ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

July 10, 2008

It should've been my guy 'anybody but John McCain', but now I'm voting for John McCain

I won't rehash it because Alarming News readers already know: I predicted a John McCain win throughout the entire primary process. My official position was "Anybody But McCain" (which later became "Anybody But McCain or Huckabee"). People scoffed. Why oppose a guy who has no chance anyway? I was called naive. I was called silly. I was called blind. I was told I didn't know anything at all. Ok, fine, I'll rehash just a little my being right.

I didn't want McCain to win. That's being charitable. I wanted Rudy Giuliani to win but knew, way back, that that was never going to happen. I've been around Republican primaries in several states now. The pro-choicer very rarely wins. It happens, sure, but not in presidential primaries, not in my lifetime (I wasn't born in 1976, ha!). So I looked around for another candidate. I loved Fred Thompson but he just never caught steam. I voted for Mitt Romney when the primaries reached NY and he was the only candidate not named McCain or Huckabee left standing.

The entire time I was predicting a McCain win, and specifically a Giuliani flame out, I would preface it by saying "I want to be wrong." Nothing would have made me happier than to have Rudy be our guy right now. He would know how to handle Obama. I believe he could handle anyone.

But that's all in the past now and McCain is going to be the Republican nominee. Elections come down to actual choices, there's no idealism, it's this guy or that guy. I want this guy. I'm voting for John McCain.

My reasons are pretty simple. For all of McCain's faults, and yes he has many, he is a million times closer to my political philosophy than is Obama. I think. Because, really, who knows what Obama believes? He ran on the idea that he'd pull out of Iraq asap. Now, not so much. He's not going to raise taxes, except on the "rich", a definition he keeps changing. He wants to talk to Iran, but maybe he just said that. He's a man of the people but he's not accepting government funding instead letting Scarlett Johansson and other celebrities take him to the top.

I may not agree with McCain on everything, but there's little doubt to where he stands on most issues. He's going to have a tough foreign policy where no, we won't be talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We're going to support Israel because, yes, it is the "frontline of civilization" (hat-tip on the linked article, Pretty Numbers). He likely won't raise your taxes. He'll at least try to curb spending.

No, he's not perfect and I won't recap all the ways he's failed conservatives. But he comes much closer than Obama at living up to conservative principles. If that matters to you, as it matters to me, vote John McCain.

Up tomorrow: Todd Seavey's "It should've been my guy Rudy Giuliani, but now I'm voting for Bob Barr."

Posted by Karol at July 10, 2008 12:32 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I predicted McCain all along and I wanted McCain to win from the beginning. So I win!

Posted by: PAUL at July 10, 2008 04:28 PM

I don't think it was just the pro-choice with Giuliani. The more and more stuff came out about his time as NYC mayor, the more and more GOPers I knew started to say, "You know, great in a crisis but not sure we want him in charge."

I'd submit that you can be pro-choice and win a GOP primary. All you have to say (and mean) is this: "I think Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and that it should be a state's rights issue." Instead, people keep being nuanced and hedging about it because, well, don't want to seem too crazy. However, you cannot be pro-choice, on your third marriage, and the kind of guy who has police escort your mistress about. Um, no.

Personally I think the fact that Romney is not the nominee indicates that there's a little truth to the hypocrisy of family value voters. So the guy whose been with the same wife, been successful, etc., etc. is someone people can't get behind over the man who has stuck his thumb in the base's eye just about every...chance...he...got? Yeah, have fun with that.

One of the reasons I love being an independent. At the end of the day I get the binary (arguably trinary) choice and the barf bucket rather than selling my soul to the party only to have a bunch of other idjits choose the guy I gotta go out and support.

Posted by: James at July 10, 2008 10:58 PM

McCain cannot win because he will be another Bush. Not in the way democrats want to portray him but another Bush anyway. He won't stand up and call Hussein O on his lies, he wants a clean campaign. Problem is the left wing democrats make a living by lying about everything from birth to death. Bush won't call an idiot and idiot, a liar a liar and McCain won't either. Bush and McCain both should be on TV every day telling the truth about Hussein and the democrats. They don't have to use rumors. There's enough lies from the democrats in the past six months to sink a fleet of titanic's. McCain would gain millions of votes if Bush would indict Peeeloshi as a traitor, which she is. No witnesses required, just the facts to a jury and her neck will get longer and her eyes will bug out more. Ropes around the neck and a short drop will do that.

Posted by: Scrapiron at July 10, 2008 11:28 PM

The news media has report on every gaffe or any questionable conduct by Barack Obama and his surrogates as far back as the democratic primary. They are reported on for weeks, when Hillary Clinton and now John McCain are giving a pass. It is beginning to look like it is becoming racially motivated by this type of reporting. Please report on this injustice. I added a report from the Huffington Post to back up my claim.

This article is from the Huffington Post.
During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.
But let's unpack McCain's week in a little more detail.
1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security "an absolute disgrace." This is not a quote taken out of context. John McCain called one of the most successful and popular government programs, which uses the tax revenues of current workers to support retirement benefits for the elderly "an absolute disgrace." This is shocking - and if uttered from Obama's mouth would dominate the news coverage and the Sunday shows, as pundits would speculate about the massive damage the statement would cause him among retirees in Florida.
2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy. Words cannot fully explain how devastating this statement should be from Phil Gramm. You would think it would be enough to sink McCain's campaign. Of course McCain only thinks that the economic problems are psychological.
3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop. The Iraqis now want us to begin planning our withdrawal - McCain however wants to stay foooorrreeevvveerrrr. So what does McCain say - First, he refuses to accept Maliki's statement as being true. Then he concedes that it was an accurate statement, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and WOULD NOT influence his determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Yet, McCain in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to go. No matter what. But that was apparently a younger and less experienced John McCain.
But let's just look at his comment that Maliki's statement is "just politics." If that is true, then it must also be true that the American military presence in Iraq is so unpopular with Iraqis that the government is forced to push for a timetable in order to survive at the ballot box. That's a reason to stay for 100 years.
4. McCain's economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable. There are so many things here. McCain pledges he would eliminate the deficit by the end of his
first term (the campaign latter flip flop flipped about whether it was four years or eight years), but does not provide any details about how he would do it. Economists on both sides of the political aisle said that this was simply not believable, especially given McCain's other proposals to a) cut individual and corporate taxes even further, b) extend the Bush tax cuts and c) massively increase defense spending on manpower (200,000 more troops) and d) maintain a long-term sizable military presence in Iraq.

5. McCain's deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop. Speaking of the long-term military presence - a story that has gotten absolutely no attention is that McCain now believes the war will be over soon. The economic forecasts made by his crack team of economists predict that there will be significant savings during McCain's first term because we will have achieved "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The savings from victory (ie the savings from not having our troops there) will then be used to pay down the deficit. The only way this could have any impact on the deficit in McCain's first time is if troop withdrawals start very soon. So McCain believes victory is in our grasps and we can begin withdraw troops from Iraq pretty much right away -- doesn't sound that different from Obama's plan does it. Someone should at least ask McCain HOW HE DEFINES VICTORY - and why he thinks we will achieve it in the next couple of years.
6. McCain campaign misled about economists support. In the major press release the McCain campaign issued to tout its Jobs for America economic plan that would balance the budget in 4 years, it included the signatures of more than 300 economists who the campaign claimed to support the plan. Only problem is that the economists were actually asked to sign up to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Um, hello?
7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians. Haha... that's just McCain being McCain. I am sure that is exactly how it is being reported in Tehran. This guy is running for President not to become a talk radio pundit. Yet according to the AP this was just a humanizing moment between candidate and spouse - I am not sure when joking about the deaths of civilians became humanizing.
8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics. Are you kidding?
9). McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.
10.) McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain said "I think if there is some good news, I think that there is a glimmer of improving relationship between Karzai and the Pakistanis." Pat Barry notes how crazy this comment is..."Just what "glimmer" is McCain talking about?? Maybe he's referring to President Karzai's remarks last month, which threatened military action in Pakistan if cross-border attacks persisted? Or maybe McCain is talking about Afghanistan's allegations that Pakistan's ISI was involved in a recent assassination attempt on Karzai? Maybe in McCain's world you could call that a silver-lining, but in reality-land I'd call it something else."
Any one of these incidents and comments would dominate the news cycle if they came from the Obama campaign. Yet McCain barely gets a mention. The press like to see themselves as political referees - neutral observers that call them like they see em'. But they want this to be a horse race and so all the calls right now are going one way. How else can you explain the furor last week over the Obama "refine" comment - which represented zero change in Obama's position on Iraq - and the "swift boat" mania over Wesley Clark's uncontroversial comments (psss... by the way McCain exploits his POW experience in just about every ad - yet he says he doesn't like to talk about it).
This Sunday expect the ten incidents above to get short shrift from pundit after pundit, because after all Jesse Jackson said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off.

Posted by: Rod at July 11, 2008 03:52 AM

James, I disagree. Abortion is really it. Partly it's because when someone is pro-choice they usually tend to be more liberal on a host of other issues. One of my grad school teachers, I believe it might have been Dick Morris, once said that if you want to let the electorate know you're pro-choice without explicitly saying so, talk up the environment or your opposition to guns.

Posted by: Karol at July 11, 2008 12:48 PM

Rod--you know, I'm glad you like the Huff-n-Post and all, but don't you think cutting and pasting is going to expose Karol to charges of copyright infringement?


Moreover, given how bad the press has been / is in the tank for Obama, especially during the primaries, you're going to try and convince us that his bad press is the result of some master plan? Alternatively, how about the fact that the man can't stick to a position is actually getting so obvious that the press _must_ report on it to retain any respectability?

On the Iranians--yes, joking about people smoking our cancer sticks and killing themselves is appropriate. Perhaps it may offend your sensibilities, but considering this is a nation that regularly calls us "The Great Satan" pardon me if I don't think we should be concerned.

Your examples specifically indicate how relations between Karzai and Pakistan are improving--they aren't still trying to kill him on a regular basis. (That's just the latest attempt to make the widespread news. There have been others reported in the BBC.) Personally, I think McCain has demonstrated more of a clue than, "We're going to bomb Pakistan..." Obama. Of course, this is not to imply either one of them know WTF they're talking about or what they'll do, but the fact Pakistan is still a viable entity (as opposed to a U.S.-Indo Protectorate after 9/11) means options are limited.

Karol

I stand by my statement. It's not like H.W. Bush was virulently pro-life, he was just pro-life enough. On the micro level, I've seen several Republican candidates win on the "states rights" / personally pro-choice stance. Happen to share DNA with one of them as a matter of fact. It _is_ possible, you just have to have _everything_ in place for the rest of the planks. It's not a minor issue by any means, but I think if you're virulently pro-gun, civil liberties, and small government than you have less of a hill to climb with regards to the pro-life issue.

For the record, I think if the GOP wants to continue to die on that hill they better get used to seeing Blue Dogs win in competetive districts.

Posted by: James at July 11, 2008 11:27 PM

It should have been my guy, Fred Thompson but now I'm voting for Barak Obama.

Some weeks ago I sent a letter to each of my elected Representatives telling them that as a committed, activist voting Republican if the price of a gallon of diesel fuel at the pump were over $2.50 a gallon on Election Day, I would walk into the voting booth and pull the Democrat lever.

And so I shall.

The Rethuglican mutts had all the marbles from 2000 to 2006. They did nothing but line their pockets and grovel for power.

To heck with them. Let them wander in the wilderness and see how they like it.

Posted by: paul a'barge at July 13, 2008 07:26 PM

hangs head in shame for not converting Karol to a real conservative like Ron Paul.

Posted by: Avery Knapp at July 14, 2008 10:44 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?