Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Dobson Plans to Sit Out if McCain Wins

Here is his statement. I'm not saying I agree with him (I certainly didn't when he was in all-out Huck mode), but he represents a certain viewpoint coming to light in recent days. It began with last week's Ann Coulter shock-statement about campaigning for Hilary and continues with Rush not necessarily committing to vote for McCain if he wins the nod. I can't image any Republican nominee winning the general election with this sort of rhetoric on the table--we can barely win with absolute support!

This is not to say that I am opposed to said rhetoric, per se. However, I still find the notion of abstaining from the vote distasteful, but it might be the best course if you truly cannot decide which of the two options is better (or, in this case, worse)--or if you truly feel responsible for the evil they will inevitable perpetrate. At any rate, it is surely an unfortunate situation to have to consider.

11 comments:

Stephen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen said...

All this anti-McCain rhetoric had better stop once Romney and Huckabee get whipped.

This last Ann Coulter tirade is not surprising since we've known for some time that she's completely bananas. At least no one takes her seriously.

But I'm afraid Rush will be tempted to torpedo the GOP if McCain gets the nomination. If he does, Clinton/Obama will be unstoppable.

What's at stake here? This article from yesterday's WSJ lays it out:

On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

...

In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.

todd said...

I'm loathing McCain more as the delegates roll-in. I supported Huckabee yesterday without hesitation.

I forced to hope that Hillary wins the nomination so that at least we have a beatable/detestable opponent in November.

Then I wonder - 'is that really gonna make me feel better with President McCain?'

Philip said...

If McCain is so committed to nominating conservative (pro-life) judges, why did he fight so hard against them during the "Gang of 14" saga?

Read this article to refresh your memory.

Philip said...

Todd - Your vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain.

Stephen said...

From the Senate Roll Call Votes:

Roberts confirmation
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea

Alito confirmation
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea

Do you really believe the Supreme Court wouldn't be better off with McCain?

todd said...

"Your vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain."

Obviously if I agreed I would not have voted in the way I did.

It was the right thing to do. Romney is just not as qualified according to my principals. The only way my vote would have been misused was if I did not vote my conscience.

Stephen said...

This "your vote for [loser] was a vote for [winner]" is a pretty tired bit of rhetoric.

Philip said...

Todd: Understood. My comment was a lousy way for me to congratulate you for your anti-McCain rhetoric (of which I approve).

I'll probably have vote my conscience in my state, too (i.e., write in Fred Thompson)!

Danny Vice said...

Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here.

This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals - and that has been proven true a hundred times.

But how is handing the whole country over to liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?

There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values as well as our country with them.

Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.

Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years.

This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left.

My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains earn than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear.

Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of.

There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need an allie on every core issue we can get.

Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck....

But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Do you want your kids growing up in that kind of environment?

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on.

Give it some thought, friends.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
http://thalunatic.blogspot.com

Philip said...

For the record, Rush never said he would not support McCain in the general election. The stuff about him campaigning for Hillary is based on the premise that she seems to be the only Democrat we have a hope of beating.