us).


    I think you vastly underestimate the awfulness of your scenario #3 — which is by far the most likely one. The odds of the GOP retaking the Senate this year is basically nil. And our odds of taking the House also aren’t great.

    So… what magical force is it that will block or stall the Democrats when they have a majority in all three houses (including the White…)? You seem to have a great deal of faith in it…

    I agree strongly with your goal — but the fight over the direction of the party has to come from the bottom up. Think Newt Gingrich, not Ralph Nader.

  • Is it possible, Andy, for you to type people’s actual names? Like “McCain” or “Hillary”? I’m just curious to see if it can actually be done.

  • young but concerned

    why is everyone so against hillary? my boyfriend and i both agree that she would make a good president, and bill clinton would make a great first lady. you people just dont like the idea of a woman in power for some reason.

  • Yes, because we don’t like Hillary (one particular person who happens to be a woman), we are misogynistic. Hmmm…logic’s airtight!…

  • Tony

    I feel that terms such as “Billary” and other such statements referring to the drama of Bill and Hillary Clinton are silly (for lack of a better term). I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton by any means however voters everywhere seem to have lost the ability to think critically and analytically. The Clintons have shown a very unified front and the last thing that the Democratic Party needs is more scandal and drama. The clintons are well aware of this and I am sure this is an issue that has been discussed in the backrooms of DC ever since the isea of the first viable female candidate.

    Perpetuating these ideas and witty terms is only making more drama.

    Also, the time for party voting is over. I can appreciate respecting a conservative or liberal approach to government, however, no two conservatives are alike. Take John McCain and Mit Romney, much of their platforms are nearly polar opposites, so why would you vote for either one just because they are on the Republican Ticket, their personal approaches to government will be totally different. Furthermore, how can we trust a single party when those parties allow different candidates to compete for that ticket. Common sense says if the party were of one mind, then people would not compete with one another using differing standpoints in regards to political issues. They would all have the same standpoints on every issue.

    The sheep comment was harsh but sound.

  • timmy

    i hate him do you really want a president that is going to die the first year

  • Sam

    This was the worst attempt ever to inspire McCain Haters. Obama All the Way!

  • Citizen

    Do you really want to see that dump lady become president when McCain drops dead?? She is dumb as a stick… Just because she can see Russia from her house, doesn’t mean she is a foreign policy expert ! In my opinion, McCain is out of touch, too old, and Palin is a joke. Obama is educated, smart, and understands current generation.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>