Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why Should A Conservative Vote McCain?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why Should A Conservative Vote McCain?

    I need to beconvinced. For the record:

    I detest Hillary and Obama as candidates. I would never vote for them. But I would think of sitting this one out.

    Because, from my perspective, while McCain might not be as radical as they are, he seems to have more Domcrati leanings than Conservative.

    If the only reason I should vote for McCain is to block the really bad guys, than the power brokers that be can continue to put up candidates even more left than McCain. For the record, I am not looking for radically rw................. RR tendencies will do.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    Posts
    18,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Mean Bro Green;2497169]voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil[/QUOTE]

    So is sitting out the elections entirely.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    Posts
    18,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    not really, but if you don't like who the country says are your choices then you can always write in your vote and know at the end of the day that you went with your conscience, right?

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,932
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2497153]McCain might not be as radical as they are...[/QUOTE]

    You answered your own question...

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    McCain is the most Conservative of the Three remaining major-party candidates. As such, he has the best chance to be a winning conservative.

    However, beyond that rather uninspiring reality, you'll have to see where he, and his opponents, stand on issues that matter to you more specificly to answer your question.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    Seems like a lot of people are unhappy with the choices we are left with this year.

    Count me as one of them.

    I am not all that sure why RW's would be ALL that unhappy with McCain. It seems to involve a couple of issues:

    Immigration. I can see why many RW's are unhappy with him on this. In fact this is an issue I don't agree with the namby pamby PC wing of the Democratic Party who has no concern about how working people lose out to lawbreakers from other countries taking their jobs. But as for McCain, his position was no different from W's on this issue, and I don't see W getting slammed much for it.

    Campaign Finance Reform. I can see why the money people who really control the GOP would be upset, but your rank and file GOP voter? This is more a goo goo position than a partisan one, in any event.

    Relative civility. There are concerns about his temper. But he makes a point of at least trying to be civil when talking about other people in politics, including Democrats. This may rankle the bloodthirsty raving lunatic fringe that follows Rush and Hannity, but my guess is this year it may prove above all else to be good politics. Read the polls on this issue.

    Voting against the W tax cuts. McCain was right to have done so, since the deficit ballooned and the ensuing "recovery" had the poor fundamentals that have led directly to the current economic malaise. But he is now for them after having been against them. He gets no credit for now being wrong?

    Meanwhile he's a total hardliner on Iraq, only being critical (this part he was right about) about the way the war was being waged, is a down the line right to lifer, doesn't know anything about economics except that he knows that tax cuts appeal to GOP voters, even if they are not paid for, and he's neither the hated Hillary nor feared/mocked Obama.

    My guess is the right wing will turn out for him unless they are even more petulant than I presently think they are.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Valley Stream, N.Y.
    Posts
    2,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm a conservative who will likely hold his nose and pull the lever for McCain in November. I don't post on this forum much but I follow political news every day, so I'm somewhat informed on the issues.

    What I've never understood is how McCain earns the adulatory label of "maverick" from the MSM when he co-sponsors bills with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and when he consistently votes against Bush ("admirable bi-partisanship"), but when a statesman such as Joe Lieberman has the audacity to walk off the Democratic reservation because of his support for the Iraq war, he's vilified as a traitor to the Party and has to switch his affiliation to Independent to fend off a senatorial election challenge from a nobody named Ned Lamont, backed by his former Dem cronies. And this happening to a man just a Supreme Court vote away from representing his Party and his country as Vice President in 2000. I wonder if McCain would have the onions to ask Lieberman to run as his VP? I seriously doubt that would happen, but the irony would be most delicious if they turned out to be the winners this Fall.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Mean Bro Green;2497180]not really, but if you don't like who the country says are your choices then you can always write in your vote and know at the end of the day that you went with your conscience, right?[/QUOTE]

    Sure you can say that. But in the end of the day, a conservative/Republican voter who goes and votes for the independent, write-in or doesn't vote at all is basically voting for the Democrats.

    That's one less vote for the Republicans, and one less vote to beat the Democrats.

    Same goes for the other way around.

    Unfortunately in this country, there is no significant 3rd party so we are relagated to two lousy ones.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parkwayjet1;2497616]What I've never understood is how McCain earns the adulatory label of "maverick" from the MSM when he co-sponsors bills with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and when he consistently votes against Bush ("admirable bi-partisanship"), but when a statesman such as Joe Lieberman has the audacity to walk off the Democratic reservation because of his support for the Iraq war, he's vilified as a traitor to the Party and has to switch his affiliation to Independent to fend off a senatorial election challenge from a nobody named Ned Lamont, backed by his former Dem cronies. And this happening to a man just a Supreme Court vote away from representing his Party and his country as Vice President in 2000. I wonder if McCain would have the onions to ask Lieberman to run as his VP? I seriously doubt that would happen, but the irony would be most delicious if they turned out to be the winners this Fall.[/QUOTE]

    You are mixing apples and oranges. It is the Democratic rank and file, not the MSM, that vilifies Lieberman. Rightly so.

    McCain probably does not deserve the term maverick in general, but your own question indicates why he has on occasion been called one by the MSM. You seem to be of the opinion that bi-partisanship is in effect never admirable. His disagreement with that position, a disagreement anathema to the angry and intolerant wing of the GOP, meaning the largest wing, is what earns him the maverick label. I assume you are referring to Feingold in the context of the fundraising reform bill, which I noted elsewhere is concededly an issue to the big money interests that control the GOP, but I don't get why the rank and file should care about that. The Kennedy reference I assume is to the immigration bill, which was supported by W. In other words, that was more Kennedy coming over to join W and McCain than the other way around, I might add joining the Chamber of Commerce and NAM, too.

    But overall your post is flawed since you are comparing the MSM's reference to McCain as a maverick with the Democratic Party's vilification of Lieberman. In fact, wouldn't you say that vilification is sort of what you are doing, as I think it is safe to say a rank and file GOP member, in complaining that McCain has sometimes been bi-partisan?

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    If McCain picks a conservative as a runningmate the stench will be less.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Valley Stream, N.Y.
    Posts
    2,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2497679]You are mixing apples and oranges. It is the Democratic rank and file, not the MSM, that vilifies Lieberman. Rightly so.

    McCain probably does not deserve the term maverick in general, but your own question indicates why he has on occasion been called one by the MSM. You seem to be of the opinion that bi-partisanship is in effect never admirable. His disagreement with that position, a disagreement anathema to the angry and intolerant wing of the GOP, meaning the largest wing, is what earns him the maverick label. I assume you are referring to Feingold in the context of the fundraising reform bill, which I noted elsewhere is concededly an issue to the big money interests that control the GOP, but I don't get why the rank and file should care about that. The Kennedy reference I assume is to the immigration bill, which was supported by W. In other words, that was more Kennedy coming over to join W and McCain than the other way around, I might add joining the Chamber of Commerce and NAM, too.

    But overall your post is flawed since you are comparing the MSM's reference to McCain as a maverick with the Democratic Party's vilification of Lieberman. In fact, wouldn't you say that vilification is sort of what you are doing, as I think it is safe to say a rank and file GOP member, in complaining that McCain has sometimes been bi-partisan?[/QUOTE]

    What I'm getting at is the one-way street I see. Bi-partisanship is something I observe on only one side of the aisle, as admirable a concept as it may be, and I see little or nothing ever coming back the other way. So if I sound like I'm trashing bi-partisanship, it's only because it isn't reciprocated, or at least not nearly enough to suit me.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parkwayjet1;2497731]What I'm getting at is the one-way street I see. Bi-partisanship is something I observe on only one side of the aisle, as admirable a concept as it may be, and I see little or nothing ever coming back the other way. So if I sound like I'm trashing bi-partisanship, it's only because it isn't reciprocated, or at least not nearly enough to suit me.[/QUOTE]

    Why do you say a one way street? W wanted to pursue immigration reform. Kennedy supported the effort. Which "way" was that?

    Supporting programs that obtain support from both sides of the aisle does not mean that one cannot criticize a fellow member of your own party for taking a position you disagree with. Kind of like Lieberman taking shots for being pro-Iraq War, or you taking shots at McCain for supporting McCain Feingold.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    Posts
    18,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=49ersJetsfan;2497637]Sure you can say that. But in the end of the day, a conservative/Republican voter who goes and votes for the independent, write-in or doesn't vote at all is basically voting for the Democrats.

    That's one less vote for the Republicans, and one less vote to beat the Democrats.

    Same goes for the other way around.

    Unfortunately in this country, there is no significant 3rd party so we are relagated to two lousy ones.[/QUOTE]

    Thta's just a cop out IMO because there will never be a viable third party or true independents in this nation with a voice as long as we let the two terrible major parties control our thinking to belive what you just stated. Certainly being realistic nothing will change in this major election or the next but if more people took a stand things may change over the next decade or two

    I just like to vote on issues not ideals that place me in box one or box two

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us