Why Some in the Conservative Base (Including Right Wing Nuts Like Me) Will Never Vote for McCain

"All or nothing" may be how some view it. I don't, or I never would have voted for Bush W. We're already down to a two party system in reality. I expect there to be two very distinct choices. Refusing to allow the Republican Party to become Democrat-lite seems like a worthy motive to me

I haven't decided how I'll vote, except that it will be for McCain in a Mrs. Clinton/McCain match-up, and quite possibly if not likely Obama in Obama vs McCain.

One national election isn't going to make or break the country. I also believe in the need for BOTH main political parties to be healthy. Bush and Congressional Republicans proved Republicans can grow govt. as well as the next guy. Republicans are fractured and may need an Obama win to regroup, refocus.

If Obama should win in Nov. I won't be one who's crying in my coffee.

ajs,

The only problem I have with letting them suffer the consequences of their votes, is that me and mine will have to suffer along with them . . . not liking that idea.

As I see it, it is my responsibility to make sure that the party that best represents me does not continue to move to the center/left, when the party picks center/left candidates my only choice is to refrain from voting for that person.

And I would suggest that your responsibility is to approach the election like an adult and make the best choice for the country. Oppose McCain in the primary but don't pretend that you are a thoughtful conservative if you are going promote the idea that there is no preference between a McCain and a Clinton presidency. The Republican party has never been some hard-lined right-wing party and it never will be. It will certainly never lean that way as long as right-wingers like you seek to weaken it because you have contempt for the mainstream. If you kill the party and alienate conservatives over some disagreements than you will have done nothing to help the party or your causes. The GOP is a conservative-leaning, big-tent party and that's the only way it will stay relevant and it's the only means for getting any kind of conservative agenda moving, even if it's not everything your heart desires. A good conservative is a rational conservative. There is nothing rational about abandoning a candidate because he's doesn't fit what many might describe as an extremist mold.

On another note I do not agree that I should vote for the Republican simply to keep a Democrat out of the office, if the country chooses one liberal candidate to run against one socialist candidate, then let the country suffer from the election, let them suffer higher taxes, let them suffer government health care. Maybe eventually people will understand the consequences of their votes.

No, they won't. We'll simply morph into a left-of-center, socialist country and we'll have new generations of young people raised and indoctrinated into an entitlement culture.

This is amazing. You are willing to completeley kill off the conservative movement because the candidate isn't as hard-lined as you. That's not conservativism - that's being an ideologue with no concept of reality. The reality is that we are a right-of-center nation and McCain is a right-of-center candidate who appeals to a lot of people, versus the candidate you want who appeals to a slice of fringies. I apologize for being so direct and harsh, but this is important and it's troubling. You have more or less said that your comittment is to yourself and the ideological purity (which doesn't exist) of a political party and you have no concern for the direction of the country, which is what voting for national office is supposed to be about.

I haven't decided how I'll vote, except that it will be for McCain in a Mrs. Clinton/McCain match-up, and quite possibly if not likely Obama in Obama vs McCain.

Okay, this I need an explanation on.

ajs:

Maybe eventually people will understand the consequences of their votes.

Ba da bing.

Damn. Every time I try to think about American politics it always boils down to Machiavelli or The Godfather.

No, they won't. We'll simply morph into a left-of-center, socialist country and we'll have new generations of young people raised and indoctrinated into an entitlement culture.

I have to agree. Standing up for what you believe in is one thing, but I believe this election is truly a monumental fork in the road for our country. If one of the dems gets elected, it could all be over for our values in America...for good. There may never be another chance...

Now let me preface this with saying I don't agree with McCain on many issues... in fact he's dead wrong on some... but I still agree with him more than a democrat candidate. McCain in office would just be off, but palette-able... a liberal democrat would be treacherous and dangerous.

Even if McCain doesn't serve up everything you believe in on a silver platter, he's STILL better than Billary or Obama. If one of them gets into office, I strongly believe the end of our country as we know it (or at all) is near. It would start with stripping firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens... which as history shows us and we all know is a precursor to oppression and tyranny. Then comes the push to become a socialist nanny state... government healthcare.... then strict government control of (re)education... how about wealth re-distribution?

Too scary for me to risk not voting for a republican just to make a point.

It would start with stripping firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens... which as history shows us and we all know is a precursor to oppression and tyranny.

Much as I would prefer that, it won't happen. The attempt would start a real civil war in this country, and both parties know it. The sad truth is, one party or the other will win and we'll have four more years of still more sliding into socialism, but sliding slowly enough that the frog doesn't hop out of the pot.

ROTFLMAO

but sliding slowly enough that the frog doesn't hop out of the pot.

Exactly. Feed us just enough BS to pacify the people while making backdoor deals and pushing the socialist agenda down our throughts... but gently so we don't choke at first.

I can't vote for a nominee? that I dislike, I don't want to cooperate to lift his ego w/our humble vote.

Kai has explained my own thoughts.

I agree with you 100%. If McCain becomes the Republican nominee I'm not sure what I'll do in the general election. How do you choose between two Democrats?

You choose the lesser of the two evils.

You choose the lesser of the two evils.

I've been doing this for so many years now that it really is getting old. I'm wondering if we will ever see another ideological conservative win the Republican nomination ever again. The Democrats and the media have successfully demonized conservatives where the weaker voters won't even openly declare they're conservative or vote Republican. I live in Chicago and being conservative and/or Republican makes you a pariah.

I can only guess myself. I think Republicans have lost their way. Blaming Democrats only gets one so far, or no where. We're hearing Democrats stand up loudly for their political beliefs, and I'm scratching MY head over the weak field "we've" had. I've got ideas on why. But Republicans need to offer a compelling alternative.

I believe one problem has been Republican refusal to defend Pres. Bush on our efforts in Iraq. For years Democrats have beaten Bush about the head on Iraq, with nary a peep from Congressional Republicans. But-Admitting, then addressing mistakes in Iraq seemed slow in coming. Voters are weary of the endeavor-its cost in human life and billions spent. How ever we got "here", here we are.

Kevin, If you don't choose, others will choose for you. The world will continue to turn regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I'll choose a candidate, I'm just not sure which one will be the more conservative choice.

I believe one problem has been Republican refusal to defend Pres. Bush on our efforts in Iraq. For years Democrats have beaten Bush about the head on Iraq, with nary a peep from Congressional Republicans.

How's that again? There was some wavering amongst the Susan Collins types back in the summer of '06 but if it weren't for the Republicans in the Senate led by McCain, Lindsay Graham and some others the Democrats would have long ago declared defeat and left.

Can anyone here show where a conservative has won a primary or general presidential election based on conservative support and no other support?

Kevin - if you don't know which would be the more conservative choice between Hillary and McCain then you need to seriously turn off your am-radio. This demogouery is getting old.

OttO,

Here is the problem. McCain moves to the right when he runs for President and then moves back to the left when it's all over. How else do you explain the Amnesty Bill, opposing the Bush tax cuts, and, my personal favorite, McCain-Feingold?

At least Hillary is unabashedly a leftist. There is no doubt about where she stands or what she will do.

I don't like Romney much either but he seems like a much better choice than McCain. I'm hoping on Tuesday McCain gets squeezed out.

Kevin - yes, McCain is trying to move right for the primaries but he will skipping happily back to the left embracing independent voters big time come November should he win the nomination.

embracing independent voters. . .

Uh, Lisa, that's where elections are won in this country. Remember that Reagan built his winning coalitions with a lot of former Democrats.

Bill - yes, that's how elections are won so long as you don't thumb your nose at the base in the process.

I expect he'll throw a few bones to you mossbacks but he'd be making a serious mistake by throwing in with the old Wall St. GOP wing of the DeLays, Hasterts & Co. who epitomize the toll of corruption that six years of absolute power had on the GOP.

I don't have the philosophy that WINNING is the purpose of moi being a conservative and I agree with Presidents that try to reach the Dems in what are vital for our country but I still remember how McCain was a big obstruction w/his Feingold/McCain bill that he wanted GWB to sign like a law Yesterday.

If Surge is working is because our President gave the necessary orders, now McCain want to take all the credit from our Generals and men and women wearing the uniform. He undermined more than being helpful. He made public his personal war with Rumsfeld instead of calling the Generals and Rumsfeld in private and make his concer. He does help he instigates, is his style..

Yeah, calling him liberal is a little at odds with reality as well, unless you're further to the right than Bush. I seeded this link about McCain awhile ago, which does quite well at explaining his right-wing credentials.

It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism [McCain's positions], rather than basic humanity.

I think-no way would McCain choose Romney. Out of the Republican candidates, I'd guess Giulani. But who's to say McCain wouldn't throw a curve ball, selecting a lesser known African-American or woman as running mate?

I concluded almost a year ago that the Republicans would be running a Black or woman as veep. But it won't help if it's seen as window dressing.

I would be more enthusiastic toward McCain if he convinced Rice to run with him.

Me to Juno. Condi Rice is far more accomplished than most who run for the presidency. And IF a first woman or African-American as president is historical, so is the first African-American Woman Veep.

I've read that while she's solid on America's need to defend itself, she may lean more moderately or liberally on social/domestic policies. That sounds like McCain.

I would be more enthusiastic toward McCain if he convinced Rice to run with him.

Yes, he needs a worthless, lying black woman on his ticket :-0

Can you spell "WINDOWDRESSING"??

I haven't heard that she is like McCain.

I do know that over the years I've listened to her and have loved her strength and intelligence.

Her place in DC is one thing Pres. Bush got right.

Yes, he needs a worthless, lying black woman on his ticket :-0

You must be one of those color blind enlightened liberals, correct?

This statement is offensive to any thinking person. If it was an attempt at humor you really need to have your funny bone removed.

McCain's running mate might very well have been standing on the stage with him last night -- Charlie Crist. He won't pick Romney. And Joe Lieberman has said he won't run with him although the two are good friends.

I stand by my statement, the woman has proven she has no worth, and has proven herself to be a liar. She was chosen for the job for just one reason, she is a black woman. She pales in comparison to Colin Powell, he was a man of integrity, and he left because he refused to lie and make excuses for Bush any longer.

Her addition to a GOP ticket would be nothing more then 'sucking up' trying to scrape some black or female votes that they would otherwise never have a chance at.

What about my statement is offensive?

What about my statement is offensive?

For what reason, other than to race bait, would you bring up Condi's skin color? There are very few conservatives that don't respect Condi and this respect has absolutely nothing to do with color.

It's always the Dems and the Libs that inject race and color into an issue. You know why? Because they can't debate the issue itself.

Kevin - how I wish Condi was running.....a black woman - now THAT would make the dems heads explode.

Are you for real??? Respect (or lack of it) has nothing to do with race or religion.

Rice was brought up by bluecollarbytes, not I, he said ''a first woman or African-American as president is historical. So much for me race baiting.

The issue is I have no respect for the woman, I don't care if she is green. She is nothing more then Bush trying to prove that Republicans are acceptable to blacks. (LOL)

Lisaed was the one who made the real racial statement (see just above).

What is up with the PC policing? Eviefalcon's comment was in response to:

I concluded almost a year ago that the Republicans would be running a Black or woman as veep. But it won't help if it's seen as window dressing.

She added worthless and lying, which definitely describe Rice. She did not introduce race or gender into the discussion as they were already there.

Brian,

In my reading of the two passages, the first is racial in nature and the second is racist in nature. The tone is way different.

If I'm reading too much into it then I apologize. It's difficult to ascertain intent sometimes when evaluating text.

Huckabee has been such a faithful lapdog that if it isn't Huckabee, we may get to see him cry. *rubbing hands together and laughing... hwahahaha*

(That's my dark side coming out...)

I'm sorry you don't appreciate an honest comment. My opinion of Rice is below that of her boss, and I made that perfectly clear.

IMHO, she was appointed to the job for 2 reasons, the color of the skin and what is (or isn't) between her legs.

No racist remark, no sexist remark, just my 2 cents.

Interesting you consider yourself the adult, based upon some of your opinions I don't get that opinion of you....

the color of the skin

A great American regardless and even her color is real deep.

and what is (or isn't) between her legs

Disgusting remark.

Holy crap ajs.

Sorry 'bout this.

its pretty clear to me that human prosperity leads to a cleaner environment.

Then why assume that McCain is making Global Warming a priority over prosperity? I'm not a McCain fan either, it just seems odd to object to putting a little emphasis on environmental concerns.

National polling of McCain versus Evita or the Illinois Waterwalker. Based on this he's the only Republican with a chance.

I will tell you right now that ideologically, I am to the left of center, as are most of my friends. At New Year's, we began talking about the election and we all agreed (about 15 of us) that in a Clinton v. McCain scenerio, we'd pick McCain. In my circle, he's the only one who can beat Clinton. I'm sure many out there think it's because McCain is "liberal." It's not. It's about trust. After 8 years of Pres. G.W. Bush, we want someone who will be honest with us, something we don't trust Clinton to do. McCain clinched my support when he told Michigan voters that some of the jobs won't be coming back. He's right, they won't. To steal a phrase, it's an inconvenient truth, but it doesn't make it any less true. I respect him for that.

After 8 years of Pres. G.W. Bush, we want someone who will be honest with us,

Then sorry ----but Senator McCain ain't your guy if honesty is what you're looking for.

It's in reference to a Clinton v. McCain general election only. Between the two, I still hold my ground that McCain is more trustworthy.

It's in reference to a Clinton v. McCain general election only. Between the two, I still hold my ground that McCain is more trustworthy.

That's about the only reason I would find myself voting for McCain . . . so as not to vote for Clinton.

As the day progresses, I am more inclined to vote for Romney on Tuesday.

I suppose our real hope is going to be in changing the balance of Congress.

And, funny thing, McCain winning is just about the only way AZ could get rid of him.

Oh, and thanks for the link Bill H.

Juno:

Not this cycle. The next mid-terms is your next opportunity, and even that is a slim possibility. 2012 is really your next reasonable chance to take back Congress.

Be that as it may, there is much to learn and efforts to make . . .

I find that in politics, one must be patient.

Juno:

Very good attitude.

Bill

Based on this he's the only Republican with a chance.

Sure Mac is the only Republican with a chance to give me a full time migraine because he is not a leader.

He replied that he will hire Managers, silly, unless he goes to the Department Stores where the Managers are able to leave in a 1,2,3.

That's my dilemma exactly.

When it comes to lose-lose, I suppose we have to consider the degree of loss.

I thought that the Dems were going to walk to the Presidency without the help of crutches, now there is a light at the end of the tunnel that we have an intelligent and successful Governor that could bring us a hope and seems that we have to settle for the left over of a politician and US Senator.

He might have a better chance if he wasnt acting like a spoiled, petulant brat with McCain like they are fighting over who gets the top bunk at summer camp. They was so much time bickering over inanities rather than dealing with issues.

The moderators and panel on CNN were instigating with their questions. Not even the last night with Evita and Petronio was like that. CNN asked questions from the public but in the Republicans was a little different. Plus or Minus

For example:

-Senator McCain, Governor Romney said this or that about you.

-Governor Romney, Senator McCain is saying that the WH doesn't need a Manager, he can hire those.

. . .while more Vets go without health care than have ever before

You may want to check with our own Rob Ballew on that one. I think he has a differing view.

Nah. I've found its easy to make declarative statements without any factual evidence to back it up and enough of the population will believe you. That way I can put forth my agenda without any actual effort.

Now where did I learn that from?

MacCain is like the plastic charge cards, he bends.

According to a SurveyUSA poll from earlier this month, McCain is the only Republican candidate who can win in Ohio. And as we've seen, Ohio tends to play a pretty major role in who gets elected.

Thanks.

Probably Obama will win with my help not voting for McCain,

I vote for what I believe and not for the "at any cost" like the tittle of Bill Sammons about Al Gore.

Senator Dole is a war veteran, wounded and the voters rather Clinton I than him.

Our Congress needs a shake up and be more accountable to us.

I am sick and tired of Balance the Budget! but Clinton, et al, load the bills to be reelected.

With an outsider that President could talk to us and show how defficient the US Senators are. I rather to get rid of one US Senator than to appoint a President that I don't trust.

Please, convince me before I have some more TTTs listening and watching Mac.

Post why Romney will be the nominee to put of ray of hope in my day today.

CNN instigated the candidates the last night with their questions. Now I believe that the fight of Hill and Obama was instigated also.

We are not building nuclear power plants all over the country because people fear they would meltdown, which is unlikely, but it could happen - and the issue of waste disposal has yet to be resolved completely. That said, it is certainly a viable solution. Unfortunately, it does nothing for the transportation industry.

That said, from what I hear - solar power is now cheaper than coal. So there is no reason at all that we should not begin using solar-based power plants instead of coal. Also, there are studies that state that if we eat 20% less meat - it would be the equivalent of everyone driving hybrid cars, as far as carbon emissions. We certainly won't require veganism, but ending the idiotic farm subsidies should adequately decrease American meat consumption.

I periodically lose all my edits. No idea why. Anyway, many changes warranted in the above quick post, but I cannot make them other than redoing them. I just cannot. It is too late.

In fact, if Micheal Bloomberg gets in, I may end up voting for a third party candidate for the first time in my life.

I take this as a sign of the terminal confusion that is befuddling so many of the GOP mossbacks. Bloomberg has been a real liberal his entire life and a Democrat to boot as opposed to McCain's occasional lapses from the type of GOP orthodoxy that's trying to be imposed by you and some of the others in the party.

At least Bloomberg is honest about his liberalism, unlike McCain. And being a mayor, he actually has executive experience. Believe me, I still don't know how I will vote if McCain is nominated, but Bloomberg seems better than Hillary or McCain. The lesser of three evils.

Since when has a mayor had enough "executive experience" to become the leader of the free world? Even the Mayor of Nine-Eleven couldn't make a go of it, so what makes you think an honest workaday mayor like Bloomberg would have a chance? Seeing that the garbage gets picked up is swell, but it is not the same as averting nuclear war in Pakistan or solving the nation's health insurance crisis.

But it's certainly more experience than anyone who has only been on the legislative side of things would dream of having.

Since when has a mayor had enough "executive experience" to become the leader of the free world?

Since when has the governor of a small state had enough executive experience to do it?

Arkansas - Population 2.6 million, Economy $87 billion
New York City - Population 8 million, Economy $952 billion

Names of governors who have acceded to the presidency within a decade of holding gubernatorial office: James Monroe [Virginia], Martin Van Buren [New York], James K. Polk [Tennessee], Andrew Johnson [Tennessee], Rutherford B. Hayes [Ohio], Grover Cleveland [New York], William McKinley [Ohio], Theodore Roosevelt [New York], Woodrow Wilson [New Jersey], Calvin Coolidge [Massachusetts], Franklin D. Roosevelt [New York], Jimmy Carter [Georgia], Ronald Reagan [California], Bill Clinton [Arkansas], George W. Bush [Texas]. [Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia 20 years before becoming president in 1801. John Tyler was governor of Virginia 20 years before becoming president upon the death of William Henry Harrison, who himself had been military governor of Indiana Territory 40 years before becoming president.]

Names of mayors who have done the same: Grover Cleveland [Buffalo, N.Y.] (after having been elected governor of New York in the interim.) {Andrew Johnson served as mayor of Greenville, Tenn., 20 years before acceding to the presidency upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and also was a governor in the interim.}

Of the 43 men who have held the presidency, 18 (42 percent) have served as governor of a state. None (0 percent) have ever made the leap from a mayoral office to the Oval Office in one go.

And now probably we are going to get stuck with one arrogant US Senator in either party.

deter -

And, I would add, two senators with volatile tempers and willingness to do ANYTHING to win!

I think that maybe Obama will pick Oprah for V.P. Harmless to him for 4 years, OJT, with Evita he had to be careful and looking always over his shoulder.

The D - Great research! How many senators? (Sorry if I missed this above.)

the cynic smile

Deter - I saw this same smile on McCain's face most of the night last night....and wanted very badly to slap it off him silly.

I am started to think that Mac thinks that he can fool us like when the candidates were not 100% scrutinized like now.

There will not be a separation of power between the Presidency and the Congress w/Pinochio #44.

Yes, Pinochio is the nickname now for McCain.

There will not be a separation of power between the Presidency and the Congress w/Pinochio #44.

Deter - this is a very important point that republicans have got to understand before they give the nod to Pinocchio.

With a Pinochio 44 the Congress will be safe to manipulate him and this is unacceptable.

You need to be in an ER to read that no one is turned away. You and I pay for those services to the poor and indigent. This is why people with a cold goes to the ER, services are free.

determined0a1

Yes, but...Romney said he'd change that. Didn't you listen to the debate?

====

Of course that the system has to change.

We all pay. If there is money for beer it should be money for paying for insurances, car and health.

Do I have to list in what money can be saved every month.

I had been there and sacrifice a lot, even I had to learn English and cook.

Well, Pick-a-boo and Paul shouldn't be in that debate but I have to recognize that Paul behaved very nice the last night and not TTT. Is Edwards tonight in few minutes on CNN? No.

This is about who got more votes and the 5-6% of difference of Romney w/McCain wasn't a great deal if registered Independents were allowed to vote in the Primary.

Edwards dropped out. Paul did not.

Get your information or you will make ignorant statements.

I know very well. about this:

1 McCain

2 Romney

3 Giuliani

4 Huckabee

5 Ron Paul

Giuliani also dropped out. Do you even read the news?

You are missing the point.

#4 and #5 did not meet even the 50% of votes of #2.

Giuliano dropped because he did not have the money and not a hope for the Super Tuesday.

It doesn't matter how many votes they have until it is impossible for them to win the nomination. Referees don't call a basketball game after the first quarter because one team has 15 points and another has 40 point. You play until the end of the game or someone forfeits.

Paul is still in the game, so it is his right to be at these debates.

Are Huckabee and Paul diluting for McCain that's easier to swallow his message just because Mitt Romney has money?

Both candidates #4 & #5 did not bring nothing new to the table, only a couple of good jokes.

Let's put it this way: ABM

No US Senators or Rep. in the White House.

I agree reaching the osota but not being in bed w/them. Pinochio is.

Although I'm generally in favor of accepting Wikipedia as a reference in an informal discussion like this board. This would be one of the areas where I wouldn't use it. The current version (found here) does list McCain as a RINO. If it makes you feel better it still lists Romney as well.

Feel free to revert it if it makes you happy.

Why the list of RINO doesn't go farther than 8?

The voters sent #1 Chafee to the benches. More to go