I’m Frustrated with John McCain

O John McCain, how you torture me. After a bitter and tumultuous primary season that ended in a heartbreaking victory for the one candidate I liked the least, I was beginning to think I could stomach McCain. His pro-life credentials appeared legit (even though he specifically said that he did not care about “social issues”). He supports the war on terror, almost to a fault that could be considered hawkish at best, if not neoconic (is that a word, if not I’m claiming it). He is opposed to raising taxes, even though he voted against the Bush tax cuts. And well, he’s not as bad as Obama or Hillary, right?

It was bad enough that his success in the primaries was due to a split among real conservatives between Romney and Huckabee, along with some fortunate winner-take-all victories and open primaries that allowed Democrats to vote for him.

And sure, I’ll readily admit that John McCain is the lesser of the 3 evils currently left in this race. However, while that may be the case, I find myself wondering how great (or small) the margin of evil is between McCain and his future opponent.

As I’m thoroughly enjoying the mudwrestling match that is Hillary v. Obama, hoping that their infighting will result in a Republican victory in November, I can’t clear out of the back of my mind that I still don’t even like our nominee. I hate to paint a gloom and doom picture, but to me it seems that America is just going to have to take one for the team for the next four years.

On top of all that, I can’t even enjoy opposing Barack Obama the way I want to, not with John McCain’s blessing anyway. He found the following ad offensive:

First of all, the only thing offensive in that ad is Jeremiah Wright. It shouldn’t offend Obama, since Wright is his spiritual adviser. It shouldn’t offend McCain because it doesn’t mention him anywhere in the ad. Second, why does John McCain feel like he has to denounce this kind of ad? He had no problem with viciously attacking Mitt Romney, a fellow Republican, in the primaries. So why can’t he let someone else attack Barack Obama?

This year, I feel as if my hands are tied. John McCain has made this a miserable voting year for many Republicans, including myself. I’m tempted to stay at home or write in a candidate that won’t nauseate me or leave me with a guilty conscience. Maybe I should do a little more research on Bob Barr.

If McCain doesn’t pick a good running mate, I mean like really good (i.e. Mitt Romney, possibly Mike Huckabee, or Newt Gingrich) I may find myself going to the polls with a vomit bag and clothes pin over my nose.

5 Responses to I’m Frustrated with John McCain

  1. Patri0t says:

    Something I would like to point out:
    1. You claim that McCain is the candidate you liked least… I think you are mistaken. Do you mean to say that McCain is your second least favorite candidate? I thought Ron Paul is the candidate you liked least.
    2. His pro-life credentials appear legit? Surely you’re not THAT stupid! For all the complaints about Romney being a serial flip-flopper, McCain is at least as bad! Remember when John McCain claimed to be opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade, even admitting that banning abortion would cause a rise in unplanned pregnancies and illegal backalley abortions? The fact is, that anybody not fighting for a Supreme Court repeal of Roe v. Wade is effectively pro-life. But McCain has become a skilled bulls***ter and just recently started cozying up to the religious right. (Btw, remember when he called you people “agents of intolerance”?) Also, what are you doing voting for a candidate who accepts evolution? You guys reject evolution!
    3. Why do you hope for a Republican victory in November knowing who the prospective nominee is? (Unless you are hoping even harder for McCain to drop dead sometime between now and inaugaration.) Are you that brainwashed? If the GOP is indeed the Jesus Party they would have nominated Huckabee, or at least not-McCain. If you vote for McCain you will prove to be a useful idiot for the party that turned its back on the Evangelical bloc.
    4. It is interesting you mentioned Bob Barr. Since Ron Paul is such a dangerous nut, Bob Barr is just as bad. (He shares the same libertarian-paleoconservative views.)
    5. When will you get the hint that Romney does not care for you? Remember when he stabbed you in the back by cowering out and endorsing one of your least favorite candidates? Yet your fascination for him does not cease.
    6. You do not have to vote for ANYBODY next November. My advice, exercise your right to political expression by STAYING THE **** HOME! Nobody is going to point a gun to your head and force you to walk into the polling. At least I don’t think that will happen. Then again, maybe they do pressure eligible citizens to vote at gunpoint down in Alabama. Chosing NONE OF THE ABOVE is as much an exercise of your rights as a citizen as selecting a prefab candidate. Voting is a right, not a duty. By voting for McCain you voluntarily become a useful idiot and might as well get an elephant logo t-shirt that says, “USEFUL IDIOT!”

    It is nice that you denounce McCain as a neocon, though you hold views which are perfectly consistent with neoconservatism but deny being a neocon. That you swallow the tenets of the neoconservative ideology and vote for neocon ideologues affirms that you are either (A) a neoconservative yourself, or (B) a useful idiot. You have the right to vote for whomever, but if you have ANY intelligence, integrity, principles, or common sense, you would not vote for John McCain. The only “legitimate” reasons why you would vote for him are: prevent an “uppity negro” from becoming president (because from YOUR perspective the key difference between “RINO” McCain and Obama is race), prevent a female from becoming president (because you can not distinguish HRC and McCain except by gender), or you are convinced that he is on the verge of death and that you are really voting for his VP.

    Of course, the biggest problems for McCain’s candidacy are sudden death or incapacitating illness (a real possibility given that he is a 72 year old geyser with grapefruit-sized growths suspended from his cheeks showing signs of senility) or the realization that he is Constitutionality ineligible because he was born in Panama. The latter possibility is unlikely because nobody in any position of power really took the Constution seriously for over a century, and the only people who care about the Constitution are Paulunatics or Rontards. (Hey, I might as well help you Redstate.com goons out seeing as you lack the imagination to come up with slurs besides Paultard or Pauliac.)

  2. Patri0t says:

    Addendum: When I said, “anybody not fighting for a Supreme Court repeal of Roe v. Wade is effectively pro-life,” I meant to say “anybody not fighting for a Supreme Court repeal of Roe v. Wade is effectively pro-choice.”

  3. Braden says:

    Patriot, how ironic. Well as much as I gave you and your Paulocon army such a hard time, I didn’t necessarily consider Ron Paul to be worse than McCain. So presumptuous. And on top of that, you write so angrily and sardonically. To me, it sounds as if you are more frustrated than I am. I hope you’re staying regular.

    Romney endorsed the guy who basically had won the nomination at that point. Neither Romney (or St. Paul (Ron, that is) could have beaten McCain without a brokered convention. Romney has stated that he still disagrees with McCain on a lot of issues, but of course, no one is as truthful as the divinely inspired, infallible Ron Paul.

    I’m glad you know for a fact that I’m a neocon (even though I’m not). I’m not saying I will or won’t vote for McCain. I’m saying that UNFORTUNATELY, he’s the best one left right now.

    Goodness, can’t I just express my views without being attacked, insulted, misconstrued, and cursed at by angry Paulocons with misinterpreted and stereotypical nonsense? You’re more frustrated at McCain than I am, obviously. Yet you attack me for siding with you? That’s pretty twisted.

    Ron Paul lost because of people like you. You can’t simply get your message across to these “brainwashed idiots” out there, so you insult and ridicule them. On top of that, you insult people from Alabama with lame stereotypes, which is ignorant and bigoted. I feel sorry for you.

  4. Patri0t says:

    Would you like some cheese with your whine? So I am being aggressive, condescending, “insulting,” prejudicial, “angry,” judgemental, or (of course) “sardonic.” You accuse me of stereotyping, misconstruing, and misinterpreting yet you apparently believe that all Paulites are a bunch of anarcho-capitalist, anti-social, crypto-Nazi, conspiracy nuts. By the way, you have the RIGHT to express your views it is a constitutional right, which barrs Congress (and also the states) from denying you your freedom of speech, and also a property right (this blog is entrusted to you). However, you have no freedom from criticism. The double-edged sword of the First Amendment provides your opponents with equal liberties. Nobody is taking your right to say whatever you want, but that does not shield you from criticism. Of course your right to property allows you to moderate/delete comments, but unlike your beloved Redstate.com, I commend you for at least allowing rival perspectives.

    Almost everybody is familiar with the stereotype alleging that people from Alabama, and Texas and the rest of the former Confederacy, are gun-toting rednecks. However, that was not my point. I was actually asking a rhetorical question (“I don’t know how they do it there but here we don’t…”) implying NOT that Alabama is entirely gun-toting rednecks, but that apparently you feel coerced as if by gunpoint to vote for ANYBODY. You claim that McCain is the best one left (really?) or rather the lesser of three evils. But that is probably not saying much from your perspective. Who would you vote for? A pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-war Democrat or a pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-war Republican? Will you vote 3rd party? Green party is to the left of the Democrats. The Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates will be even zanier than Ron Paul! Unless Huckabee decides to run independent, there is nothing you can do. If you are not forced to vote at gun point, why would you walk into the polling place with a vomit bag and walk out with a guilty conscience? Not voting sends a bigger message than voting for someone you hate just because you feel they might be a little better than anyone else (when you know they won’t be).

    You apparently understand Mr. Romney’s motives better than I do, but it was still cowardly on his part to duck out. John McCain might have appeared to be the nominee, but Mitt could have pulled a Hillary Clinton and stayed in to try for a brokered convention. That way, both of us would have a better chance. Instead, the Smirking A**hole walked off with the nomination.

    And another thing, OKAY, you’re not a neocon, sorry! You are not a neocon because you insist that you are not a neocon. It does not matter that you agree 100% with the neoconservative foreign policy, uncritically and unconditionally accepting their foreign agenda, and that you are perfectly okay with an aggressive interventionist foreign policy (even though you may not be as bellicose), and that you accept the overall neoconservative theory in domestic governance, and you frequent such neoconservative propaganda sites as Redstate.com. Hey, go ahead and deny being a neocon while holding most of the tenets of neoconservatism. Your denial of being a neocon is an admission of being a useful idiot! You say, “I strongly agree with [neoconservative position A], [neoconservative position B], [neoconservative position C]… but I am not a neocon. Really, I’m not, even though I would un/happily vote for any neocon.” My usage of the term useful idiot is less an insult than a description. A description of people who will swallow whatever s*** their party or their favorite propaganda corporation serves up. The kind of gullible people who think they are unique or independent, but who have no power and hold unconditional loyalties. Sorry to admit, but your blog reads like a regurgitation of FAUX News albeit from the perspective of a rather zealous Evangelical. Oh and by the way, I do not agree with Ron Paul 100% even though I agree with him often.

    In short, yes I am angry about McCain winning the nom. No, I am not attacking you for “siding” with me. Because, you and I are NOT on the same side! We have fundamentally different opinions but both happen agree (to some extent) that John McCain sucks. The difference is that I would NEVER vote for that smirking a-hole, even at gunpoint. You, on the other hand, might, even if you would hate yourself for it. Of course I am an “angry,” close-minded, condescending, cynical, “bigotted,” “ignorant,” “insulting,” judgemental, narrow-minded, prejudicial, “presumptious,” “sardonic,” “stereotyping” a-hole, and so are nearly all “Paulbots.” But I would rather be that than a naive loyal lapdog. I notice that you do not argue logically. Instead of reason or intellect, you claim the moral high ground and call me an aggressive bigot or a small-minded meanie instead. How about you attack the SUBSTANCE of what I say rather than the TONE. You never attempt to refute my arguments, rather you criticize their presentation.

    And btw, Ron Paul certainly did not lose because of “people like me”! Of course you know what condescending, judgemental pricks we Paulians are, but I though we were also a fringe group with no influence on anything. So which is it? Did Ron Paul lose because we are a lunatic fringe too small in numbers to nominate him, or did Dr. Paul lose because we have such great influence only it is all negative influence because we are all bigots and nuts. I did not think that anyone seriously believes that Ron Paul’s supporters CAUSED him to lose. I apologise for asking, but are you retarded? Seriously, you have to be incredibly naive to think that anyone would lose a political because of the behavior of some of his followers. Nobody with a functioning brain decides on a candidate based on his followers.

    No the REAL reasons why Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee (hint has absolutely NOTHING to do with his fanbase) are the fact that he has little or NO NAME RECOGNITION on the national stage. Prior to August 2007, nobody knew Ron Paul outside of his family, friends, relatives, former classmates or instructors, residents of his congressional district, and a handful of libertarians (mostly paleo-libertarians) and paleoconservatives. So unless you lived in Lake Jackson, TX or frequently visited LewRockwell.com, you probably never heard about Ron Paul until late 2007. Or how about the fact that he started off with almost NO MONEY and does not have too many super-wealthy friends or business connections (despite breaking fundraising records)? How about the fact that the GOP (party bosses, RNC, their mouthpieces on CNN-FAUX-MSNBC) DESPISE HIM and did everything they could to marginalize him in the debates or make him look bad? What about the very real media blocade of Ron Paul? I know you think we are all paranoid conspiracy theorists, but it is obvious that the media did their best to marginalize or ignore Ron Paul (after Iowa caucus they talked more about Giuliani, who received 4%, than Paul, who received 10%; Thompson got equal coverage with Paul between Iowa and South Carolina; nobody mentioned the Nevada GOP caucus, where Paul got 2nd, beating McStain). You can use Google to research the extent of the media’s blackout and campaign of libel and slander against Dr. Paul. Of course you might dismiss that information as “Paul-paganda” but do not pretend that Ron Paul was given fair media coverage.

    His fanbase cost him victory? Sorry, Ron Paul’s failure has more to do with lack of name recognition (or prior fame, infamy, or notoriety), initial scarcity of money and influence, overt media bias, and ill reputation among the Republican establishment (GOP elite). Do you think the influential corporate socialists would allow Ron Paul to be president?

    Essentially you have a choice. Since you have no suitable candidate you can either vote against your conscience, wishes, beliefs, and opinions, or you can make a point by not voting. Alternately you can write in somebody else. If in fact your ilk are independent thinking people and not slavish easily manipulated fools, you would not vote out of habit (i.e. for McCain). Perhaps millions will write in Huckabee as a protest vote. He will not win, but Huckabee will probably end up in the Guiness Book of World Records for most “write-in votes received in an American presidential election”. If you must visit the polls on Election Day, take my advice and write in ANYBODY. Even Batman, Spongebob Squarepants, or Mr. Ed. Because any of the aforementioned would be more qualified as president than John McCain!

  5. Anna says:

    You may remember my comments on your Mormon and Catholic post a few months ago. If not, you could always go look. 🙂

    I am sincerely interested in starting a theological correspondence with you, by e-mail I guess. The objections you raise toward the Catholic Church I feel are very valid and I would like to converse with you about them. I would also like to learn about your church and what you believe. No I don’t want to convert you, and I would kindly ask you try not to convert me either. Rather, I want us to exchange truth with eachother. Afterall, that is what we’re all trying to find, right- the truth?

    No pressure.

    In Christ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: