Aladdin Sane

As a conservative, I am having a time reconciling myself to John McCain. I don't like him. I find him to be opportunistic, egotistical, and untrustworthy. Still, when push comes to shove, in the general election, I will cast my vote for him because he is obviously better than anyone the Dems will put forward.

In the meantime, I plan to cast a tactical vote in the primary for either Hillary or Obama.

Should I pull the lever for Hillary, hoping that she will be easiest to beat in November? Or shall I vote for the empty-suit Obama, knowing that if he gets elected he'll not be able to get any of his destructive ideas passed into law?

I am leaning toward Hillary, because her negatives are through the roof-- the perfect Democrat candidate, methinks.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

ratbastid

Vote for the empty-suit Obama.

Although I probably shouldn't be answering the question, since I'm not a conservative.

SecretMethod70

You posted this in a public forum, so you invited this upon yourself...

Doing what you're contemplating is one of the worst, most mean-spirited, unethical, and downright disrespectful things an individual voter could possibly do in an election.

Is it legal? Sure. Does it happen? Of course. Does that mean it's OK? NO.

It's one thing to hope that the Democratic voters choose the candidate you feel most confident about defeating, but by actively working against whoever you decide is most likely to defeat McCain in the general election, you're actively working against the candidate you implicitly admit may be the candidate most citizens prefer. The level of self-importance and superiority required to take such action is...staggering. It is completely disrespectful to your fellow citizens, and to the idea of democracy in general.

Even contemplating such things simply infuriates me.

And since I know the likely response will be "Democratic voters do it too"...I think they're equally reprehensible.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

guyy

How defeatist.

I guess the conservative faction really is out of gas. And if that is the case, you, as conservative, are screwed either way.

Aladdin Sane

Thanks for actually answering my question, ratbastid. May I ask why I should go for the empty suit?

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Ustwo

Because he wants Obama to win.

This is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't.

I agree Obama is an empty suite. If he were an identical white man he would have been left in the dust by Hilary, and he really has nothing to offer this country needs unless 'hope' and 'change' are more than buzzwords.

Hilary of course is Hilary.

If you are going to go this route, I would vote on which one of these two you would rather see as president. There is a very strong chance that McCain will lose this, so think, 'which of these two socialists will help in the long run'?

Hilary would be the least damaging to the country. She will govern by polls.
Obama, being a nice sounding suite, is more of a wild card. If he tries to do what his voting record indicates, he will be the best ally the republicans could ask for, but who knows, he may just continue sounding good while doing nothing.

Personally I'd wash my hands of it and stay home playing video games.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

Five points for Slytherin.

Talking point nonsense. Go to his website and read the PAGES AND PAGES of very specific policy. Some people just can't handle inspiration and HAVE to respond to it with cynicism. It's sad really, to think of what small lives such people must lead. Fortunately, this isn't an Obama thread, so that's all I'm going to say about it.

Please do that.

Willravel

Quoted for fucking truth. Jesus christ.

flstf

Vote for Obama. It doesn't make much difference who the president is and I'd rather see and hear him for the next 4 years instead of Hillary. The Republicans would probably prefer to run against Hillary though.

Elphaba

Didn't the Supreme Court rule against open primaries for this very reason? I can no longer vote as an Independent in Washington State for that reason.

ASane, are you really saying that you despise your candidate but are willing to do something unethical to cause him to win? Seriously?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

Did I insult your new cult of personality? I'm sorry. Just another socialist, who if white would be NO where, and we all know that.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Baraka_Guru

Obama is more than a black man's empty suit. You might have realized this by now if you were to hear him speak, or take ratbastid's advice.

Obama is Obama, Hillary is Hillary, and McCain is McCain. Of course. What are you trying to say? I'm really not sure, because you've called two of them socialists. That would be like calling McCain a fascist, making Romney a kind of Lord Vader.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

Of course he is, but his race is why he is where he is. I've read his blueprint for change or whatever he calls it, and guess what, of course it sounds all nice and good and all the problems will end. All hail Obama because we have words that says he will slay the dragons, right the wrongs, and pay for it somehow with other peoples money as he raises taxes through the roof to do so. I personally am really looking forward to paying double the social security tax I'm currently paying.


It should be obvious. Hilary is not a wild card, we don't need to explain her.

I don't quite know why democrats don't like the term 'socialist' its what they are. If someone can explain to me the difference between a European socialist and say Obama let me know, I'm still waiting for this explanation the last time a democrat had a hissy fit I called the socialists.

IF someone can tell me how they differ substantially PLEASE let me know.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

samcol

This is the philosophy that I follow. If you're not voting for the best possible choice in your mind you're hurting the system IMO. Voting lesser of two evils or voting for the liberal candidate that can be beat isn't helping anyone. If you vote Hitlery how does that help a conservative get elected? All that does is put Mccain vs. Hillary. Mccain is not a conservative, but will continue to ruin the name of the GOP while acting as a conservative but implementing very left wing/moderate policies.

If you're a conservative, the only choice is Ron Paul. Mccain is already getting the nomination, but by voting for Paul you will represent a disenfranchised Republican voter which will help move the GOP back to conservative views. He's the only conservative left in the race.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Baraka_Guru

From Social Liberalism:

Social liberalism [i.e. Modern liberalism in the United States] versus social democracy
The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong scepticism for capitalism, which needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

Bear in mind that the American Democratic Party is not a purely social liberal party, as they have centrist and right-of-centre leanings. This is how they differ from their European counterparts.

You might be thinking of social democracy, which has its roots in socialism and Marxism. Think the NDP in Canada, the Labour Party in the U.K., and the Democratic Socialists of America in the U.S. But also bear in mind that some members of the Democrats are arguably social democrats (e.g. Dennis Kucinich). Most party members would consider themselves non-socialist, if not anti-socialist.

Again, calling a liberal (even with socially progressive ideals) a socialist is like calling a conservative a fascist. Don't fall into the trap of binary opposition. The world doesn't work that way.

I understand that, as a conservative, you disagree with some of the Democrats' social policies, but they aren't Marxists, and they aren't trying to start a revolution. They respect private property rights and other trappings of capitalism; no need to worry.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

loquitur

My general advice for elections is to vote for the person whom you think will handle the position in the best way. So in a presidential election, vote for the person whom you think will be the best president - and that is NOT necessarily the person who most agrees with your positions. The reason is that no one has any idea what will happen over the next four years, so the issues a presidential candidate runs on may have no relationship whatsoever to what the president, once elected, needs to do.

You don't have to go back any further than 2000 to see what I'm talking about. If Gore had become president, his presidency would have looked nothing at all like the presidency he was campaigning for in 2000. The world tossed the US President a curve ball. That certainly was the case with Bush, who I believe had zero to say about terrorism in 2000 and IIRC next to nothing about foreign policy in general. The issues positions in that campaign had little to do with the reality that ensued.

So vote for the person, not the position. Abilities and character count for more than statements of positions. Positions are changeable and malleable based on circumstances, but basic character is not.

Ustwo

Socialist does not have to equal communist.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

If you haven't gone to barackobama.com and read the PAGES AND PAGES of policy, you can't speak sensibly about whether he's an "empty suit". If you have, and you disagree with his PAGES AND PAGES of SPECIFIC policy, then we can talk. But if you haven't, and you say he's all flash and no substance, then you're being spoonfed far-right-echo-chamber content, and you're not thinking, and there's no talking with you.

(That's a generic "you", Ustwo, not YOU-you. )

filtherton

I find it surprising that anyone calling him/herself a conservative hopes to find stewardship in the republican party. If you were really a conservative you'd vote for ron paul, and if you were really paying attention you wouldn't vote in the republican primary at all because the republican candidate is essentially already decided.

Voting in the democratic primary for the reasons you cite kind of makes you a douche, which you know, you have every right to be.

Willravel

Ustwo, Democrats aren't socialists. Democrats are centrists and leftists. If you're looking for socialism, look at me and Strange Famous. Look at the Labour Party in the UK up until about 1992. In Europe, most Democrats would be centrists and some would be conservative. Look to Europe for socialism. And health care that works.

Believe me. Socialists know their own kind immediately, just like black people.

Baraka_Guru

I agree.

The Democratic Party has socialist elements. They also have centrist, and nearly conservative elements as well. But to call them purely socialist is erroneous because they do not uphold the core socialist ideals as do social democrats (and communists).

Read: The Democratic Party of America is not a social democratic party. A social democratic party is socialist. A party that espouses social liberalism are not socialists by definition. They are progressive and often, as is the case of the Democrats, centrist, and sometimes right of centre. Social liberals and social democrats often disagree on a number of issues because their ideals are quite different.

Trust me, you'd hate (and fear?) the Democrats far more than you do now if they were social democrats. If you want a taste of socialism in America, check out this platform (NSFW if you're a conservative ).

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

OMG, socialist intellectual porn.

Ustwo

I'm not calling everyone in the Democratic party a socialist. There are some who don't have the disease. I am calling Obama, and Hilary (to a lessor extent) socialists.

Obama's blue print is all about creeping socialism, its about wealth redistribution via putative taxation, its about government control of industries, its about removing the tax burden on enough people so they don't have any reason not to vote for those who spend other peoples money freely.

It sounds great on paper, but its a fantasy land that will harm the economy and strength of the US after only a few years of it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Hanxter

hey, bozo... it's HILLARY... two L's...

and i take offense to you bringing race into it...

dc_dux

A hissy fit, huh? Baraku explained the difference better than I could (Kudos to our northern neighbor)....but then again, progressive liberal Democrats here have been called socialists, communists, anti-American and anti-military appeasers of terrorism, and generally responsible for the downfall of the country.

What I have observed here at TFP since the last election (and most recently throughout this thread) is the meltdown of the conservative Republican members of our little slice of the world here.

What they are unwilling to recognize is that nearly every indicator points to more and mroe Americans leaning towards or embracing the Democratic ideals and principles and abandoning the Republican party.

The Pew Center does an annual poll on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes". From the latest (last March):
THe full report is worth reading. Other recent Gallup and ABC polls have similar findings. prefering the Democratic party over the Republican party by large majorities on every issue - from economy and taxes/spending to national security/terrorism and even family values.

So, Ustwo...call us what you want if it makes you feel better. I call us, including Barack Obama, the face of America

And, Alladin Sane...if you serious believe that voting Democrat is "tactical", then go for it. It certainly wont strengthen your position, your party, or the views you espouse.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Rekna

Honestly if you are going to vote in the democratic primary vote for the candidate that you would like to be the candidate the most. You can try to make it easier for your candidate but really know one knows who would be easier to defeat. If you voted for one candidate you didn't like in order to make things easier for McCain and they end up beating Mc'cain you have no one to blame but yourself.


If you view the Democratic party as damaging then you should try to minimize the damage.

Ustwo

I believe white guilt and 'Wow hes black!' has a large part to do with his popularity.

You can take offense if you like, that doesn't change how I feel about it.

What is offensive? That I mentioned its a aid to him?

Would Oprah have done her bit for him were he white?

I think not.

I don't judge a mans character by the color of his skin, but I can see how that skin color may effect others perception of him.

And thank you for correcting my spelling, would you like to apply to be my secretary? I'm sure with Bill gone my time is limited anyways, but why did you just troll?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

loquitur

Actually, Obama is an unbelievably charismatic guy. I was amazed, the first time I saw him on TV, how he almost seems to leap out of the screen at you. He also has a non-combative personality, which is very much in contrast to Hillary Clinton. I disagree with Ustwo about how much his being black is a factor in his popularity; it's not a zero factor, but he'd be impressive as hell no matter what his ethnic background.

Obama will benefit from a long primary battle because, until the candidates are chosen and the national general election campaign begins, most of the electorate's mind is elsewhere. They won't have sustained exposure to Obama until late in the game. The problem with charisma is that its effect wears off over time. That means, if he is the candidate, the more compressed the general election campaign, the better for him. The longer the election campaign, the worse for him because a long stint in the public eye will diminish him just like it diminishes every other candidate - he won't be able to ride on the charisma alone, and he'll end up having scrutiny just like anyone else. That's not to say he couldn't win - it's just that the messianic fervor he seems to inspire won't last.

Aladdin Sane

Thank you. You are a gentleman.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

roachboy

had i not thought myself excluded from posting by the op, i would have said something like loquitor did above--except that i am a more cynical fellow (too much machiavelli in my head maybe)--so how exactly do you go about imagining that you know "the character"--that dimension of someone that "does not change" (?? are you serious?) from the 24/7 marketing of an *image* tailored to *imply* a character?

and do you really connect the devolution of the bush administration since 2001 to personal attributes of george w bush?
on what possible basis?

jg ballard was right about televised american democracy--it's paradoxical effect is to turn many spectators into ultra-monarchists--the legitimacy of the order is a function of the person of the Leader--which can be derived by staring long and hard at the king's spectral body. it is very very strange.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

loquitur

Roachboy, part of it is that I prefer someone with a record that shows how s/he has been tested and used his/her judgment. Let me give you an example, using someone who is no longer running for President. As I've mentioned before, I live in NYC. In 1993 I was certain that if David Dinkins were re-elected there would be no NYC four years on. That was the very first time I ever donated money to a political campaign, and I donated it to Giuliani. From my perspective, Giuliani's first term was an amazing success. I happily voted for him for re-election - whereupon he promptly became a raving lunatic, and remained a lunatic until 9/11/01, when he suddenly became a giant again. But no sooner did the shock wore off than he became a lunatic again, proposing that he remain mayor past the end of his term. My conclusion about Giuliani was this: he is a terrific crisis manager and leader. But if there is no crisis, he is so activist and driven that he starts creating crises and doing crazy things just to keep his outsized personality satisfied. As NYC mayor that meant some disturbing actual and attempted breaches of civil liberties. But there are limits to how authoritarian a mere mayor can be; after all, the biggest weapon a mayor has is the police dept. But Giuliani would have been a disaster as President precisely because there would have been much less institutional constraint on his authoritarian tendencies. So - even though on a lot of issues I agreed with him (pro-choice, pro-gay, economic-growth-oriented) - I could never support him for president, precisely because of character issues.

And yes, I think the course of the Bush administration has been a direct result of GWB's character, both his strengths and weaknesses - which in some cases are the same attributes. He is an object lesson of why we shouldn't keep the presidency in families - there is too much family baggage that gets imported into the equation. GWB spent way too much time trying to avoid being his father, and he's not a flexible enough thinker to see the pitfalls of following his instincts.

This does have implications for a Hillary presidency. But she is a much more disciplined person and a much more flexible thinker than GWB. I happen to admire her quite a bit, but she will need to actively combat the tendency (which likely will be prevalent among her retinue) to think of a Hillary presidency as a Clinton restoration. It can't be.

silent_jay

Really? This sure sounds like you are.
Your own words right there, saying 'democrats are socialists'.
What's wrong, scared of losing your purpose as a troll here at TFP?
Ask Oprah, no one can answer that but her, any answer is just an opinion and those are like assholes, everybody has one.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

roachboy

loquitor:

i think the characteristics of the bus administration have derived more from the composition of the administration as a whole than from the personal characteristics of cowboy george himself--whom i do not know personally, and whom i suspect that you don't know either. this is perhaps a bit to the side of the topic here--but i just find it curious.

interesting points on guiliani, though. thinking about that one.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

43 year old McCain falls in love with a 25 year old from a "mobbed up" family, serves his wife with divorce papers, leaves her and his 4 kids and moves to AZ with new wife. Accepts VP position in new father-in-law's "mobbed up" beer distributorship, but is bored and accepts financial and "mobbed up" polictical onnections network support from mob soldier/ex-con father-in-law, and runs for congress, then for senator.... Wife inherits all of father's underworld financial gains, and today, McCain is 7th wealthiest member of congress, and his wife is worth $200 million plus...definitely a "man of the people"....I've asked before...when does the stench of McCain's "dirty money", get de-odorized, was it when the last person "hit", to first make it all possible, and then cover it all up", ceased to stink up the place?

....yeah, bingo!, McCain is obviously better than anyone of the Dems.....

aceventura3

Vote for Huckabee, send McCain a message. Try to stop him from getting the nomination prior to the convention.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

loquitur

roachboy, the composition of the GWB administration was determined by GWB and was an extension of him. No, I don't know him personally - there are only two politicians I know personally - but after all this time I think I have a pretty good handle on him. Part of the education a citizen is supposed to do is a bit of due diligence on the people who are running. It will never be perfect, but still it's important. And what I see about Bush is a lack of flexibility in his thinking coupled with an inability to communicate that, in combination, are deadly. You've been watching him for as long as I have - is that a misreading of the man?

abaya

Last I checked, our economy and strength were not exactly in top form... anyway, carry on.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Ustwo

Not exactly horrible either by any stretch, the only place I've seen the effects of a 'bad' economy is on TV when people talk about a coming recession. In the mean time I'm fighting for parking spots trying to shop for anything in my area.

But regardless, even if the economy were poor it doesn't mean you feed it a shit sandwich of increased taxes to make it better.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

The_Jazz

What do you expect from a guy at the bottom of his class at Anapolis who almost got kicked out for discipline problems. And he's apparently not THAT good of a pilot if he got shot down....

That said, he is a good politician. And I use that word with negative connotations in mind.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Aladdin Sane

I'm afraid the nomination is McCain's already. There is no stopping him at this point.
Thanks for sticking to the OP.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.