is McCain the Lessor of Two Evils?

[tbpew]

since when it comes to political thinking I normally wait to hear what FERD has to say and then work from there......

McCain or Hillary is almost an indistinguishable selection.
For me, it tips toward Johnny because a Clinton dynasty would have more pardons of criminal cohorts and pandering to the Chinese

So yes, In a straight two-party, one system game.....McCain is that lesser evil.

but what FERD's last post proves to me is that if the nation is going to have any balance in place, we should stop focusing on the presidency and place our attention in the Senate.

RIP Vince.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Scoring 82.5% on the Conservative side - No he is not the lesser of two evils.

but in light of the Rush/Dobson issue....my point is it's best to vote for him even if he is not perfectly what the Cons want

[Praxeas]

But consider what will a Democratic President mean with a Strong Democratic presense, even a majority in congress and senate?...

To NOTE vote at all or to vote for a third party is to NOT vote for that counter balance.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

is McCain the Lessor of Two Evils?

Alex, I'll take "YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!" for $1,000

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by scotty

I don't know Ferd, I don't think McCain is that influential. You he know could actually excite the conservative base in the other direction. It may take him to make the base wake up.

As president, he will control the party and the platform. He will get challenged in four years from the right, but if the economy is good and the war in Iraq looks like a winner, he will get four more years.

Scotty, who ever the president is, they have absolute control of the party and thus control of the money and that is all he needs.

[scotty]

I know that is the way it is supposed to work, but you know Bush hasn't gotten his way with the party in the past 2 or 3 years. I don't know, everything is really fluid right now. It may be getting ready to sway back the other way. You know everything the Repub. are for today used to be the Dem. base. JFK was more conservative than most Republicans. Don't know what happen to Teddy boy.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by tbpew

since when it comes to political thinking I normally wait to hear what FERD has to say and then work from there......

McCain or Hillary is almost an indistinguishable selection.
For me, it tips toward Johnny because a Clinton dynasty would have more pardons of criminal cohorts and pandering to the Chinese

So yes, In a straight two-party, one system game.....McCain is that lesser evil.

but what FERD's last post proves to me is that if the nation is going to have any balance in place, we should stop focusing on the presidency and place our attention in the Senate.

RIP Vince.

my friend, the tea leaves are saying that no matter who wins the whitehouse, the dems will pick up between 25 and 75 seats in the house and up to 10 seats in the senate.

IF McCain wins the whitehouse, the Dems might have a filibuster proof Demorat congress.

the only help for conservitives is if the Dems fall flat on their face.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by scotty

I know that is the way it is supposed to work, but you know Bush hasn't gotten his way with the party in the past 2 or 3 years. I don't know, everything is really fluid right now. It may be getting ready to sway back the other way. You know everything the Repub. are for today used to be the Dem. base. JFK was more conservative than most Republicans. Don't know what happen to Teddy boy.

One can hope.

based on the numbers tonight, McCain is getting a lesson in humility in VA.

I will vote for Huck if he is still in it when they get to Texas.

I have not decided what to do in the General election.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Prax, the short term answer is a half conservitive is better than a full liberal.

the long term answer is a little more complicated.

The fact remains, John McCain has no loyalty to those of us in the conservative movement who are concerned with the supreme court. He doesnt necessarly like liberals but he has not been exactly happy to see conservitives nominated either.

what does that mean? it means, he doesnt care and therefore, is just as likely to appoint someone like John Paul Stevens (Richard Nixon appointee) as he is an Anthony Kennedy.

He does seem to be clear on one thing. He doesnt like guys like Scalia and Alito.

this is very bad.

I agree.

In fact for conservitives who care about the court, this is actully exactly the same as Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama being elected.

I disagree. It's almost as bad, but not as bad.

Jump forward. Will McCain hold the line on spending ? Likely that has been his passion in congress.

will he do other things republicans will like? sure. he will even try to win the war on terror.

BUT what does he do to the Republican party? it is all together possible that McCains VP would win the whitehouse when he retires. if he lives and serves 8 years, then the VP gets elected, we are talking about McCain impacting the face of the republican party until 2020 or 2024.

He will effectivly end the conservitive movement.

You are incorrect. Such a scenario will not END the conservative movement. It will force the conservative movement to find a new home. Or build one. It will yank one of the three legs out from under the "three-legged-stool" that is the conservative coalition. This could put the Republicans in permanent minority status, however, I believe such a third party would appeal to blue dog democrats and Southern Christian democrats.

We've actually got a less diverse representation of beliefs in the Republican party than in the democrat party - the democrats are better at controlling their factions. The democratic convention may see the beginning of this awkward conglomeration of strange bedfellows unravel if the fur begins to fly when there is no clear winner of the nomination.

A defeated McCain will leave us with 2 appointments to the Supreme court in the relm of Stevens and Ginsburg. which is not much different than what we get with McCain.

It will also leave us with an oppurtunity to reform the Republican party as the Conservitive party in American politics.

I'm not sure such an opportunity truly exists. The evidence suggests that the Republicans have an elite ruling class just as the Democrats do, and they use us "evangelicals" just like the Dems use minority groups, "victim" classes, and labor unions. The promises are made, the votes are gathered up, and not much of substance is delivered in the ensuing terms of office.

the trade off? Iraq and Americas men in uniform will suffer the indignaty of a commander in chief who holds them in contempt.....

I remain conflicted.

No question it's a toughie. Obama might have what it takes to grow into his shoes, so to speak. Hillary is as tough and unchanging as an anvil. Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's famous speech writer, asks and answers the rhetorical question does Hillary have what it takes to lose gracefully. We all already know she does not. She will wade through hip-deep mud to gouge eyes, bite, and pull hair before she turns loose of this nomination. It is literally the Clinton's last hurrah for power.

I can't find it now but there is a chilling comparison between an Adolf Hitler quote circa 1931 and a Hillary Clinton quote from 1993. The Hillary quote is here

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by scotty

I know that is the way it is supposed to work, but you know Bush hasn't gotten his way with the party in the past 2 or 3 years.

I'm not so sure about that. The party is just more fractured because the prez has demonstrated he's a big-gov't republican and that turns off conservatives. Plus there is a faction of face-time republicans that become nervous nellies when the press runs us through the wringer. Bush has had an uphill battle the last 2 or 3 years because the republicans lost legislative majority. NOT that they were doing anything conservative with it when they had it . . .

I don't know, everything is really fluid right now. It may be getting ready to sway back the other way. You know everything the Repub. are for today used to be the Dem. base.

That isn't so. The dem base has never been for big business.

JFK was more conservative than most Republicans.

The entire country was more conservative than it is now in 1959.

Don't know what happen to Teddy boy.

He got water on the brain when he was baptized in the Chappaquiddick river. It's a medical condition that requires constant effort to keep the bloodstream sterile, and Senator Kennedy has done an admirable job in the face of adversity keeping his blood alcohol content up to the recommended dosages for his delicate condition.