Worse than Hillary?

This just in:

John McCain is a man of honor. A man of integrity. A man of courage. A man of conviction. I may not agree with every position he takes, but that certainly doesn't mean he isn't a conservative. And no disagreement can possibly make him worse than Hillary Clinton would be for our country, or for the conservative values and principles we know are essential for our nation's future.

Man of Honor: No. He is not. He is a malicious back stabbing moderate "democrat" who remained in the Republican party only because it made his liberal ideas play better in the media. As was said about TR: "When you close your eyes, He sounds like a democrat." I intend to show him the exact same perspective of party loyalty that he has shown to us. When the conservatives were in control of the party, his loyalty to the party was zilch. He undermined so many of the conservative principles that created the modern Republican party; there is not room to count.

Worse than Hillary? Well, yes he is. Far worse than Hillary actually. With Hillary in power, the entire world will be reminded at how dangerous liberalism is. Evidently, it's time for a reminder.

It seems to me that on two of the most critical issues we face, John McCain has rock solid conservative credentials.

First, without question, he is the most qualified, most experienced, most capable of all of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, dealing with national defense and combating radical Islamist extremists. He knows how to deal with these issues and approaches them from a conservative point of view.

I've heard of many logical falacies, but what is this? An obsolete war record; then endless drumbeat of his POW status? And just what is the conservative point of view? His views are more along the lines of the Roosevelt's than any conservative that I know. Expansionist military policy? In order to sell his war, W presented it as a war of affirmative (if preventive) self defense. At which point the real conservatives were going, well, that didn't work out. Preventive self defense is a dead policy. It was only W and his cronies (McCain in this instance), who redefined the terms and went back to the nationbuilding strategy that has doomed the typical Democratic position.

John McCain may not be as conservative as some would like, but I submit that he is far more conservative than many believe. To call him the Republican "establishment" candidate ignores his long record of independence.

Note to Blake: That is what an "establishment" means: a moderate/liberal socialist who is a Republican instead of a Democrat. If the establishment Republican votes his conscience WITH the socialists, then I'm even less likely to promote him to higher office.

Whether he is the perfect conservative poster child or not, John McCain is that candidate. And he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But to do so, he needs conservative Republicans to provide their wholehearted support, not ammunition for the opposition. If we do not, we may well be faced with what I consider to be the most unacceptable scenario I can imagine – Hillary Clinton, president of the United States of America.

One socialist or the other - let me think.... Blake: If McCain is elected (which he will not be - not without a LOT of conservative votes, and they aren't going to be there), then he will be a disaster for both the party and the country. If Hillary is elected: Then the most widespread and unified resistance against her reign will immediately be apparent, then perhaps we will only have 4 to 8 years of destructive activity to the county. 4 years of McCain? Followed by how many years of Democratic socialism?

The best argument in fact is that Republicans must sacrifice McCain to save the Republican Party and return the party back to it's conservative bent. I'm cool with that.

Powered by ScribeFire.