If anyone should be worried about third-party candidates, it’s the Democrats - Nader may run again, and if Bloomberg runs he will take more Dem votes than GOP votes.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If anyone should be worried about third-party candidates, it’s the Democrats - Nader may run again, and if Bloomberg runs he will take more Dem votes than GOP votes.[/quote]
True enough. Plus, Paul is not running as an independent.
Still, even with Nader or Bloomberg running, McCain can’t beat Obama. But that’s just me…
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
If anyone should be worried about third-party candidates, it’s the Democrats - Nader may run again, and if Bloomberg runs he will take more Dem votes than GOP votes.
True enough. Plus, Paul is not running as an independent.
Still, even with Nader or Bloomberg running, McCain can’t beat Obama. But that’s just me…[/quote]
So nut up and specify your bet. To get you off of this forum, I am willing to go LBJ on your ass and personally vote in the place of thousands of dead hispanics.
Some more for conservatives to ponder:
[i]Be Careful What You Wish For
Maimon Schwarzschild
Should conservative-libertarian-fusionists boycott McCain and anticipate that a term or two of Democratic Party control will do the country and the world no irreversible harm? Or at least that McCain’s defeat would push the Republicans to the right (a highly dubious proposition itself, I think) - and that the benefit of that would outweigh the drawbacks of an Obama or Clinton victory? Mike R. meditates that position here ( The Right Coast ) (and here The Right Coast and here The Right Coast ) and he argues that I exaggerate how much Obama or Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, would actually govern from the Left: on Iraq, health care, immigration, judicial appointments, and much else.
No doubt the regnant Democrats might not be able to do all that they’d like to do, and all that they are promising to do.
But I think this could be a Democratic ascendancy like none other in American history. Until now, Democratic presidents - and governing Congresses that such Presidents have led - have all been more or less centrist. This was even true of FDR’s Democratic Party, which after all had a substantial conservative Southern wing, and a large centrist constituency in the AF of L and elsewhere. The true Left was not the dominant tendency in the Democratic Party. Sometimes the Left broke away entirely, as the Communist-dominated Progressives did in 1948. Or the Democrats lost at the polls, as they did when they nominated George McGovern.
(They also lost with Mondale: in some ways, McGovern Lite. And with John Kerry: McGovern Heavy. George McGovern himself was a Henry Wallace delegate and Progressive supporter as a young man in 1948: against Truman in the general election. McGovern’s sort of Leftism meant opposing the Democratic national ticket in those days, not supporting it.)
Today’s Democratic Party, in spirit and ethos, is heir to the Progressives. I think anyone who has been following the trends in the Democratic Party, anyone with Democratic friends and colleagues, will recognise how the Democrats have changed in predominating temperament and attitude since the late 1990s. The Democrats - for the first time ever with a good chance of capturing the White House and Congress - are now dominated by the same constituencies who tended Progressive in 1948: in some cases by actual grandchildren of Progressive voters and supporters.
This is not Bill Clinton’s basically centrist Democratic Party from the 90s: much less LBJ’s or JFK’s or Truman’s. For the first time, perhaps, Democrats of the Left have a real prospect of governing the United States. Their Leftism is perhaps more a feeling and a style, at least in many cases, than a systematic programme. But it is real, I think, and different from what dominated the Democratic Party in the past. And it has real fervour and passion. Will today’s Democrats submit to carrying on in Iraq, rather than withdrawing as they promise and transforming (i.e. radically constraining) what will be possible for the US in the world for many years to come? I wouldn’t be too sure. And so likewise on other issues close to the hearts of people on the Left.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. Here is Victor Davis Hanson yesterday ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGJiNWM1NjhjZDJmNWYxYmU3OTkzNGRlYWZhNTc3YmU= ):
[quote] "The alternative [to supporting McCain] is a Republican loss, and likely increased Democratic control of the Congress and soon a trifecta with the Supreme Court.
We would witness a new generation of European-like tax increases, unnecessary new programs, negotiated or unilateral surrender in Iraq, loss of what has been achieved in preventing another 9/11 (a return to the Sandy Berger/Albright response to terrorists in the late 1990s when our embassies were leveled and Pakistan got the bomb), 2-3 far Left Supreme Court justices, and the race/class/gender industry given official sanction.
The idea that feuding conservatives would each not make some sort of concessions to prevent all that is lunatic."[/quote]
I think there is a strong positive case for John McCain, based first and foremost on his strength of character. But the negative case -“Compared to what?” - is overwhelming.
[/i]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
If anyone should be worried about third-party candidates, it’s the Democrats - Nader may run again, and if Bloomberg runs he will take more Dem votes than GOP votes.
True enough. Plus, Paul is not running as an independent.
Still, even with Nader or Bloomberg running, McCain can’t beat Obama. But that’s just me…
So nut up and specify your bet. To get you off of this forum, I am willing to go LBJ on your ass and personally vote in the place of thousands of dead hispanics. [/quote]
I’m in.
Jonah Goldberg looks at McCain’s candidacy here, in a piece entitled “Should Conservatives Back Mac”:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/should-conserva.html
EXCERPT:
[i] …There are lots of reasons, some good, some bad, for conservatives’ angry dyspepsia toward McCain. I have bouts of it myself. From campaign-finance reform, to his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants to his general tendency to burnish his own maverick street rep by triangulating off conservatives, McCain just seems to relish breaking ranks too much.
But that raises an interesting and remarkably undiscussed question for McCain's detractors: Who are you really mad at?
Most of the criticisms aimed at McCain can be directed at President Bush himself. Campaign-finance reform is a great example. Most conservatives think McCain's effort to regulate political speech is an unconstitutional abomination. But in fairness to McCain, he doesn't think that. You know who does? George W. Bush. The president signed the McCain-Feingold bill though he admitted that he thought it was unconstitutional. But as a "uniter not a divider," Bush felt it wasn't his place to veto an unconstitutional law �?? his oath of office notwithstanding �?? that was very popular, particularly with independents, centrist Democrats and the New York Times crowd.
Amnesty for illegal immigrants? To be sure, McCain was a big player last year in pushing legislation many on the right detest. But the biggest player of all was, again, Bush. Whatever your disagreements with McCain on immigration might be, it's pretty much impossible not to have the same disagreements with the president who campaigned in 2000 insisting that "family values don't end at the Rio Grande." Indeed, before the 9/11 attacks, Bush wanted to make Mexico, not Great Britain, our No. 1. ally.
You can go on like this for quite a while. If you point to McCain's very conservative record on judges, his detractors will dismiss it, saying they don't trust his instincts. Didn't McCain say something about Justice Samuel Alito being too conservative? they ask. Well, didn't Bush's instincts guide him to naming White House insider Harriet Miers before conservatives revolted and forced him to choose again? McCain opponents note that while the senator talks a big game about cutting pork from the budget, he's still a big regulator and friend of activist government. This is fair, to some extent, but they forget that it was President Bush who pushed through the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society with his prescription drug benefit �?? a plan McCain opposed and promises to scale back.
A Bush buyer's remorse
According to many pundits, McCain won the Republican Party's "anti-Bush" wing, made up of moderates and independents. But this is largely a media-driven narrative imposed on a somewhat different reality. There is, in fact, a much broader anti-Bush sentiment in the party. The "right wing" of the GOP is suffering from a deep buyer's remorse of its own.... [/i]
A good argument from Jerry Pournelle:
http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q2/view518.html#Tuesday
[i]I have a number of letters about McCain and why we ought to vote Libertarian and “Send a message.” I understand the argument.
The fact is that the Democrats will control Congress. If they also control the White House, we will have a series of legislative packages that will make the Great Society look like a libertarian government. In opposition the Republicans rediscover their principles; it’s power they haven’t been able to handle since Newt Gingrich was Speaker.
The country is in trouble. We have forgotten our founding principles, and we move inexorably toward a European style socialist state, with the only winners being an enormous bureaucracy. This will accelerate the economic decline.
The argument is to give the Democrats their head, and pick up the pieces after the inevitable crash. I think that overlooks the resilience of tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect regimes. We haven’t seen much in the way of reforms in Europe. The Democrats will create new bureaucracies that can never be dismantled: an example is the Department of Education. Reagan came into office determined to abolish it. Now it owns US education, and No Child Left Behind is entrenched. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is inexorable.
The country was reasonably well managed when we had a Republican Congress and a Democrat President.
As to the war: if we give the Democrats full control of the government, we won’t get a sensible foreign policy: see Kosovo if you doubt that. We may get a disengagement from Iraq: the price will be high, in blood of those in Iraq who trusted us, and in honor. We may not. Disengaging from Iraq will not be a simple matter. A gradual withdrawal won’t work well: as we pull out, the insurgents will be heartened. The result won’t be pretty.
Sure, we can retreat. We have the military power to cut and run, get out and get out fast. The results of that will be with us for a long time. Recall the last helicopter out of Saigon?
I conclude that McCain as president is a far lesser evil than Obama would be. But there are those in whom hope springs eternal: who hold the view that Obama is not what all the evidence says he is, a left wing liberal intellectual with Chicago political connections and all the ethical implications that implies. Hope springs eternal.
Thus we have the choice: a Chicago machine politician with Harvard liberal beliefs vs. a country club Republican who feels entitled.
The post-Gingrich Republicans who invented “big government conservatism” have much to answer for. [/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
First: Don’t kid yourself - Paul has no shot, and he never has had a shot.
Second, you’re ignoring the frame of the question, which is imposed by the U.S. 2-party system: Given the other candidate with any chance of winning the presidency, is it better for a conservative to vote for the GOP nominee or to do something else?
So, w/r/t McCain, the question regarding illegal immigrants would be: Do you prefer McCain’s position or the position of Hillary/Obama (whoever happens to win the nomination)?
Same set up for any other issue.
And keep in mind, too, that the question needs to be considered in light of the almost surety that there will be a Democratic Congress for at least the first two years of the next Presidential term.[/quote]
Ron Paul would have no shot if every body listened to that type of logic. We need more than the two sides of the same coin politics we have today.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Serious questions: Do you think McCain is more hell-bent on war than Bush? I don’t think he fits the “neo-con” label as well as Dubya, but his rhetoric coupled with his temper leaves a lot of questions unanswered. With Bush’s abysmal approval rates, isn’t it very unlikely that people would vote for more of the same?
Also, what kind of conservative supports amnesty for illegals?
The way I see it, if the Republicans want to stay in the White House they either need to cut terrorists some slack or downright stage a big attack and blame it on Iran or some other pigeon.
In the many months left to the actual elections, a lot could happen. With the current data I wouldn’t bet on the Republicans - even if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination.
The economy will keep going south. That much is indubitable. The rate at which the decline continues will determine whether Paul will have a shot or not. And if only Al-Sadr resumes the activities of his militia or more Iraqis start shooting at the foreign troops, Ron Paul may just be the next US president.[/quote]
McCain is just as much of a war-monger as Bush. One of his chief advisors on the Iran issue is James Woolsley…man how fun is this gonna be?
McCain is backing down on the war rhetoric for now because it is extremely unpopular for the time being. Afterwards all bets are off.
I don’t think Paul is going to have a shot and this is largely due to the practical media blackout he is recieving by the mainstream press.
His hits on various search engines such as yahoo, tower above all presidential hopefulls. Check out Dr. Mercola’s website and look for the video by Jerry Day. It’s titled, Media Caught Lying About Presidential Candidates’ Popularity.
I find the lesser evil, Democratic apocalypse argument increasingly empty. Where would an Obama administration be substantially different from McCain? Maybe taxes a bit higher, but we’re not going to be at “European” levels (a pretty broad term) any time soon.
A quicker pullout from Iraq, but more troops going to Afghanistan? Probably a good thing on balance. Immigration? No discernable difference. Free trade? Likewise. Activist liberal judges on the Supreme Court?
Maybe, but again, on the biggest issue to conservatives (Roe) having had a Republican president 20 out of the last 28 years has changed nothing.
There are a lot of good reasons not to be voting for Obama, mainly involving the fact that he embraces all of the Democratic Party’s baleful cultural and social orthodoxies, on abortion, multiculturalism, coastal elitism, etc.
I won’t be voting for him. But if you’re a conservative and think the sky will fall if he beats McCain you aren’t paying attention.
And don’t worry, war party conservatives, Obama is perfectly keen on galloping off to the far corners of the world to right wrongs with American bombs, he’s just opposed to the Iraq war.
Newsflash: Ron Paul has no shot, had no shot, and he was running as a Republican.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I find the lesser evil, Democratic apocalypse argument increasingly empty. Where would an Obama administration be substantially different from McCain? Maybe taxes a bit higher, but we’re not going to be at “European” levels (a pretty broad term) any time soon.
A quicker pullout from Iraq, but more troops going to Afghanistan? Probably a good thing on balance. Immigration? No discernable difference. Free trade? Likewise. Activist liberal judges on the Supreme Court?
Maybe, but again, on the biggest issue to conservatives (Roe) having had a Republican president 20 out of the last 28 years has changed nothing.
There are a lot of good reasons not to be voting for Obama, mainly involving the fact that he embraces all of the Democratic Party’s baleful cultural and social orthodoxies, on abortion, multiculturalism, coastal elitism, etc.
I won’t be voting for him. But if you’re a conservative and think the sky will fall if he beats McCain you aren’t paying attention.
And don’t worry, war party conservatives, Obama is perfectly keen on galloping off to the far corners of the world to right wrongs with American bombs, he’s just opposed to the Iraq war.[/quote]
Obama won’t pull out of Iraq immediately - his campaign rhetoric is the reverse of “boob bait for Bubbas” - it’s boob bait for Bo-Bos. Just like he won’t renegotiate NAFTA - the boob bait for the Bubbas. His adviser said as much.
I posted this on another thread, but it bears re-posting here:
Another point: Don’t forget that the question isn’t just: Obama or McCain. It’s Obama or McCain, given a Democratic Congress and 6 USSC justices at the age of 69 or older. That’s a significant contrast.
You may not be impressed with the success of overturning Roe, but 1) it’s been significantly restricted from its original scope and 2) engage in a counterfactual - how much worse would it have been if Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry had been selecting judges - how much of a chance of further restriction or overturning would you have then? Particularly if the Democrats were controlling the Senate? Under those circumstances, it could have easily been expanded…
The Republican judicial problem of the nominees stems from a few very bad choices (Blackmun by Nixon, Stevens by Ford, Souter by Bush I) and a couple pretty bad choices (O’Connor and Kennedy by Reagan) combined with legacy choices from previous Democratic administrations (those life-time appointments are a bitch to overcome once they’re made - how exactly were the Reagan appointees going to overcome a previously slanted deck - they had to wait for people to retire or die). Those bad choices were mostly due to the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of each of those bad appointments - and the mediocre ones as well. They will similarly control the Senate for the next appointments - do you want Obama making them, which will get you a Ginsburg, or do you want McCain making them, which at least gives you the chance for a Kennedy or maybe even a stealth good choice?
**Points expanded.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I find the lesser evil, Democratic apocalypse argument increasingly empty. Where would an Obama administration be substantially different from McCain? Maybe taxes a bit higher, but we’re not going to be at “European” levels (a pretty broad term) any time soon.
A quicker pullout from Iraq, but more troops going to Afghanistan? Probably a good thing on balance. Immigration? No discernable difference. Free trade? Likewise. Activist liberal judges on the Supreme Court?
Maybe, but again, on the biggest issue to conservatives (Roe) having had a Republican president 20 out of the last 28 years has changed nothing.
…[/quote]
I do not think that this is the biggest issue to many or most conservatives.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I find the lesser evil, Democratic apocalypse argument increasingly empty. Where would an Obama administration be substantially different from McCain? Maybe taxes a bit higher, but we’re not going to be at “European” levels (a pretty broad term) any time soon.
A quicker pullout from Iraq, but more troops going to Afghanistan? Probably a good thing on balance. Immigration? No discernable difference. Free trade? Likewise. Activist liberal judges on the Supreme Court?
Maybe, but again, on the biggest issue to conservatives (Roe) having had a Republican president 20 out of the last 28 years has changed nothing.
…
I do not think that this is the biggest issue to many or most conservatives.[/quote]
I meant the biggest issue with regard to the Supreme Court, my fault if that was unclear.
But I’d like to think abortion is certainly one of the biggest issues overall to conservatives.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
First: Don’t kid yourself - Paul has no shot, and he never has had a shot.
Second, you’re ignoring the frame of the question, which is imposed by the U.S. 2-party system: Given the other candidate with any chance of winning the presidency, is it better for a conservative to vote for the GOP nominee or to do something else?
So, w/r/t McCain, the question regarding illegal immigrants would be: Do you prefer McCain’s position or the position of Hillary/Obama (whoever happens to win the nomination)?
Same set up for any other issue.
And keep in mind, too, that the question needs to be considered in light of the almost surety that there will be a Democratic Congress for at least the first two years of the next Presidential term.
pittbulll wrote:
Ron Paul would have no shot if every body listened to that type of logic. We need more than the two sides of the same coin politics we have today.
Newsflash: Ron Paul has no shot, had no shot, and he was running as a Republican. [/quote]
Do you equate your vote as choosing who you think will win or does it equate to the direction that you think the country should pursue?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Do you equate your vote as choosing who you think will win or does it equate to the direction that you think the country should pursue?
[/quote]
I generally want to use my vote for someone who has a chance to win - so I look at the whole situation and pick the person from between the two major party candidates whose election would have the better effect on the direction I want the country to go.
I could vote Libertarian each election and essentially throw my vote away, or I could vote for someone who has a chance to win. There have been 3 significant 3P candidates in the history of Presidential elections ( Third party (United States) - Wikipedia ), and none of them founded an effective party going forward - and one of them was a former very popular U.S. President (T.R.). People bitch about the two party system, but then they turn around and bitch about “extremism”. Guess what everyone? The two party system pretty much makes it impossible for any party be elected on a platform that is too far away from what the median voter wants. You pretty much do get two sides of the same coin - and it’s just barely left, or barely right, of center.
Judges are a completely different story…
Would you agree that if 30% of the people think you should vote the way they think best for the country, that it would be a considerable voting block, as apposed to voting for a guy that almost represent part of you?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Would you agree that if 30% of the people think you should vote the way they think best for the country, that it would be a considerable voting block, as apposed to voting for a guy that almost represent part of you?[/quote]
If you got those 30% to agree on a single person - which you wouldn’t, because some people want someone more socially conservative, some people want someone more libertarian, some people want a socialist, some want an anarchist, etc., etc.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Would you agree that if 30% of the people think you should vote the way they think best for the country, that it would be a considerable voting block, as apposed to voting for a guy that almost represent part of you?
If you got those 30% to agree on a single person - which you wouldn’t, because some people want someone more socially conservative, some people want someone more libertarian, some people want a socialist, some want an anarchist, etc., etc.[/quote]
What sense does it make to vote for McCain when he almost represents part of the way you feel about a couple points? If every one votes for who they think will win it is a popularity contest?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What sense does it make to vote for McCain when he almost represents part of the way you feel about a couple points? If every one votes for who they think will win it is a popularity contest?
[/quote]
This is how it makes sense: You vote in the primaries and try to influence the choices that way. Once the major parties select their candidates, they are the only two people with realistic chances to win. So you vote for the one of those two whom you prefer - or you choose to throw your vote away completely. So in this case, the idea of Obama as president with a Democratic Congress is scary, thus I will vote for McCain. If you have any preference at all between the scenario of McCain as President or Obama as President, given the rationale expectation of a Democrat-controlled Congress, it makes sense to vote for one of the two.
Given the possible USSC nominations over the next 4-8 years, and foreign-policy preferences, I’m voting McCain, and so should each other conservative.