Hate the candidates, what now?

"Are all you McCain haters gonna vote for Billary, or are you just not gonna vote?"

I don't know. I'll just have to wait and see how things shake out. One thing I know already though: There are days when I can ignore El Presidente, whoever he/she is but there are no days when I can get out of living with myself. That fact will figure in my final decision in a very large way.
 
Are all you McCain haters gonna vote for Billary, or are you just not gonna vote?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a McCain hater. I hate some of the issues that he supported on his voting history. Some of it I can agree to disagree. Some I can't. Problem is that he's going to have a hard time convincing the needed voters that he actually is going to represent them when he gets in office....

Many, many moons in the Senate doing dastardly deeds trump six months of lip service...

Most likely, I will not vote for McCain. When election time comes and I feel the same way, then I will most likely write in my choice....

One could say that a non-vote for the Rep. ticket is a vote for the Dems. That may be true. However, how will the Republican party ever see the mess they make if they always get my vote? Sends a message to them if everybody would just vote their principles instead of "lesser of two evils"...
 
Are all you McCain haters gonna vote for Billary, or are you just not gonna vote? /QUOTE]

Good question, not sure at this point, may write in a name, either way America loses this election.
Click to expand...
 
Are all you McCain haters gonna vote for Billary, or are you just not gonna vote?
Click to expand...
I'm not a McCain hater, but I won't be voting for him if he is the Republican nominee. I'll not be voting for whoever gets the Democrat nomination either.

I will be voting for someone I actually want to be president. I won't waste my vote by putting in office the man who will continue to nibble away at my freedoms.
 
toybox99615 well I was talking about states which have primary elections at the open polls. You go in and declare whether you're republican or democrat and then you vote. If you're in a caucus state then the caucuses will be in separate places.

You should hear some of the uncensored comments I've heard from some of little old people I know - who've been democrats since the days of Lester Maddox and George Wallace - when they talk about Mr. Obama. I dislike Mr. Obama's politics immensely but I'd invite him to sit down and have a beer any day...unlike these Democrats.:(

(I've got to admit I dislike Hillary but that is because of what I perceive to be her debased and frankly wicked character after listening to a decade and a half of her speachifying.)
 
For the first time in 39 years I will probably not vote for a presidential candidate.

I'm with TheBluesMan on this one.

Someone--I forget who--recently said that it took Jimmy Carter in office to get us Ronald Reagan. Maybe it's going to take a Hillary or Obama to get us a real conservative again.

It's time the Republican party learns its lesson.

As for McCain's chances, I'm doubtful. The states he swept were states he won't win in the general election.
 
Take it one step at a time. If your primary is coming up, Vote for the anti-establishment candidate Ron Paul while you can! Then check out the landscape in November and make the decision then.
 
That's what I plan to do. Still trying to figure out if I can vote next week in VA. I'm a little inept at this voting thing.
 
Lets see, you have the the McCain-Lieberman Bill, McCain–Feingold Act, and the ever famous McCain-Kennedy-Bush attempted immigration bill. McCain gives a whole new perspective to working across the aisle. Not to mention as he is talking about how he will secure the border he hired Juan Hernadez to be his Hispanic outreach person. Does the fox guarding the hen house have a familiar ring?

So far the only thing I trust McCain to do is not to secure our borders and to stay in Iraq.

As for McCain's chances, I'm doubtful. The states he swept were states he won't win in the general election.
Click to expand...

Good point. We have to remember that what wins the nomination is not necessarily what will win the general election. Saying there will always be wars and that we might be in Iraq 100 years is not going to be a big vote getter in the real elections.
 
Ann Coulter had a good column on Wednesday:

FROM GOLDWATER GIRL TO HILLARY GIRL
February 6, 2008


Nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party.

Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation "Republican." Which is to say, a Democrat.

As the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat. The only question remaining is: Hillary or Obama?

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for "flip-flopping" on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.

Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter how many hearts and minds we've changed. So it's not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative.

We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the "Republican" president isn't even trying.

McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.

That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?

In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution -- marriage, that is, not John McCain -- is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea.

I'm not a lawyer -- oh wait, yes, I am -- but Republicans were proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes.

It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in the Constitution! And Republicans -- other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold -- support the Constitution. You might say it's part of our core philosophy.

Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a presidential ticket with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help his chances to run as a Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120 years old, McCain quickly withdrew his interest in being on Kerry's ticket.

But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry was not tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was helpful.

McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't want to be anyone's vice president, not even a national defense champion like Kerry, citing the meager constitutional duties of the vice president as: (1) to assume the presidency if the president is incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the Senate." (At which point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark, "What is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")

But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional duties just a year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to break a tie vote in the Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to liberals: federal judges.

Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two jobs of the vice president, he was indignant that a Republican vice president might actually exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle of 14 Senate malcontents pick the president's judges for him.

As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following the Constitution with regard to the role of the vice president, McCain said, "would be a terrible precedent." Yes, if members of Congress actually read the Constitution, they might realize McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America.
 
I certainly agree with Coulter (usually do, for that matter) that the party needs a kick in the tail, but I don't think that giving the opposition what they want is the way to do it either. Both parties have been told no--we need a 3rd and 4th party that people will say yes to, ones that will do the job that both parties in current power refuse to do.
 
The question each of us must ask, is, do we want a Democrat for president, or a Republican? If you want a Republican, McCain is the one to vote for. If you want a Democrat President, either vote for one, or cast you vote to the wind. Casing your vote to the wind will support a Democrat being elected, just like voting for Hillary or Obama. If all of the conservatives who dislike McCain stayed home, and don't vote because they hate McCain, or if the vote for some non-contender, a Democrat will be elected.
I will vote for McCain if he's nominated by the Republican party, because the worst thing that can happen to this country is to have either Hillary, or Obama holding the keys to our country. And, McCain isn't my first choice for a Republican candidate, or the second, or the third. We're in a situation where McCain will probably get the Republican nod, so that's who I will vote for. He is sure a better option than either of the other two losers.

Martyn
 
Martyn4802
The question each of us must ask, is, do we want a Democrat for president, or a Republican?
Click to expand...
The sh#t sandwich that we are about to get served won't taste better because it's wrapped in red.
 
McAmnesty will get the nod unless RNC gets the message that nominating him will toss the election. I know that prior military service, POW status, etc. gets him bonus points with a lot of people, and I respect those things. This family has many members who have served with distinction and pride. Exemplary prior service is a wonderful thing.

It is also not the 'only' thing.

Tim McVeigh was a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star Medal.

Benedict Arnold served with distinction in many battles, including a dangerous assault against the center of the British line at Saratoga, where he was wounded. In battle he was imaginative, daring, and courageous.

I have also known decorated police officers who later became thieves, drug dealers, kiddie porn producers and child molesters. I have had to take several of them down, myself. You see, my oath of office (as well as my sanity) requires that I separate the good people have done in the past, from whatever evil they are doing in the present.

I apply those same rules to whom I will, or will not, support politically. Beyond that- I flatly refuse to 'hold my nose and vote', ever again. Take a look at the current political landscape for evidence of how well 'hold your nose' voting works.

'Hold your nose' voting lowers not only our own standards, but the standards of those who represent us in government.Those lowered standards translate directly into SCOTUS appointments and confirmations...or not. Senator McCain, BTW, knows all about the 'or not' aspect of that process.

I'm with Blues Man on this one. I'm not voting for anyone unless I actually believe they will guard the constitution and the principles I believe in. McCain's well-documented leftist legislative efforts and associations have disqualified him from being a candidate I can support. So put me on the 'Paul list' unless Huckaby pulls a rabbit out of his hat.

You can rest assured that after the general election, RNC and the individual campaigns will invest much effort in determining how many hard-line conservative votes McCain's RINO record have cost him. When they count mine in that column- I assure you that it will not have been 'wasted'.
 
The question each of us must ask, is, do we want a Democrat for president, or a Republican? If you want a Republican, McCain is the one to vote for
Click to expand...
.

I agree with this statement if it applies to the November election. However, how can you "Send a Message" in the primary by voting for McCain? Vote anti-establishment in the primary and hope for a meaningful convention.
 
McCain isn't an enthusiastically supported nominee to say the least. The Democrat candidates are even less appealing.

So what to do right........

Well it's fact time, pros and cons. It's best when making judgments on things with alot of variables to look at it from the worse case scenario. Let's say that the candidate elected performs the acts you most wish they wouldn't but were aware they either intended to or it matched their track records.

McCain allows the Bush tax cuts to expire and maintains the open border polocies of today and even passes a 'cabon tax' . The result would be a failed re-election bid and a new crop of Republicans to choose from in 4 years that can cut taxes again and close the border. Essentially un-doing whatever McCain may do that his successor disapproves of and has mandate to accomplish.

Hillary or Obama (same platform with minor variances) you STLL get the taxes and imigrats PLUS socialized medicine. Probably in a seemingly benign form initially but the fix gets in. This single action will become an the entitlement program that makes Social Security look like small potatoes and will be impossible to undo. Social Security benefits are received by a few but health care is to be received by ALL. That's the promise of both Democrats. Imagine getting retirees to vote to have Social Security halted and their benefits ended. How much more difficult to have that happen when the entitlement is received by everyone.

It's time to look to our Congressional races. The reality is only your House Representative represent you and is expected to act based upon the will of the majority of individuals withing their district. Senators are to Represent their State's interest and the President the Nations interests. We are a Republic remember, NOT a Democracy as is so often misunderstood. We have a Democratically Elected Representative Republic which is a form of Democracy.

Remember, a straight DEMOCRACY cannot work because the citizens will discover the ability to vote themselves the wealth of the treasury (we call them entitlements) and destroy the democracy. Historically a dictator or invader follows soon after.

Reagan and Goldwater are still dead and their reincarnations didn't run this cycle. The conservative ideal still endures and will take a lot more then John McCain's election to stifle. It's not an 'idea' that can lose favor but rather an affirmation of greater part of men that believes people can do far more then they think they can and possess a worth realized only be their OWN desire to excel rather then to languish.

When given a choice that is fraught with variables, make your decisions so as to maintain an exit strategy.
 
^ Well said, and as such is why we need a successful 3rd party to break the duopoly which is getting us nothing but more of the same.
 
How about a National Primary Day? Starting Jan 1st public campaigns start and have a series of candidate forums one every two weeks where questions are asked of ALL candidates of ALL Parties (that are slated in ALL states to weed out the knuckleheads). Do it in June. Done. Election in November. Over.

Too simple?
 
national primary day

I've promoted that issue before and I will again. Why should all America be limited by the actions of one state at a time. Now its a game who will be the first state to hold the primary. Super Tuesday was Super Screwsday as the elitist states forced some candidates to drop by the wayside. Bye the next election cycle a few more states will want to have the power to dictate to the rest of the country which candidates they limit us to.

The replies are going to give me reasons why I'm wrong. Those replies do not replace my right to vote. I guess I could just wait till the next cycle and move to a state where I can be a member of the chosen ones to vote.

If nothing else maybe we can hold a lottery to determine when each state get to hold their primary. Wouldn't it tee off a few states who are now amoung the first to have to wait till the end if they were drawn last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top