Sunday, February 10, 2008

A Case for John McCain

This isn't fair. Why should I be the one burdened with the task of persuading those republicans who have vowed to sit out the upcoming election rather than vote for John McCain, to instead go to the polls and punch the button for him? After all, I was hating McCain when hating McCain wasn't cool. But here I am, throwing up a little in my mouth, ready to make the case for the ass from Arizona. Life is a mean business.

(If you haven't noticed by now, my heart is not in this. So, as is already evident, I may ramble a little more than usual. Be a man and deal with it.)

The primary reason conservative republicans give for being against a McCain presidency is that they fear he will destroy the party, or at least set it back for years to come. I may not have this exactly right, but the thinking is that his liberalism will infest, divide, and ultimately steer the party so far from its basic ideals that it may never recover. Ann Coulter (who needs to put on about 30lbs) sums this line of thinking up pretty well -- "If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule."

Now, I know I don't have the mental candlepower of Ms. Coulter, but one thing I do know is that everyone sucks when it comes to predictions. A few months ago McCain was running 3rd or 4th, out of money, and confidently given up for dead by many of the same right-wing pundits who now claim to know what would be the long term ramifications of his presidency. Maybe they're right. A McCain presidency may cause the republican party to implode. Or maybe it will cause it to regroup, refocus, and become a greater force for American good than it's ever been. (Stop laughing, it's possible.)

Move on folks, there's nothing to see here.

Based on history and experience, we know what to expect from a democratic presidency -- more and higher taxes, more entitlement programs, a weaker military, liberal judges, and less individual liberty. Will a McCain presidency give us any of this? Sure, along with even a more porous southern border. But the democrats will do the same and then some. At least McCain is not hostile toward the military, and he doesn't want to take your guns. Those are not small things. And remember, a presidency is more than one person. It takes a lot of people to run the executive branch. When it comes to the vice president, cabinet, and staff, I would rather take my chances with McCain than Obama or Hillary. I guess what I'm trying to say is, when deciding if or for whom to vote, don't let the best become the enemy of the better. We can worry about repairing the party later.

I've written a lot of words and I haven't touched on much of what I intended. Oh well, your loss.

If you are a true conservative and you choose not to vote against Hillary or Obama, you will, as Humphrey Bogart said to Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca..."regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

We would regret a McCain presidency as much or more than a Hillary. McCain has fooled many over the years. His so called protection of the 2nd ammendment is truly a disguised attack. He said he was trying to "protect gun shows" by trying to close the so called "loophole". What it really amount to was the beginning of national gun registration, of which he is a big proponent. He will gladly "reach across the aisle" to give libs what they want as long as they can disguise it as a compromise to "protect" something. He will chisel away at our rights from behind our lines as opposed to be the enemy we can see (don't forget McCain-Feingold. At least if Hillary or Obama go after them, we have a chance that the Republicans in Congress will fight them. That will be less likely with a Republican president. Yes, McCain is more likely to get liberal work done while in office than either of the Democrat candidates. What's worse is when the fruits of his labor and associated troubles the liberal decisions impart on the American people come to bare, who will get blamed? A Republican (in name only). This will insure a Dem victory in 2012 that will most likely be able to be continued in 2016. So with McCain, we are looking at possible 12 years with a liberal in the White House. It may be time for the Republican part to "take its medicine" to try to get rid of the left leaning affliction we've contracted. Loading up the congress with as many conservatives as possible and letting the Dems have the White House this time, may be our best bet to minimize the damage, regroup, and get back on track to moving conservatism.

The Archduke of Arrogance said...

Wow. King selfish had me talked in to voting for Ol' Juan, now anonymous has me talked out of it again. I'm so confused! At this rate, it will be the last well thought out opinion that I read on voting day that decides it for me.

King Selfish said...

Anonymous, you and I are on the same team, we just don't agree on the game plan. I simply don't see how attempting to win by losing is a sound strategy.

jbopinionated said...

I'm the anonymous that wrote those comments. I chose the wrong options for posting. Anyway, the difference is in the question of what we are trying to win. Are we simply trying to win the 08 presidential election of the party labeled Republican, or are we trying to move conservative values forward for a better America. First let me say that I do believe that there are times it is strategically better to win one for the label, even if principles are not motivation. Conservatives sitting out in 06 are in part responsible for the mess we are in now. "Cleaning up" the party should rarely be attempted in the general election. That's what primaries are for. That said with short term outcome (IMHO) of a McCain adminstration being very similar or worse in many cases as a Dem admistration, but the long term outcome being being much worse if McCain wins (again IMHO) I have to say minimize the damage. Since there both gonna suck we may need to let the troubles caused take the face of a Democrat as far as the mainstream media spoon fed general population is concerned and start focussing on at least setting up bulwarks in the Congress.

I agree we are on the same side (and from what I see of this forum so far, I'm proud to say that). I just think our strategy needs to include a bigger picture than just the 08 presidential election.

The Vicar of Vanity said...

Thought/thinking about this a lot. There is no question McCain is a liberal and both sides of the party have good points on we should or shouldn't vote for him. Jbopionated who actually may be Ann Coulter without the sarcasm believes that we should throw this one to insure victories in the future and preserve the future of the republican party. I'll give this idea a big and I mean a giant maybe. I think this probably is reactionary fear mongering of a petulant conservative electorate that didn't get their guy in. What I am about to say is a point of contention between the king and I, but I believe presidential power is way overrated. I don't see quality of life change much between parties for the average guy. I think our congress holds much more sway. Yes the prez picks supreme court justices but they are run through such a wringer (especially conservatives) that I am not sure true ideologues can make the cut. My main point for electing McCain is the next 4 years will be critical to environmental or more specifically global warming legislation. I fully understand that McLiberal says he believes in global warming, but of all candidates remaining, he is the only one that could possibly be pressured by his own party to not rubber stamp and new environmental taxes or legislation that will hurt our economy, all people (except the rich and especially the poor) (but we the left love you we really do! Now be good little follower while I abuse you some more. So, since I don't completely buy the death of the party scenario I will vote for McCain that is unless we get an independent conservative to run. But in reality all that would do is "Ralph Nader" the party.