Pajamas Media

Republicans Can’t Afford to Be Party Poopers in 2008

You don't always get everything you want, Burt Prelutsky reminds the GOP. But isn't getting some of what you want better than sitting home on election day and getting nothing?

February 2, 2008 - by Burt Prelutsky

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

If he had thrown his hat in the ring, my first choice for president would have been Newt Gingrich, probably the smartest guy in politics. I still hope that whoever gets elected this November will make Gingrich his secretary of state.

But we don’t live in a perfect world so, several months ago, I came out in favor of Rudy Giuliani. My main reason for doing so was that I trusted him to deal in a serious way with our Islamic enemies. Unlike, say, George Bush, who couldn’t say enough nice things about Muhammad’s religion, Rudy didn’t seem to think he had to pussyfoot around the subject for fear of being politically incorrect. In other words, Giuliani made it clear that he was running to become president of the United States, and not the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan. Perhaps he made it too clear.

I would have voted for him if he hadn’t bowed out, but that doesn’t mean that if Romney, Huckabee, or even McCain gets the nomination, I plan to stay home and sulk on election day.

I happen to think that people who support Clinton or Obama have a screw loose, but they strike me as being far more rational than my fellow Republicans who are threatening to boycott the election if their favorite candidate doesn’t head up the ticket. I can’t tell you how many people have written to me insisting that they’re sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I understand that they’re trying to convey their frustration, but I can’t help sniffing the undeniable stench of self-righteousness.

It’s as if they’re unaware that politicians are human beings, and not God. They’re people just like the rest of us, I point out, comprised in part by ambition, greed, arrogance, and vanity, not to mention, on occasion, integrity, courage, and even altruism. Let’s face the facts, ladies and gentlemen — even those politicians we agree with also want to ride in well-guarded limousines and fly on Air Force One, have everybody stand up when they enter a room, be able to give tongue-lashings to senators and congressmen, have “Hail to the Chief” as their theme song, and never ever have to “press one” for English.

If there’s a single thread that runs through the emails I receive from peevish Republicans, it’s that none of the current candidates possesses the conservative purity of Ronald Reagan. One could almost get the idea that Dutch was betrayed by Pontius Pilate and crucified on Calvary. But that wasn’t exactly the case. The fact of the matter is that Governor Reagan gave Governor Jerry Brown a run for his money — or should I say our money? — when it came to raising taxes here in California. But, in spite of the additional revenue, he was responsible in large part for the streets of our cities being turned into public latrines by the unwashed, the unwanted, and the insane when, to save a few bucks, he oversaw the closing of California’s mental hospitals. He also signed the nation’s most liberal abortion bill. Although he had a change of heart a scant six months later, one never hears him condemned for flip-flopping on the issue.

And, lest we forget, as president, he opened the floodgates to illegal aliens by signing an amnesty bill in the mid-80s. Frankly, as admirable as he was in so many ways, I suspect that if he were seeking the GOP nomination this year, he’d be dismissed as a RINO by many of the party’s zealots.

None of this is intended to tarnish the man’s image, but simply to point out that the common perception of his conservative purity sometimes owed more to his charm and his ability as an actor to read a script and deliver a funny line, than to his politics.

What truly confounds me are those cuckoos who would prefer to see such Democrats as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican who was only their second or third or even fourth choice. To them I say, before proving that you place your own ego gratification above what’s best for America, keep in mind that most of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s or even, in the case of John Paul Stevens, fast approaching 90. Do you really want one of those two Democrats stacking the Court for the foreseeable future? Presidents come and go, but justices go on seemingly forever. Kennedy and Scalia have been on the bench since Reagan put them there. Stevens, for heaven’s sake, was appointed during the Ice Age.

These are the nine men and women who have the final word on everything from abortion to eminent domain, and you’re going to let some left-winger make the call because you don’t like Mitt Romney as much as you do John McCain, or Mike Huckabee as much as Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, or Duncan Hunter? If so, you really ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The way I see it, before writing off any of the Republican frontrunners, you owe it to your country to just suit up, play your heart out, and win this one for the Gipper.

Television writer Burt Prelutsky is the author of Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (101 Reasons Why I’m Happy I Left the Left).

76 Comments

progressoverpeace:

You don’t seem to think that McCain would push his amnesty down our throats the minute he got into office. I do. I also think that such an amnesty would destroy this country, most probably by secession votes from various states in the next decade or two. The fact that we cannot enforce our laws to throw out people who don’t belong here - just because there are “too many” of them - would imply to the normal person that no one will be fighting to preserve the union this time.

Many people poo-poo this possibility, as if it could never possibly happen here. I would remind them that Quebec has been trying to secede from Canada for a long time, Utah has always had some interest, and the people who marched with signs saying, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us,” certainly would be likely candidates for secession votes. Amnesty will destroy this nation.

If McCain gets in, the amnesty will be a foregone conclusion, but if it’s a dem, the chances are much less likely that an amnesty will pass, since the dem idea would be far too radical and would repulse everybody.

For this, and this alone, I would never vote for McCain. But it isn’t amnesty, alone. McCain has all other sorts of problems, too.

I’m very perplexed by this attitude that some have that we must try to win every single election. That is not a rule to live by. It is true that one usually wants to win, but not in all cases. This is certainly one such case.

P.S. The dems are going to implode over illegals, also, when they figure out that their nominee (whichever one) is in favor of more than what Spitzer almost got tossed out trying to do.

Both of these parties are now seriously misaligned and in need correction and reassociations.

I would also note that I am just flabbergasted that anyone would be surprised by this reaction to McCain. It was obvious that this was going to happen when we had the shamnesty debate last summer. Anyone who acts “surprised” is either disengenuous, lacking memory skills, or was on Mars during the Senate debate. That was the time that many of us made it very clear that we would never vote for McCain. People can look it up all over the blog archives.

Feb 2, 2008 - 3:26 am JB:

And if voting for John McCain is getting less than nothing. What kind of republican is he? Wanted to be John Kerry’s running mate in 2004!!

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:06 am Bob:

Burt: Sorry, but I don’t think you’ve convinced anyone. McCain was/is wrong on immigration, wrong on global warming, wrong on tax cuts “for the rich,” wrong on standing up to the Dems on judicial nominations, wrong on campaign finance, etc. Your defense, that Reagan wasn’t perfect, either, just doesn’t cut it. Johnny Mac has managed to get the inside track on the nomination by alienating most of the Republican base. As Mark Steyn says of the now-probable Hillary-McCain match up, “It’s a shame they both can’t lose.”

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:49 am DSmith:

Self-righteous? You might try looking in a mirror.

The point is not waiting for a “perfect” candidate, and you know it. We voted for George Bush, didn’t we? The point is John McCain, specifically. So far as I am concerned, the man is not a Republican. He has spent his entire career spitting on Republicans and the Republican Party, and he does it with considerable glee. I’m not going to reward that by making him head of the party. It appears, however, that many registered Republicans don’t agree with me. That’s fine, they can vote for him, that’s how democracy works. But accord those who can’t stand him the same right to our conscience.

Do I think Hillary Clinton would actually make a better President? I think she would be equally bad (in different ways) but the difference is she would be less effective because the Republican minority would try and thwart her. Whereas with McCain the Republican Congress will roll over for him out of “party loyalty” (suckers!). Based on McCain’s prior record the Democrats will mostly love what he’s doing so he should be quite successful in getting his way.

I’m trying to choose what I think will be best for my country, long-term. The same as you. I don’t appreciate being sneered at or berated just because I reach a different conclusion than you. Many of you who are trying to convince us non-McCain-supporters are, quite frankly, driving people away with your rhetoric.

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:50 am RE:

Burt,

You should be all over the party ‘leadership’ for its abject failure - not the voters they have alienated.

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:11 am Jeff:

“You’re going to let some left-winger make the call because you don’t like Mitt Romney as much as you do John McCain, or Mike Huckabee as much as Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, or Duncan Hunter?”

Let’s remember that Ron Paul hasn’t dropped out yet, folks…

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:33 am OmegaPaladin:

Does the fact that we are at war not even cross people’s minds? Even Huckster could potentially be pressured toward a reasonable decision. Romney is solid on the war, if not exceptional; McCain is 100% behind our troops, if an abrasive jerk. The only thing the democrats are offering is some hope of avoiding a complete disaster while running away.

I am voting for victory this November, not a specific candidate. I’d also imagine we might get a few conservative agenda items under McCain, compared to none under Clintopia.

Feb 2, 2008 - 6:00 am Mr Ed:

I understand. The conservative Republicans who stand on principal are “peevish” and therefore “self righteous”, mostly because of their unwillingness to understand and accept the bigger picture, that politics is a game of compromise abbeted by the foibles of human nature such as greed, narcissism and simple vanity. Now I get it.

Lets be reasonable.

I have no allegience to the Republican party because they have no allegience to me. I tired of being played in the months before an election, which is the only time the Republicans (Most of them anyway) get a spine, or at least pretend to get one. The pretense is only long enough to get themselves elected then it is business as usual, dividing up the pork and dismissing the people who elected them as rubes and hicks that “just don’t get it”. I say screw them, and that includes the foremost non conservative conservative, John McCain.

I won’t go over his list of betrayals and perfidies to conservative principals again as that has been done as naseum, but I will not vote for John McCain no matter what the pundits who urge us to “be reasonable” say. You can whinge and whine and attempt to equivocate to your hearts content, I WILL NEVER vote for another non conservative conservative whether you try and package him as a “compassionate conservative”, “maverick” or some other intentionally deceptive label.

I am also totally disgusted with the RINOs who believe their job is to kow tow to the liberal press. They are desperate to remain in control just like any other con man, spewing their conservative platitudes all the while stabbing me in the back with “comprehensive immigration reform”, McCain-Feingold and other simillary noxious and utterly unacceptable types of legislation. I expect the libs to call me names and hyperventilate about their own innate wonderfulness, but to have representatives of my (previous) political party call me names like “nativist” and “racist” because I expect them to represent U.S. citizens and uphold the laws of this country first is a betrayal that will haunt them for the rest of their political lives, no matter how much the media attempts to ignore and manicure those things out of the public debate. I think it is most telling that during the immigration fiasco it was the “reasonable” Republicans that adopted the language and tactics of the Left. I will not forget.

The simple truth is, the Republicans have done this to themselves. They broke faith with the people who put them in power and they cycinically calculate that the distaste and fear of the other party (And Hillary in particular, for good reason) will keep getting them elected. Then it’s back to business as usual. As a group the Republicans have no core beliefs any more. The pundits, elected politicians and everyone in between who make their living from their association with the political process are all willing to compromise whatever they need to to accumulate and retain as much power as possible, because in Washington power equals money and sucess. I say good riddance. Time to start over from scratch if that’s what it will take.

Compromise is both sides giving up something to reach an agreement. Republicans in general do not compromise, they capitulate. There is a difference, and it is neither reasonable nor enlightened. I, for one, will not capitulate any more, no matter how you try and package it.

Feb 2, 2008 - 6:08 am kg2v:

I live in NY - going to the polls to vote for McCain is useless - The state is going blue whichever way I vote

If McCain is the candidate, I’ll go to the poll, and write in Thompson, that way I send some message, and I don’t hurt anyone - my vote for any Republican will not count

Feb 2, 2008 - 6:27 am RDS:

Burt: As a conservative I will not be voting for Senator John McCain. For conservatives to simply vote Republican because there is no alternative, simply reinforces and propagates weak and ineffective leadership. It may very well take four years of liberal Democratic rule to awaken the voters. In the mean time, conservatives, such as my self, will be in search of leadership and a party.

Feb 2, 2008 - 6:55 am Henry Martin:

I have said, I would have held my nose and voted for Rudy. I would back Huck.

But John McCain is NOT A REPUBLICAN! It is not because of any individual position, but because he so readily and gleefully sides with liberal democrats and insults any republican that dares
to contradict him. It is because he is so ready to abandon the party. Had Jeffords not been so easy to buy, do you think that Tom Daschle would not have been able to meet McCain’s proce in 2002? The reason he is still a republican is that in 2002 his asking price was steeper that Jeffords, and because Kerry did not offer him th VP in 2004.
How can anyone who is a staunch republican support this traitor wannabe? And how can any true conservative support this affront to the First and Second amendments, and a guy who places no value on American citizenship?
John McCain has one issue “I was a POW, feel sorry for me” I am surprised anyone in the military can vote for him. Bob Dole never flaunted his military experience, or crippling injury in order to get sympathy!

Regarding the war. This isn’t about Iraq, it is a global war on Islamic radicalism. It is being fought in Thailand, the Phillipines, Sudan and all over Europe and it will last generations. It took the Saudi money 40 years to spread this evil around the world. It will take longer to eradicate it, both through actual war and through projecting - not “Democracy”, but “Freedom”! It is more important to win the long was than to just win the battle in Iraq. And for that Romney is the only guy who gets it.
If you are religious, you better hope and pray we win the long war.
As an aside, how long after McCain gets elected before we get a “Hate Speech” law that shuts down the internet, takes conservatives off TV and effectively prevents ANY political opposition?

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:01 am W. Keller:

A bit pompous, aren’t we? I’ve never skipped an election in 40 years, won’t skip this one either.

I spent my time in Vietnam plus an additional 20 years in the Air Force.

The nation was nice enough to hang a Bronze Star on me for just not getting killed, I am grateful.

Now Mr. McCain tells me that he is better than Romney because he paracticed patriotism rather than making a profit.

Since I have run my own business for the past 25 years, what does that say about me??

This, in addition to all the other items listed - McCain/Finegold, immigration, global warming, resistance to tax cuts, his approaching Kerry in 2004 for VP, - to name just a few - show me he is NOT a Republican, he sure the hell is NOT a conservative, and he holds VERY FEW of my values. I will never give him my vote. I will write in Fred Thompson.

And please, don’t lump me, and others that think as I do, into some generic “far right” category. If expecting a secure border, the removal of illegals, reduced taxes, the ability to speak my mind FREELY whenever I choose, that believing that man-made global warming is a farce, that we should drill in ANWR in addition to all coasts makes my ideas bad for the country, then we are truly on the way to either an enormous correction or to our demise.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:06 am Mark Stewart:

No. The professional politicians and blue blood Republicans should have figured this out in November 2006: WE DON’T WANT YOU.

For allowing Hillary to win, we do indeed “get what we want”: The defeat of country club paternalistic socialists masquerading as red-blooded American capitalists.

If we are going to have big-government socialists in the highest offices of the land then they will be big-government socialists who don’t pretend to be anything but exactly that.

The current GOP field is as much my enemy as the Democrat field. I hope that every liberal member of the GOP currently up for reelection loses. I want every RINO we have thrown out. I hope that after the upcoming defeat the GOP will return to ideas of 1994 and the Contract with America. I hope the GOP will once again support the ideas of individualism and limited government. I hope the GOP will one day read the 10th Amendment and find the ***** to stand up for it.

If this doesn’t happen, if the United States has collectively decided to become an ignorant, socialist land of underachievers and slothful parasites, then I will move elsewhere. My ancestors did just that when they came to these shores in the early 1700s from Scotland, abandoning a broken system at home to do things right somewhere else. The ideas of individualism, personal responsibility, and freedom from an oppressive, distant, self-serving government were most famously expressed in the American Revolutionary War. How far have come since then? Who from those times would recognize anything you arrogant, phony envy-mongers have built as American institutions for the fostering of dependency?

The hell with all of you. Lose and lose big. I relish your defeat and look forward to the opportunity to fix what has been broken.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:07 am John_Smith:

Let’s see: IF we do not vote for McCain, aka McKennedy (amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens, initially trying to shove it down our throat without serious analysis and debate), aka Mcfeingold (the worst censorship of political speech since the Sedition Act of 1800s), (c) McACLU (giving Islamic jihadi terrorists constitutional rights, right to an attorney, etc.), McLieberman_Kennedy (destroying the pharma industry), McLieberman ($0.50 tax on a gallon of gas), (d) Mc_Gang_of_14 (rejecting originalist/strict contrustivist judges and/or justices from being appointed to the bench), (e) lying about Mitt Romney’s record about “timetables,” and when being corrected still maintains his lies and slanders, (f) thinking he won’t appoint Justice Alito, (g) ad hominem attacks and cursing (”F*** you”) of his fellow Senators (Kyl, Cornyn); (h) engaging in class warfare, (i) voting twice against the Bush tax cuts and when asked recently, saying again he would veto it; (j) saying that he will sign the ShAmnesty bill (in one interview “yes, but” then in another interview “no, but”), (k) engaging in open warfare against free market and profit (”Patriotism over profit”) - who said they are exclusive? and how can you have a strong military without a strong economy?),

and on and on, then we are

(1) self-righteous,

(2) zealots,

(3) traitors (”you owe it to your country”).

Thank you. We will remember this in November 2008.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:57 am mishu:

pffffffffffft! The only threat of secession is from one of the most lilly white states in the union, Vermont.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:57 am bitsy:

“Greedy people on wall street need to be punished.”

Why on earth should I vote for a guy who thinks that way? As far as I can tell, he doesn’t represent anything I care about. It is the job of the Republican party to appeal to voters; there is no reason why voters have to prop up a party they no longer agree with.

Feb 2, 2008 - 8:04 am Fred Beloit:

“…but that doesn’t mean that if Romney, Huckabee, or even McCain gets the nomination, I plan to stay home and sulk on election day.” by Bert.

Bert, I reluctantly have to part company with you on this one. I shall NOT vote for a person, McCain, whom I do not want to be president of the United States of America. The right to vote goes along with the right not to vote. If McCain is the nominee up against Obama or Clinton, I will exercise my right to say no to all of them. Sulking’s got nothing to do with it. If you want to participate in a McCain presidency, go right ahead. It will be your glory or, more likely in my opinion, your shame.

Feb 2, 2008 - 8:14 am dougf:

I frankly hope that all these ‘true’ conservatives get exactly what they want and deserve.

A. A LIBERAL President.

B. A LIBERAL House.

C. A LIBERAL Fillibuster-Proof Senate.

D. 3 LIBERAL Replacement Supreme Court Justices.

Then they should simply fade away. Their work will be done.

Apart from the WAR there are many many people who would be glad if the Republican Party run as it is by the likes of Limbaugh and his fellow loons, simply faded away like all the other archaic Parties of the past who outlived their historical need to be.

Nice to see that the current inmates feel exactly the same way. They apparently think they can lose at will, and be returned to grace later by a desperate Nation.

They are at least half right in this.

They can accomplish the losing part.

The other part —- not so much.

8 years of Clinton followed by at least 4 years of Obama.

Sounds about right.

Who would have thought that the model of the Party pioneered in California (out of power forever and more a self-obsessed cult than a true Party) would now be the preferred model for the National Party.

Bye Bye guys. have a nice trip.

It really hasn’t been all that nice to know you. Don’t bother to write.

Feb 2, 2008 - 8:59 am Kejda Gjermani:

I strongly disagree with this piece. The GOP and the Democratic Party have entrenched themselves in a despicable duopoly in US Politics. It is precisely this kind of petty partisan thinking that has made GOP politicians believe that they can afford to continuously lower standards “because the Democrats are worse, so you better side with me or you got nothing.”

The GOP has historically been the underdog in American politics. It hadn’t mustered a majority position in Congress for over 50 years until the 90s. The Reagan wave of politicians represented a revolution: they approached the electorate with conservative principles and inspiration, and got close to passing the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget (which Bill Clinton vetoed, of course).

But Washington corrupted them too soon. They had the votes to pass the same amendment again with Bush, but they lacked the will. They forgot what people voted them in power for to begin with.

They got punished in the last Congressional elections, but it doesn’t seem like they learned anything.

The GOP needs to be punished again, explicitly, for its lack of moral leadership, for its inner corruption, for its fall from grace. It needs a reality check before it understands that it can’t keep conservatives loyal on simplistic partisan grounds, while dragging its principles to the mud.

Not only I wouldn’t vote Republican, I wouldn’t stay at home in apathy either. I would be proactive and vote for Hillary/Obama any day over McCain. Partially out of spite, but mostly because someone like McCain is a lose-lose Candidate. First of all, he has no chance of winning the general election as it is, second, if he won, how would he be a good conservative president? Third, he would actually tarnish the Republican Party’s reputation, by indulging in the same big government filth Conservatives blame Democrats for. If such evil is to be committed, I’d rather it was the Democrats to have to take credit for it.

But your logic completely escapes me. I sense some contempt for the conservative electorate, telling them they ought to be satisfied with scraps and left-overs, and don’t deserve to put their foot down for the real deal. If Republicans took your advise seriously, it would mean the ultimate demise of conservative ideals.

And for anyone who is as frustrated as I am by the abuse of the term Conservatism, and its reinvention in the lips of anyone who uses it, by Conservative I mean Classical Liberal. True Liberalism is the core of America and the single thing worth Conserving. The GOP is sliding toward the worst of both worlds lately, socially conservative and fiscally liberal…

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:32 am Kejda Gjermani:

I believe I edited my last comment. Moderator, please delete and replace it by the following

But Washington corrupted them too soon. They had the votes to pass the same amendment again with Bush, but they lacked the will. They forgot what people voted them in power for to begin with.

They got punished in the last Congressional elections, but it doesn’t seem like they learned anything.

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:47 am Fred Beloit:

doug, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today, you rascal? Your comment is full of naughty insults, you wag, but I didn’t hear why electing a seeming liberal like McCain is going to prevent the country from going left. Could you tell more more about this? I would also like to know how winning with someone who does not represent my views in most ways is better than not winning by watching the country elect someone who doesn’t represent my vies

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:16 am Linda Frank:

This is amusing. Bunch of people on here running off at the mouth about McCain when Romney was further to the left than McCain ever was while governor of MA. Are these people idiots or just so angry they can’t see straight? Probably the latter, but who knows?

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:26 am John the Dennis Miller Libertarian:

Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees. Judicial nominees.

Judicial nominees? Judicial nominees.

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:37 am Lily:

Thank you, Burt, for mentioning what had to be Ronald Reagan’s worst act - shutting down all the mental health facilities. Growing up in SoCal in the 60’s and 70’s, I could count on my digits the number of homeless people I saw on the streets. Suddenly the city was deluged with the mentally ill, wandering schizophrenics cast out with nowhere to go. There have beens spikes and drops in their numbers, but we have never recovered. They are all over our cities and it is a disgrace to our country that we don’t take care of the one group of people who are truly incapable of caring for themselves. And our cities are more dangerous for everyone as a result. It is truly sad, often frightening, always depressing and worst of all, cruel. Reagan certainly deserves credit and praise for his many accomplishments, but the Reagan revolution was not in many respects America’s finest hour. John McCain is no Reagan, neither is Mitt Romney, neither is Rudy Guiliani nor Fred Thompson for that matter. And they shouldn’t be… this isn’t 1980! But I suspect Ronald Reagan himself miraculously transported into the present as a presidential candidate wouldn’t be “Ronald Reagan” either in these revisionists’ eyes.

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:42 am McBain:

I don’t think I can express myself much better than some of the most of the previouus commenters , so I’ll be brief: I’m a conservative, not a party man. I’ll stay home on election day, rather than vote for somebody who advocates policies that I’m against.

If we have to break the back of the Republicans first, to form a new conservative movement, so be it. The temporary discomfort we cause would still pale by comparison to the risks that our forefathers took to create and preserve the US. Remember- this country wasn’t created by a majority. It was created by a minority with a better ideas.

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:44 am Kejda Gjermani:

Linda Frank, wtf are you talking about? This is not a comparison of McCain to Romney, but an evaluation of McCain on his own merits. Romney doesn’t seem worth talking about at this point, since McCain practically has the nomination in his pocket.

If Romney reemerged, Burt here would probably try to woo the base with a post on how we should all vote for Romney instead of staying home election night. And I am sure almost everyone who would not bring themselves to vote for McCain, would abstain on Romney for very similar reasons.

Come up with new bs-proof excuses for calling conservatives angry idiots who can’t see straight.

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:50 am Josh:

As unpallatable as McCain is I’m with Burt on this,unless you can prove to me that John McCain is a Socialist. I can prove that Hillary is. Despite all the Obama hype he is really just a flash in the pan. Hillary will be the nominee. Before you make your decision to either not vote or to write in someone read the Communist Manifesto and rent the movie Dr. Zhivago. When you get to the part of the movie when the jubilant Bolsheviks are proclaiming that, “Lenin is in Moscow!” substitute “Hillary is in Washington!” Find out for yourself if what she is saying doesn’t mirror much of what the Communist Manifesto says. Until someone factually proves that McCain is a Lenin then I will hold my nose and pull the lever for him rather than handing the government over to the Progressive Socialists. As far as the absurd notion of letting them win to teach the party and the nation a lesson and they will come running back to true Conservatism, that line of logic is akin to quitting your job and spending your savings on lottery tickets because you just know you are going to win. What if the country likes Socialism? Have you thought about that? The gov’t handout crowd is growing bigger by the minute. Put that in your “conscience” and smoke it.

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:51 am Burt Prelutsky:

I am astonished that, aside from a few of you guys and Lily, you are all carrying on as if there is no difference between McCain and the two Democrats. Not one of you addressed my contention that McCain would appoint better (more conservative) people to the Supreme Court than Clinton or Obama. Also, McCain, who is not my first choice, has spoken out against the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a thinly veiled attempt to muzzle conservative talk show hosts.

Frankly, I find it extremely odd that all of the conservatives who insist they won’t vote for McCain if he gets the nomination sound exactly like liberals hoping Clinton or Obama win in a cakewalk.

Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky

Feb 2, 2008 - 11:06 am DSmith:

Burt, by the same token, you have not addressed the contention that we will actually have a better chance of stopping destructive policies with an opposition Congress, rather than having a Dem Congress and a 3/4 Dem President.

Would McCain *really* appoint better judges? Why should we believe him? He has lied to and spit on conservatives so often, for so long, that I think people are fully justified in not trusting him. The same goes for the “Fairness Doctrine”. The guy that sued the FEC to get bloggers censored is to be trusted not to go for a new “Fairness Doctrine” when his buddies the Dems propose it?

Feb 2, 2008 - 11:37 am Linda Frank:

Kejda Gjermani, as you well know, there is a war on against Islamofascism. The Democrats fail to acknowledge this. John McCain has been one of the strongest advocates for The Surge, which seems to be successful. If that is not enough of a difference to you, we have nothing to say to each other. We come from different planets.

Feb 2, 2008 - 11:54 am rockdalian:

Yet again we are asked to believe fairy tales about McCain nominating Conservative judges that would overturn McCain-Feingold.

I too am a vet that swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. To McCain I am just a nativist. I have an obedience to God to vote against tyrants, I will not vote McCain.

Feb 2, 2008 - 11:58 am progressoverpeace:

Not one of you addressed my contention that McCain would appoint better (more conservative) people to the Supreme Court than Clinton or Obama.

The gang of 14, McCain’s history of being more willing to “cross the aisle” (it’s a short trip for McCain) than stick to principle, along with his own words don’t lead me to believe that he will be able to force anything through a Democratic Senate. I don’t see any reason to believe that he would even try.

Are you saying that you believe McCain will appoint any justices who would rule against McCain’s own laws? If not, then how conservative (or strict constructionist …) would any McCain nominee be?

No, McCain is far more likely to pick squishy justices (reflecting McCain’s own view) who would just turn awfully liberal on the bench - as is the history of squishy conservatives on the bench.

Also, McCain, who is not my first choice, has spoken out against the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a thinly veiled attempt to muzzle conservative talk show hosts.

Are you trying to say that McCain should be taken at his word? I don’t see any reason to trust McCain about anything. Have you been watching his gleeful lying over the past few weeks. He didn’t even seem aware that it was obvious to everyone. I guess that didn’t bother you at all, and you still think that McCain is still one to be trusted with his words. I do not.

Frankly, I find it extremely odd that all of the conservatives who insist they won’t vote for McCain if he gets the nomination sound exactly like liberals hoping Clinton or Obama win in a cakewalk.

Now I can see why you are taking this position on McCain. That’s his sort of rhetoric. Accuse me of “sounding like a liberal” who wants Clinton. Oooh. That hurts.

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:02 pm dougf:

“Burt, by the same token, you have not addressed the contention that we will actually have a better chance of stopping destructive policies with an opposition Congress, rather than having a Dem Congress and a 3/4 Dem President.”

Well I’m not a math type guy but it seems to me that a 75% Dem + a 100% Dem Congress just has to be somehow less Dem than a 100 Dem + a 100% Dem Congress.

But as I said, I’m not a math type guy. Maybe someone with a more relevant degree can weigh in on this one.

PS — And that ignores the fact that McCain is NOT 75% Dem. But ignoring facts seems lately to be less a bug than a feature of ‘real’ conservatism. Thank goodness the virus appears to self-limiting and shows no sign of spreading to the wider population.

I read another blog comment where the ‘real’ conservative type guy, estimated that ‘real’ conservatives amounted to about 12% of the total US population. But purity of thought was critical. Evidently his point was that either the 12% tail was going somehow to wag the 88% dog, or failing that, the dog was simply not worth wagging anyway.

But this has inspired me to try to help out. Good natured soul that I am. I propose a new role model for the ‘real’ conservative movement.

General Jack D. Ripper: “I can no longer sit back and allow ‘Liberal’ infiltration, ‘Liberal’ indoctrination, ‘Liberal’ subversion and the international ‘Liberal’ conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

Since the ’sap and impurify’ motif really seems to be at the heart of the matter, why not go directly to the source ?

Just trying to help.

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:03 pm Burt Prelutsky:

It’s amazing and disheartening that so many of you seem to think it makes no difference whether Clinton/Obama get elected or whether it’s John McCain. You know what to expect if one of the Democrats gets elected, but at least with McCain there’s some doubt. On many issues, such as the war and lower taxes, he has been steadfast. (Yes, I know he voted against Bush’s tax cuts, but that was because he wanted them died to budget cuts, and he has since voted to make the tax cuts permanent.) You fear he won’t appoint justices like Roberts and Alito? Isn’t that preferable to electing a Democrat you can be certain would appoint ACLU types like Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Regards, Burt Prelutsky

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:36 pm progressoverpeace:

mishu :

pffffffffffft! The only threat of secession is from one of the most lilly white states in the union, Vermont.

I think that “poo-poo” was the appropriate response.

Yes, Vermont is another place where a group of secessionists are feeling emboldened.

The point is that anyone who has been watching the world, lately, has noticed that people have been destroying and creating nations almost at will. Americans tend to watch such events with a sense of interest, though assuming that none of that could ever happen here - just as we watched arab/persian/muslim terrorism through the decades. But the US is not immune to these waves and it doesn’t take much to set them off. Amnesty would light so many sparks under the secessionist cause, in so many places, that it is not at all unlikely to trigger the end of our Republic - and probably not to be replaced by a new US. It would be the greatest loss the world has ever suffered and would not be good for any of us, either.

But, could you address the specific - do you believe that people who carry banners saying, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us,” would not want to secede from the US if they had the chance? Explain your reasoning, please. Maybe you think that motto means something else …

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:45 pm Janeway:

Burt,

I will vote for Mitt even if I have to write him in! Crazy McCain cannot win because by Nov ‘08 everybody will know he is crazy - I am betting he crashes soon. It isn’t over till all the delegates are counted. I know you think I am mean - not so, watch him, listen to him, observe his body language - this guy has a few loose screws. You may not see it but the Dems are already noting it and the media will turn on him and use it with a vengence. The McCain Mutiny is not a joke. If you remember, Captain Queeg had to be stopped for the sake of the ship but in the end everyone felt bad as he had served his country well but had just lost it. Another Goldwater or Dole if Mitt misses the nomination. It will even be tough for him but at least the Dems cannot use Republican status quo against him. Rallying behind that crazy old man is not a solution to ‘08. We need to win or live to fight another day. Throwing ourselves on the McCain grenade will be needless self sacrifice!

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:56 pm Harry I Brown:

I favor McCaine for the following reasons:
We are now in an existential struggle for survival of our civilization and we need a warrior leader. The most important job for the President of the United States is that of Commander in Chief. McCaine is the only one of the contenders of either party who is (superbly) qualified for that job. None of the others know the difference between an officer and an enlisted man.
McCaine is the only Republican who can win the election and keep Hillary or Obama (or both) from the executive suite. Romney will lose and so will the others.
Also, Congress, not the President, determines tax and immigration legislation, campaign reform, and all other domestic matters. The President can only propose,lobby or veto legislation. So if you want conservative legislation to be passed, elect a conservative Congress.
Judicial nominations are important. Remember though, McCaine has voted for every Republican nominated candidate from Reagan to G.W. Bush. Although I admit I worry a bit about McCaine on this matter, I know that I do not want Hillary or Obama deciding on the nominees. And let’s not forget, a conservative Congress is still needed to confirm conservative judicial nominees. What good will it do to have a Republican presidential nominee who will not only lose in November, but bring down Republican congressional candidates with him?
McCaine may like to cozy up to liberal Democrats and win the approval of the editors of the New York Times, but as the Republican candidate for President, I have no doubt that he will quickly find out that they are no friends of his. I predict that his notorious rage will then be directed at its deserved targets, and away from his conservative supporters.
John McCaine, because of his age, will probably be a one term president if elected. That will give the Republicans time to line up the next generation of leadership for 2012 and beyond. There is a great pool of potential talent, starting with David Patreaus, serving in our military. There are some who feel that the smartest, bravest, toughest, best educated young men and women can be found in the Armed Forces.
John McCaine has his faults, and has obviously antagonized a lot of conservatives. But he is an authentic American hero, and I believe, he will put the interests of his country ahead of his personal interests. He has already proven that in the past. I believe that America’s enemies (and friends) will be a lot more careful dealing with a President John McCaine than they would with a President Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.
I also believe that the election of John McCaine would be very symbolic. It would be the ultimate victory for those of us who served in or supported the Vietnam War, and the ultimate defeat for the hate America Left and their “60’s” generation I beleive that we owe that to our fallen Americans from that war.

Feb 2, 2008 - 1:39 pm Larry J:

Your argument boils down to “vote for McCain because the other side will suck even worse.”

That’s hardly inspiring. Others have already done it so there’s no need for me to writing the long laundry list of reasons why I don’t like and trust McCain. Sure, he’s good on his support for the war. That’s about the only thing he has going for him in my book.

Overlooking everything else just because he claims to be a Republican is kind of like the old, bad joke, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”

Sorry, there’s just no way I can see myself voting for him. I took the same oath to preserve and protect the Constitution that he did. Unlike him, I actually meant it.

Feb 2, 2008 - 3:11 pm David Thomson:

Your argument boils down to “vote for McCain because the other side will suck even worse.”

Yup, that best explains my position. Life sucks and then you die. One often has to go with the lesser of evils. I will not hesitate to support John McCain against a dishonest pacifist Democratic Party candidate.

Feb 2, 2008 - 3:47 pm Lily:

I am truly horrified that so many people here are willing to abandon the war on Islamofascism for four years because they don’t like John McCain on some/many/all other issues. We are in a WAR! With an enemy that prizes death over life, that will never surrender, that doesn’t negotiate or compromise, and that wants to make us all slaves. ANd they are spreading all over the world. This enemy isn’t going to wait four years, while the Republican party rebuilds itself. This fight has to be our number one priority if we have any hope of one day winning. Regardless of my political persuasion, it’s my duty to my country to vote for the candidate who is most qualified to lead this war effort, even if I disagree with him or her on other issues. Even if the candidate is from a different party! Quite frankly, it’s unpatriotic to do otherwise. Every bit as unpatriotic as the behavior of those on the far left who don’t actually want us to win. Sorry if I can’t worry about creeping socialism while there are legions of people whose goal is the Islamicization of the world. There is an enemy worse than communism or socialism and we are facing it. First things first!

Feb 2, 2008 - 3:50 pm ClareA:

The only reason I checked out this site is because it was on the BlogRoll of Firedoglake.

I don’t know if I ought to be giving aid and comfort here, but I just can’t help but make this point.

In one recent election some Democrats were so disgusted by the Democratic candidate that they voted for Ralph Nader instead. Well, look how that turned out. ( A Democratic was not the next president.)

My ex-husband and I are now on very civil terms, considering. However, one thing I will NEVER forgive him for is voting for Nader.

Just sayin’

I may regret writing this since it may be due to over-confidence that a Republican will NOT win this election - no matter who it is.

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:10 pm Tom Holsinger:

I have an entirely different, and major, problem with McCain - IMO his temperment is such that he should not be trusted with Presidential power. This has nothing to do with issues.

McCain is so scary that I’d vote for Hillary over him, and maybe even for Obama over him. McCain is flat out dangerous.

Romney listens. Hillary listens. Obama listens. McCain does not listen.

Romney, Hillary and Obama all think before they act. McCain often doesn’t, even on big issues.

Worse, McCain acts as though evidence which contradicts his preconceptions are his personal enemies.

I’m not the only person to notice this. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline said:

“McCain’s tendency to make snap judgments based on prejudice rather than information, and his hostility to information that doesn’t conform to his prejudices, is perhaps the most frightening aspect of his candidacy.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019684.php

“… John McCain rarely lets lack of information and expertise stand in his way. Iraq, of course, is a notable exception. McCain frequently visited Iraq and consulted with everyone he could. For this, and because he found the right answer, he deserves the great credit he claims.

But what about McCain’s other positions? He opposes drilling in ANWR because, in his words, the area is “pristine” (which in this case means barren) and he “wouldn’t drill in the Grand Canyon.” Has any candidate ever presented a less serious analysis of an important policy question?

He opposes waterboarding in part because “torture doesn’t work.” Maybe the things the North Vietnamese did to him at the Hanoi Hilton didn’t work, but we know from eye-witness accounts that waterboarding worked. When I asked McCain about this, he essentially accused the CIA of lying.

McCain’s tendency to make snap judgments based on prejudice rather than information, and his hostility to information that doesn’t conform to his prejudices, is perhaps the most frightening aspect of his candidacy. It is also the most stark difference between McCain and Romney, outstripping any substantive disagreements in my view.

Neither the Romney’s style — “wallowing in the data” — nor McCain’s snap judgment style is ideal for a president. Great presidents rely at times on instinct and core beliefs, not just data. But a president who consistently relies on instinct and pooh-poohs data is likely to make major mistakes. Unless one thinks McCain is a genius (and I don’t), we’d probably be better off with Romney’s approach to making decisions ….”

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:31 pm MW:

Doesn’t anyone find it strange that McCain even won Florida? How hard would it be for Democrats to change parties to hijack the Republican primaries? Then they change back for the general election. I don’t know one conservative who supports him, as is apparent here.

Independents voted illegally and no Republican official has even mentioned it! McCain is the perfect candidate to get Hillary elected and they know it, Just as they know Republicans won’t vote for him. It’s perfect. Supposedly his campaign was dead a couple of months ago. What happened?

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:55 pm Zvi:

A Republican President like McCain will have greater success in implementing liberal policies than Hillary or Obama.

I believe McCain will push through amnesty and not be deterred by grassroots opposition.

I believe McCain will support further restrictions on freedom of expression. His recent public rants against those who are economically successful portends further restrictions on the expenditure of private money in the political arena.

McCain will support some form of gay marriage.

http://race42008.com/2008/02/02/conservatives-fighting-mccain/

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:11 pm Julie:

John McCain offers nothing. End of discussion. I would never vote for him. I am a conservative, not a republican.

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:49 pm William Lucking:

Mr. Prelutsky,

I have always enjoyed your punditry but the election isn’t over yet.

Let me vote for the man I prefer before stuffing McCain or any other Washington political hack down my throat.

Regards,

FWL

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:52 pm Josh:

Don’t be too disheartened Burt. Not everybody sees the bigger picture. You are right and I’m listening as hopefully many others are. I’ve read nothing in the opposing views that justifies sitting it out or writing it in. The word surrender comes to mind. There is some common sense to the lesser of two evils theory. That being you get less evil. There’s an internal war for control of America going on and all of the sudden Republican conscientous objectors are coming out of the woodwork instead of engaging in the fight. I don’t like or care about conscientous objectors so your surrender philosophy is falling on deaf ears here.

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:56 pm Jerry Greenhoot:

The mere election of McCain is no guarantee that we’ll get anything…anything we wish or need. The war is his strong suit, but I doubt he’ll stay with it. He’s not the kind of man who’ll tolerate continued hatred and vilification from the Haters on the Left as GWB has had to accept year after year. I think he’ll redefine “victory” and make an accommodation with the left…just as he always has. The fact that he was a warrior once doesn’t mean he’ll be one when there are “other values” to be defended etc. As for SCOTUS nominations…he’ll nominate like BushI…for the same reasons…to get along, one goes along…and we’ll get SouterII,III In other words, we’re going to get shafted by the Dems if we elect McCain or if we don’t. So the prior negative comments are rendered more cogent by that realization. I don’t see a significant difference between McC and the others, if one realizes that we must discount 2/3 of his pandering to us as just that.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:01 pm W. Keller:

Josh -

“There’s an internal war for control of America going on and all of the sudden Republican conscientous objectors are coming out of the woodwork instead of engaging in the fight. I don’t like or care about conscientous objectors so your surrender philosophy is falling on deaf ears here.”

“conscientious objector”??? Excuse me? Tell ya what son, the person who keep settling for less and less and less will eventually end up with NOTHING - and that is what I see in McCain, NOTHING. For god’s sake - look who’s endorsing him: NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe - doesn’t that tell you anything.

You are right, there is a war going on in America, and you are seeing the beginnings of it now. I, as a conservative (you know, balanced budget, small government, low taxes, everyone in the country legally, freedom of speech, reliance on science and not myth) represent the glue of America. McCain represents yet another move to the left, a giant step! On election day, he will discover that his day is past.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:52 pm Dan:

In a probable McCain vs. Hillary match up Hillary is preferable because Hillary did not write the comprehensive amnesty bill, she did not call all us who disagreed with it a bunch of racist xenophobes, and she took a stance in favor of blue collar workers over illegals in the last debate.

While I am under no illusions about her sincerity, she will look out for her own interests and spending all her political capital on illegals means nothing that is near and dear to her icy liberal heart will get done. On the other hand, McCain is sincere in his desire to erase our borders and destroy my nation with amnesty and will stop at nothing to do it. Once it is done there is no turning back unlike any of the liberal buffooneries Hillary might inflict on us.

The war is a non issue if McCain wins the presidency because what good does it do us to win the war and loose our nation?

On judges McCain has said Alito is too conservative so where does that point?

While the prospects are grim and the party did this to it’s self, with the help of a screwed up primary schedule. it is not over yet; Romney has a lot wrong with him but he is not unacceptable, and he is the second highest in the polls. The surest way to stop this disaster is to push him over the top on Super Tuesday.

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:22 pm dan:

John McCain on Meet the Press (1/27/08)

Tim Russert: if elected President, would he sign the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill if the Senate passed it
McCain: Yeah, but…

Keep in mind this man doesn’t just want amnesty he wants open borders and while I keep hearing we can assimilate 20 million; I can’t help but wonder, can we assimilate 200 million? Do you doubt they would come?

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:26 pm Dan:

While the prospects are grim and the party did this to it’s self, with the help of a screwed up primary schedule. It is not over yet; Romney is not the best candidate but he is not unacceptable, and he is the second highest in the polls. The surest way to stop this disaster is to push him over the top on Super Tuesday.

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:43 pm Dan:

John McCain on Meet the Press (1/27/08)

Tim Russert: if elected President, would he sign the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill if the Senate passed it
McCain: Yeah, but…

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:45 pm Josh:

W. Keller,
“”conscientious objector”??? Excuse me? Tell ya what son, the person who keep settling for less and less and less will eventually end up with NOTHING.”

Yeah, concientious objector and there is no excuse for it, and I’m not your son or friend. The person who speculates, like you, is the one who might cause us all to settle for an assured Socialist regime. You keep looking into your crystal ball about what McCain might or might not do. I’ll look at the blatant facts that prove that if elected the Socialist regime of Hillary Clinton will most definetly take over and destroy everything that this country stands for. Let’s see, crystal ball vs. facts. Just stay home on election day I don’t care cause I can’t stomach concientious objectors. Pat yourself on the back and let the well informed make the decisions. And by the way, Karl Marx would endorse Hillary Clinton so what does that tell you?

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:53 pm Josh:

The fact that the NY times, LA Times, BostonGlobe or any other ultraliberal rag endorses McCain is a lesson in strategic liberal politics 101. Why? Because he is the frontrunner and they are fully aware of the differences Conservatives have with him. So they exploit that by further labeling him a liberal by their endorsment. They don’t have to endorse Hillary. She is in their pocket. What they accomplish is dividing us and causing many to note vote or write in some ex-candidate. Then Hillary is swept into the White House by a landslide because of low Republican turnout. By the way it is not creeping
Socialism. It is a flood if the Libs win. I believe McCain when he says he will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell to get justice. They are both Imminent dangers. They will both effect our children and grandchildren and it is our duty to defeat the Jihad and Socialism. I plead with you, I beg you to please read the Communist Manifesto and see for yourself if there are some striking similarities with that document and the gospel of Hillary Clinton. It’s easily accesible. Just a click away on the web. If you don’t see it then I just have to say Welcome to the United States of Europe.

Feb 3, 2008 - 12:36 am Eric Dondero:

If one is a “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant” Rudy type Republican, how is it that we get anything we want with McCain?

I’m Pro-Choice. I can live with Pro-Lifer Republicans, have been doing it all my adult life.

But I can’t live with someone who is Pro-Life AND Pro-Tax Increases!

You gotta give us at least one side of the equation.

If it’s McCain, I’ve voting Libertarian Party. Gosh, let’s hope they nominate someone decent this time around, like Wayne Root, Ed Thompson or Bob Barr.

Feb 3, 2008 - 4:54 am progressoverpeace:

Josh :
The fact that the NY times, LA Times, BostonGlobe or any other ultraliberal rag endorses McCain is a lesson in strategic liberal politics 101.

…

What they accomplish is dividing us and causing many to note vote or write in some ex-candidate.

Please. Don’t be so dramatic. Go back and read what everyone was saying during the shamnesty debate. Many of us vehemnetly declared, at that point, that we would never, ever vote for McCain. Now, people are surprised that many of us refuse to vote for McCain … No one warned them …

Come on.

I believe McCain when he says he will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell to get justice.

Unless it involves any waterboarding.

I keep hearing people say, as if it were OBVIOUS, that McCain is great on national security, but I have been screaming about arab/persian/muslim terrorism for a long time and I don’t remeber McCain ever showing that he understood the nature or size of the threats approaching us all those years while he was sitting in the Senate. McCain is one of the people who sat around and watched this threat build. No one can name me one address he ever made about the growing danger of the arab/persian/muslim world. I don’t see that he will make such a great CiC.

Unless you have some proof that McCain understood the threat so well, pre-9/11, which is the time period he is resting on for a lot of his “experience”. Something?

Feb 3, 2008 - 5:08 am W. Keller:

Josh, I realize we are both planted on our selection this November, but let’s look at your primary reason for voting for McCain:

“I believe McCain when he says he will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell to get justice. They are both imminent dangers. They will both affect our children and grandchildren and it is our duty to defeat the Jihad and Socialism.”

I believe his DESIRE is there, but remember, his actions are limited by Congress. With his “great friendships” with the Democrats, will he really stand against them when it comes to the war? Really?? He wants to close Guantanmo. He wants to ban waterboarding because it’s torture. He was “for the surge” before General Peatus had even written the manual on it. He will secure the boarder while granting 12-20 million illegals amnesty and granting citizenship to another 24-40 MILLION of their immediate relatives. He was against the tax cuts, maintains today it was the right position, even though they have brought a glut of cash to the coffers - WHICH EVERYONE PROMPTLY SPENT! He recognizes the threat of jihad yet is unwilling to drill in ANWR, off the coasts or within our borders to secure out energy independence.

One of the primary weapons of communism and socialism is finding ways to make the populace more and more dependent on the central government. To find ways to allow the central government to control and direct business, to expand the management of the daily lives of its citizens. Name a single, solitary bill introduced by McCain that has freed any citizen from their government. (of course, sadly, this can also be said many of the sitting Republicans).

The republicans are now the Democrats of the 60s. The Democrats are now a modern European Socialist Party. It’s time to turn the boat. In fact, it may be too late. Yet, the effort needs to be made. I have been harping on these points since Jimmy Carter. Obviously even he wasn’t enough of a lesson to this country. His stupidity gave us today’s Iran, today’s Afghanistan and today’s energy drought to name just a few of his accomplishments. What’s coming, if we continue down this path, will make that look like child’s play.

Feb 3, 2008 - 7:03 am Josh:

progressoverpeace :
“Please. Don’t be so dramatic. Go back and read what everyone was saying during the shamnesty debate. Many of us vehemnetly declared, at that point, that we would never, ever vote for McCain. Now, people are surprised that many of us refuse to vote for McCain … No one warned them …
Come on.”
Dramatic? Please don’t be so unrealistic. You don’t think there’s a possiblility that these papers are up to this? Look, I’m well aware of everything about McCain. Really I can’t believe we are even having this conversation. I thought Duncan Hunter had everything we were wanting in a candidate. I never thought McCain had a chance. I still don’t like him as the candidate. He has made some strange liberal alliances that put him right in the Rino camp. So I share the pain people feel about him BUT that was then and this is now. He may have some liberal leanings but HE IS NOT A SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE. That is the point of this article and the source of my “dramatics”. I see our great hard fought for country going to hell in a hand basket if the likes of Hillary sweep the White House and Congress. Enough said. It’s still, at least for awhile, a free country so do what you want. Goodbye PJM comment section.

Feb 3, 2008 - 7:14 am Fred Beloit:

The argument of the nutrights is, apparently: President John McCain is better for the country than President Mitt Romney. The primary is still going on. Hello….the primary is still going on. If you want me to vote in the main election for president, vote Romney. Stick me with McCain?

I will not vote for open boarders, global warming believers, favoring illegal aliens for citizenship before lawful appliers, those who have seriously considered changing parties, members of the gang of 14, big government insiders, Democratics. I will not vote for someone on the basis that you want me to, for whatever reasons you may find. I will not vote for someone whom I do not want to be president.

I’m not totally crazy about Romney. But I believe Romney can be influenced to see reason by his advisers and by his party. Clearly, McCain will follow his own bullheaded path, right or wrong. That may be a good thing in some cases, but a very bad thing in more cases. If his thinking were more like that of a conservative that quality might be welcome. But he ain’t a conservative. Why would any conservative show support for a man with his leftist political views to be president for God’s sake?

Feb 3, 2008 - 7:59 am LGD:

I agree completely that all the Republicans should vote in fall for whomever a majority of them select as their candidate in spring and summer.

That has nothing to do with conservatives like me. I’m not a Republican.

Try to convince me why I should be shamed into voting for a candidate as corrupt as Clinton and careless about the Constitution as any other liberal.

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:03 am Barbara:

I am in TOTAL agreement with Burt.
I think a person is a DARN FOOL, to stay home just to NOT vote for McCain. Of course, he’s not our choice, but heck, do you really want HILLARY??? Well, that’s just what you are doing if you stay home, or write in a candiate. Or you could be as darn looney as MS. Ann Coulter, but she needs to have her head examined and people should be burning her books. But thats’s besides the point. You are not doing anyone a favor by “following your “conscience” or whatever irrelevant reason you have for not voting or writing in a name. McCain, if he does become our nominee is WAY better than Hillary. Hillary is a socialist. Do you really want that? I sure the heck don’t. That is just what you’ll be getting with her. Please, give this some serious thought. Look up socialism. That is what she is all about. McCain may lean liberal in areas we don’t like but he will not turn this country to socialism. I am only saying this, not to endorse him, but if it comes down to it, and he does in fact win, don’t sit home in protest or write in your favorite candidate. In both ways that is giving the vote to Hillary. Pass this on, it makes too much sense not to. Truely.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:17 am George Walker:

Wow as a Democrat, I should like these quotes, but my sense of fairness requires me to point out that John McCain supported Ronald Reagan when the entire political establishment of the state of Arizona was with Gerald Ford, he supported Phil Gramm for President and he supported George Bush last time when if he was in a selfish mode he could have switched parties and been Vice President. But I guess that is your sides problem. I am curious though as to why Burt doesn’t like Barack Obama. I think he is friends with Dennis Ross who is Barack’s chief foreign policy advisor and who says that Barack is the most Pro-Israel Presidential candidate since Scoop Jackson. Instead of being hung up on the color of his skin and his muslim name, why don’t you judge him by his long record in public office.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:22 am DMAY:

Proverbs says wounds inflicted by a friend are better than flattery from an enemy and a fool fails to head sound counsel. A bunch of conservatives have their underwear in a wad because John McCain does not read from script. Meanwhile they have the ken doll candidate Romney whose string they can pull to hear just what they want. I have bad news for conservatives you are in bad shape if you choose Barbie and ken over GI John. Its a good thing McCain is running for president of the united states and not chairman of the republican party because thee are plenty of us loving democrats who will flock to him realizing he is not a partisan hack. I disagree with McCain in his domestic positions on all points raised here including global warming etc. Nonetheless I trust based on the mans patriotism he is not going to go bonkers like Hillary with the fixes. This is his record. We should remember we are electing a president not messiah. That position was filled two thousand years ago by a man named Yeshua and he didn’t run for president. Everything since is a choice of relative evils. Those who would insist on ideological purity can be consigned to the destiny of the torries in England a permanent minority. McCain has been the best republican in the field for some time only because he is real. Everything else they’ve put before us is memorex. The voters have gotten it right on this one so far and hopefully that will continue tomorrow.

Feb 3, 2008 - 11:55 am Burt Prelutsky:

John Walker wants to know why I oppose Barack Obama. To begin with, Dennis Ross is not a friend of mine. In fact, until just now I had never heard of him. I oppose Sen. Obama not because of his color or his middle name, but because he is a liberal, and like all the other liberals, he promotes a socialist agenda. What’s more, he is proud of having opposed the invasion of Iraq and wants to see us out of there, even, I take it, if there is a risk that the terrorists could fill the vacuum and take control of the oil fields. And while I, personally, don’t care about Sen. Obama’s race, I am afraid that, were he to be elected, a great many conservative senators and congressmen, who would have no problem with opposing Hillary Clinton, would fear risking being labeled racists if they spoke out against President Obama’s left-wing agenda.

Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky

Feb 3, 2008 - 1:04 pm Yehudit:

“I think he is friends with Dennis Ross who is Barack’s chief foreign policy advisor and who says that Barack is the most Pro-Israel Presidential candidate since Scoop Jackson….”

Look at his picks for foreign policy advisors. They should give you pause. He THINKS he’s a friend of Israel. He would be as bad as Carter.

Feb 3, 2008 - 7:41 pm Lee:

Americans have voted for “the lesser of two evils” in the past. This scenario is actually true for many other (third world) countries. I personally believe voting for someone who represents a modicum of your own interest is better than not voting at all. The people have always responded to military dictators attempted to rewrite the constitution to give them unlimited power / term, or abolish the right to vote. And they often paid the price. Voting acutally takes effort in some countries, and they’re often rendered moot as the system is rigged. Of course, you have the right NOT to vote, but to say “I refuse vote if the nominated candidate doesn’t parrot my values”? It does strike me as selfish.

I supported George Bush in his bid for the second term even though I was skeptical about the war and his reckless style. I’m a conservative Asian Christian against abortion and stem cell reaserch. Some of my dislikes about Bush notwithstanding, I didn’t want to see a liberal Democrat in office, so I made the decision.

You have to give up something, make room for compromise. This image of a pure “Reagan conservative” which serves as blueprint on which the perfect GOP candidate must be modeled on is an ILLUSION. AS the author points out, the guy was pretty liberal on certain issues, but he served conservative agendas. Many Dem favoring Asians LOVE Reagan for his anti communist fight.

Don’t like Mccain’s amnesty stance (which I’m open to actually)? If he’s the GOP candidate, vote for him first, then oppose him on certain issues if you must. Anti war activists will vote for ANY democrat candidate, any NON GOP candiate. Their cause is consilidated and the media loves it. Obama says he’ll quit Iraq COMPLETELY once he’s presient. WTF are you kidding me? Standing by the Iraqi people and fighting against killers is more important than our immigration issue. It’s a matter of life and death over there.

Feb 4, 2008 - 1:52 am davecatbone:

No to amnesty, country over party. Hillary’s administration will crash and burn. Romney 2012.

Feb 4, 2008 - 5:50 am Kejda Gjermani:

Check out this article
http://dailypundit.com/?p=29500

Preview:

Why I Won’t Be Voting For John McCain

Every time I post something about the problem for liberty-minded conservatives with the direction the Republican Party has been taking since the first George Bush administration, I get a lot of pushback that can generally be divided into two types. The first comes from what I call “Shit Sandwich Republicans,” because that is exactly what they are more than willing to eat, as long as the filling bears the label “Made by the GOP.” These are the types who often lapse into hysterics if somebody refuses to swallow their “lesser of two evils” logic, and who would cheerfully vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain if any of them achieved the status of official Republican nominee. They can safely be disregarded as being beyond hope, help, or argument. Their political reactions are as reflexive as those of a flatworm, although not quite as intelligent or reasoned.

The second type is that for which this post is written: Here is an example from a commenter named Scott Martin:

I’m still confused about the intensity of the hatred towards McCain. I know he has bucked the conservative movement on a few occasions but the level of animosity is amazing.

I don’t ipso facto ascribe this sort of response to wilful stupidity or robotic submission to a political party, but I do ascribe it to ignorance. And the cure for ignorance is facts. If you can read the following and still vote for John McCain, fine. But don’t consider that you are doing yourself, your country, or your party any favors.

Feb 4, 2008 - 7:13 am Larry J:

It sounds like I’m supposed to take McCain on faith. Even though he headed the Gang of 14, I’m supposed to believe that he will appoint conservative judges. Even though he opposed tax cuts and demonizes business, I’m supposed to believe he’s a conservative. Even though he now says he understands about amnesty, his actions last year tell a different story. And there’s nothing to indicate that he respects the Constitution or regrets McCain-Feingold. Go ahead, pull my finger.

Give me something to vote FOR instead of just something to vote against. McCain calls himself a Republican and that’s supposed to make me overlook so much of what he has done in the Senate. He has no executive experience beyond being a squadron commander but I’m supposed to believe he can be the Chief Executive. Sorry, but no. I honestly don’t believe he’s trustworthy or qualified for the job.

Feb 4, 2008 - 7:47 am Lee:

Mike Huckabee (he’s my #1 man) says he’ll ban public smoking and has supposedly flirted with the idea of 20% sales tax. Mitt Romney has made healthcare mandatory in Massachuesettes. Mccain was against tax cuts and he does strike me as anti business occasionally. It’s a given that none of the frontline GOP candidates are “true conservative” if such a concept is even plausible.

Mccain might not carry out every conservative agendas, but if the Clinton / Obama ticket ascends to the white house, they could conceivably grant amnesty (Obama in favor of giving license to illegals) pull every troop out of Iraq while progress made there, and push the universal healthcare agenda. If you want gay marriage and elementary schools to determine admission based on race you want democrat president. Americans eat up dreamy promises of a “free”, totally comprehensive healthcare, when no such thing exists. Healthcare in Japan can be almost as expensive in the US.

If you’re turned off by loyalist who only votes along party lines, then Mccain “the maverick” is a option for you. There’s a reason why he’s gaining support among moderate conservatives, much like Arnold Schwarnegger (can’t spell his name) have in the BLUEST state of them all. Who thinks a hardliner minuteman member would actually win the nomination, much less the white house? He would lose in a rout not seen since Bambi vs. Godzilla (in the words of Jonah Goldberg)

I would urge conservatives to vote for a GOP candidate who follows your principles as much as possible, even if he doesn’t subscribe to ALL of your thoughts. Many Christians would vote Romney if he was nominated, because he most closely adheres to biblical principles than others, his mormon faith not withstanding.

Feb 4, 2008 - 12:43 pm Burt Prelutsky:

Dear Readers: I am wondering how much of the attack on McCain is from actual Republicans and how much is from liberals looking to sabotage the GOP. Frankly, I smell the obnoxios scent of James Carville in the way this has been choreographed. The fact is, McCain is not my first choice, but he did back Roberts and Alito, and he even voted for Robert Bork. If Obama or Clinton is elected, I can guarantee that the Supreme Court will wind up looking like a meeting of the Board of Directors of the ACLU. It’s the Court that will determine most of the issues close to the hearts of conservatives for years to come.

Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky

Feb 4, 2008 - 1:02 pm progressoverpeace:

Burt Prelutsky :

Dear Readers: I am wondering how much of the attack on McCain is from actual Republicans and how much is from liberals looking to sabotage the GOP. Frankly, I smell the obnoxios scent of James Carville in the way this has been choreographed.

Like I said before, we all went through this during the shamnesty debate. People expressed their total revulsion with McCain (among others) and the death of the GOP was widely discussed.

Do you think the shamnesty debate was sabotaged by Carville? I didn’t think so. I am amazed that such a thought would even come into your mind about the current debate.

Go back and read what was written about McCain and the GOP during the shamnesty debate. Look at what was said on this very site. It is the same, now, except that McCain’s other problems also play into this debate. People threatened to leave the GOP during shamnesty. Some people were claiming to have switched their voter registration to “independent”. It was perfectly clear, at that point, what a McCain nomination would do. Clear and obvious.

I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this reaction to McCain. How short can memories get?

Feb 4, 2008 - 3:09 pm davecatbone:

Burt,
The most obvious SCOTUS judges to step down will be Libs, so the balance will not be disrupted. And McCain’s agenda with Open Borders, squash Free Speech and kowtowing to the Liberals across the aisle will be a disaster. Who do you want blamed for the inevitable trainwreck of the next presidency? Dems or GOP?

Feb 6, 2008 - 6:24 am Jimbo:

The RINO’s have taken control of the party and its time to turn out the lights. There is only a 1 party system now and its the liberal party. McCain does not support the Republican or Conservative ideals anymore, the past 7 years have proven that. McCain cannot be trusted to the right thing. I will vote third party this year.

Feb 6, 2008 - 8:09 am Winghunter:

Factual and complete information does not come from the MSM, it comes from digging it up on the net.

Due to the results of the states who have chosen our candidates for us we know the vast majority do not bother themselves with factual and complete information to make their choice;

How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide By JB Williams
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19227.shtml

John “Juan” McCain
http://juanmccain.blogspot.com/

Feb 7, 2008 - 10:05 am