January 22, 2008

Uh no

While I certainly understand Beth's position on a possible McCain candidacy versus whatever nutjob the Democrats nominate, I do not share her conclusion that voting for McCain would be the lesser of two evils. From George Will's recent column and McAmnesty:


In ABC's New Hampshire debate, McCain said: "Why shouldn't we be able to reimport drugs from Canada?" A conservative's answer is:

That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which some medicines would be inexpensive but many others — new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals — would be unavailable. Setting drug prices by government fiat rather than market forces results in huge reductions of funding for research and development of new drugs. McCain's evident aim is to reduce pharmaceutical companies' profits. But if all those profits were subtracted from the nation's health care bill, the pharmaceutical component of that bill would be reduced only from 10 percent to 8 percent — and innovation would stop, taking a terrible toll in unnecessary suffering and premature death. When McCain explains that trade-off to voters, he will actually have engaged in straight talk.

There are decent, intelligent people who believe that equity or efficiency or both are often served by government setting prices. In America, such people are called Democrats.
...

McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement constitutionally dubious.


When the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold 5-4, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. That was before Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who was in the majority. Two years later, McCain filed his own brief supporting federal suppression of a right-to-life group's issue advertisement in Wisconsin because it mentioned a candidate for federal office during the McCain-Feingold blackout period prior to an election. The court ruled 5-4 against McCain's position, with Alito in the majority.

And you want this person to be the standard bearer of the GOP? Crap, this party uber alles mentality is what makes me barf at the current state of the Democratic party. For the record, the GOP is in its current sorry state because of this type of action by voters. As the Republicans have become more and more like Democrats, people have continued to vote for them. There's a word for this: enabling. Now they know that they can take you for granted because hey, the other guy/gal is worse. Well screw that. I will not be party to voting for someone whose signature piece of legislation these last few years is one which curtails my 1st Amendment right. If this country is headed down, we might as well hit bottom sooner rather than later to get the rebuilding underway.

One final thought: here is Ace's comment on the whole Maverick-cide the party seems intent on committing:


Sure, we're aware of that. But we always, in every cycle, have the option of fairly easily winning an election by nominating a virtual Democrat. But we usually don't, because we don't just want our party to own the White House, but our ideas and our policies too.

Update: Bill Hollis left the following comment over at Bill Quick's site:


I think voting the same hacks into office again and again and getting screwed by them again and again is irrational. It’s certainly not the behavior of a rational adult.

So, by my standards, Mark Martin is not rational. Perhaps calling me and my ilk “infantile” may soothe the cognitive dissonance resulting from his irrationality.

As that Puppy Blending monster would say, indeed.

Update: I should probably make another post at some point, but since this update follows the thread above, I'll be lazy and simply excerpt from Rightwing Sparkle who, by the way, I actually enjoy reading:


Go ahead, hate McCain, Huckabee, or even Romney all you like, but you better dang well vote for them. This is important stuff. Life changing, history changing, nation changing stuff.

So stop whining. Keep fighting for your guy now, but when the nominee is selected, we better all get behind him. If we fail to do that, we fail at our own peril.

Life changing stuff? Like relegating the GOP to permanent minority party status by selling out pretty much all conservative principles? I repeat, this is called enabling. And it's idiotic. Do I want a Democrat in the Whitehouse while the donkeys control the legislative branches? I do not. That's why I won't vote for McCain.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 05:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 5 kb.

1 McCain is just as bad as Hillary and Obama in my book. I think I would vote Edwards before any of those three.

Posted by: Contagion at January 22, 2008 06:06 PM (QQZMi)

2 "I think I would vote Edwards before any of those three" Not me. At least with McCain you have someone who wants to win the war against Islamofascists. HRC, I think, would at least be able to confront the real world, even if I don't particularly like her. Obama, I fear, would be foolish enough to actually believe his peace, love, dope nonsense. Edwards? Fucking phony in every way, except I'm worried he actually might believe his faux-populist bullshit.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at January 22, 2008 11:03 PM (Yh9SA)

3 Edwards: phony, two-faced, ambulance chasing little rat bastard. It's gonna be a tough election year.

Posted by: physics geek at January 23, 2008 08:50 PM (vKMFv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
21kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.118 seconds.
90 queries taking 0.1009 seconds, 215 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.