I didn’t pay a lot of attention this week. A little talk on the radio driving to and from work. I did watch the speeches by Palin and McCain, and heard a little of the earlier speeches by Leiberman, Romney, and Giuliani – though not much.
After the learning process earlier this year, getting elected an alternate to my BPOU convention, and from there a delegate to my Congressional district and State conventions, I quit paying much attention. The Congressional district convention was kind of fun, overall I would say I enjoyed it. The State convention, however, happened in May, when the only candidates left in the running were McCain and Paul. The state chairman, Ron Carey, did everything he could to turn it into a referendum on McCain. It also struck me as much less a serious event and much more akin to a high school pep rally.
That’s exactly what I thought of the National convention, at least what little I saw of it. Then again, I didn’t pay any attention to the “business” that is supposed to go on at conventions, such as resolutions to make changes to the party platform. I don’t see those as in any way meaningful though. It’s one thing to have a party platform that the base can be happy with, it’s another thing altogether to enforce the platform and require candidates to adhere to it in exchange for the party’s nomination.
While I haven’t changed my mind on my vote (I absolutely will not vote for McCain in November), I have liked what I’ve seen of Palin. She seems to have done a great job running a family, and has done some impressive things in Alaska. She is also quite good at giving a speech. However, I refuse to fall into the same trap so many Obamaphiles have fallen into by assuming that giving a good speech is equivalent to governing well. That takes experience and a track record, which Palin doesn’t have a lot of.
At this current time (with what little I know of her), Palin appears to be an excellent pick for McCain as a running-mate. She has done wonders to appease the Conservative base, otherwise none-too-happy that McCain in the Republican nominee. She has taken away the “history-making” factor that the Obama campaign was counting on – regardless of who wins now there will be a “first,” be it the first black President or the first woman Vice-President. I am certain she will draw in a lot of women to vote Republican, including many disgruntled Hillary supporters who have sworn not to vote for Obama.
That won’t be enough to win my vote though. What does the Vice-President really do anyway? She’d break a tie in the Senate, but how often is that going to really matter when it comes down to brass tacks? McCain has been peddling his military service as a reason to vote for him. There are a lot of great heros that have served selflessly in the military on both sides of the political divide, that doesn’t mean I want them governing the country. McCain is also trumpeting his experience in the Senate working with Democrats. He must forget that that is exactly why so many Conservatives are upset that he is the nominee. I’m not interested in compromising with Democrats, I’m interested in defeating them. The Democrats are always moving further to the left; increasing government and decreasing liberty (with the sole exception that they wish to increase a woman’s liberty to murder her child). Compromising with them only means we move to the left a little slower than we would if they got their way.
It will be interesting to see what happens in November. I don’t like either candidate, and will be voting Constitution Party again. I expect the following to happen regardless of who wins the White House in November:
- American sovereignty will continue to be eroded
- Illegal immigration will continue as usual
- Abortion will continue as usual
- The Federal Reserve will continue its fraudulent existence
- The military will continue to be spread around the globe in unnecessary conflicts (the difference between the two will just be a matter of where of where or why)
- Taxes will remain confiscatory (maybe slightly less with McCain, but then slightly less strychnine will still kill you)
- Free speech will still be a thing of the past
- Neither candidate is likely to restore any measure of lost 2nd amendment rights
- Both will force us into economy-killing solutions to the non-existent problem of “global climate change”
- Both will try to reform health care in ways that will only cause more problems
In other words, both candidates are bad for the country, one is just arguably worse than the other. So I go back to what I’ve said every election since I began paying attention: voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. What’s worse, it makes evil the standard. I’m frankly tired of candidates who’s list of negatives is longer than their list of positives. I’m not interested in who’s list of negatives is longer than the other guy’s, I’m interested in who’s positives are longer than his own negatives. We haven’t seen that candidate win a major party’s nomination in decades.
McCain’s list of positives are longer then Obama’s positives. And true to form, again this year, I’m voting for the candidate with the most positives.
Why let Obama win just to prove a point when you have an alternative that will make the country a better place in the next 4 years? Senator McCain will be a better leader for conservatives than Obama, so I’ll vote for him in Nov.
Be my guest. However, you are not the first to suggest I vote for the lesser of two evils. Not only have I had about as much as I can take in the last 6 months, I had more than I could take in 2004.
I vote for real Conservatives, and not the “slightly less Liberal” guy. I don’t care what party they are in. If the Republicans want my vote, they need to nominate a CONSERVATIVE, not a pro-life Liberal.
Let me challenge this a bit:
* Abortion will continue as usual
By my count, if an abortion case made it to the SCOTUS, they would uphold Roe v. Wade 5-4. Stevens HAS to retire (or die)–he’s waiting for Obama to get elected, but he might get sick (literally?) of waiting and retire anyway. McCain says he would appoint Roberts-like justices. This is one area where there *is* a world of difference–Obama will appoint the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
* Taxes will remain confiscatory (maybe slightly less with McCain, but then slightly less strychnine will still kill you)
“Slightly less” taxation will cause the economy to grow. Slightly more will do great harm.
* Free speech will still be a thing of the past
I can go almost anywhere in the state and preach the gospel freely with little fear of police harrasment. What more do you want? What I think you mean is that my speech can possibly be prosecuted if someone wants to corruptly come after me. I think that was always the case.
* Neither candidate is likely to restore any measure of lost 2nd amendment rights
Can we not have “reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions” on our 2nd amendment rights? I think the NRA has done well on this one to keep the “unreasonable” restrictions away. Unless you want to restore the right of the people to rebel against their government by any means necessary, we’re pretty good here. McCain won’t push for any gun changes.
Honestly, I hear that argument, “I won’t vote for the lesser of 2 evils” quite frequently. But, no one can answer this: What does it gain for CONSERVATIVES to have the greater of 2 evils representing them?
I know you can say that I don’t have to vote, but that’s not an alternative for me. If as a conservative, I have a choice of a greater evil or lesser evil, why would I pick by doing nothing the greater evil?
Also, regarding your reply, Not only have I had about as much as I can take in the last 6 months, I had more than I could take in 2004. Tell me that you would have been happy in 2004 with Gore in the white house, or the last 6 months with Kerry in the white house. Again, I don’t see how going with the greater evil is significantly better then going with the lesser evil. It just doesn’t compute.
Brent
Vote however you like. I will not vote for a Liberal, regardless of party. I also will not go along with the Republican kool-aid drinkers who would vote for the Devil himself so long as he ran as a Republican.
Every time the Republicans put a Liberal up and people like you vote for him, they get the message that it’s ok to put up Liberals. Whenever their Liberal wins, they get the message that that’s what they need to do to win elections.
Sorry, I’m not playing that game. You’re asking me to choose between pure poison and diluted poison. I’m telling you that you can go ahead and shoot me, I’m not taking either.
But, for arguments’ sake, let me ask what you would do to get real Conservatives in office? It doesn’t make sense to me that sending the Republicans the message that their Liberals are ok is the way to get them to change their ways. It seems to me that as long as it’s working for them there is no reason to change. People who vote the way you do are, in my opinion, quite myopic. You are worried about the next four years, seemingly without concern for the longer term.
Your view strikes me as too much like that of the Keynesian economists who know their models don’t work, but justify them by saying that in the long run we’re all dead anyway. Sure, we get a more Liberal person in office than we would like, and sure the status quo will continue, but in the end we’re all dead anyway. Sorry, I may have to live with the consequences of too many people thinking that way, but it doesn’t mean I have to be a part of the process.
But, for arguments’ sake, let me ask what you would do to get real Conservatives in office?
I don’t think there is anything you can do to force real conservative into office. You can’t go force real conservatives to run for office. You can’t force people to vote for them. You have absolutely no power over anyone but yourself.
All you can do is play the hand you are dealt. Sure, you may wish that you were dealt a royal flush every single hand, but you may be never be dealt a royal flush. The answer is not to fold every time but play the best hand you can.
You may not want to be part of the process to make the country better for conservatives, but I do. I don’t know how electing Obama and Franken will better conservativetism, so I’m going to vote for the best hand I had dealt.
…And I don’t see how electing liberals like McCain and Coleman are going to get us any closer to winning on the issues near and dear to my heart. The list I posted above was written with McCain in mind, but you could easily substitute Coleman and Franken in the place of McCain and Obama.
If you want to use the poker analogy, I can roll with that. I’m not necessarily looking for a royal flush, at this point I’d be happy with a straight. Often times the best thing to do with the hand you’re dealt is to fold. Calling every hand when all you have is a pair of sixes is a pretty stupid way to play.