« Shroud of Turin | Main | James Bond and My Kid »
March 29, 2008
Why Might Democrats Vote McCain?
by Tina Grazier
One reason, from my perspective, is that John McCain is just liberal enough to appeal to old fashioned democrats...those who are fiercely patriotic and care about family values. Of course some democrats look at it much differently and have said so in various articles all week.
The whole conversation began with a recent “Rasmussen Poll” that found a sizable percentage of the democrat base (20%) indicate they might vote for John McCain in November if their preferred choice for president isn’t the candidate. This prompted Susan Estrich, a well-known professor, political operative and commentator to write “Political Suicide,” a piece urging democrat voters to reconsider. As I’ve said before, it’s a long way to November so anything can happen, but a few of her comments deserve a response if only to demonstrate an obvious state of denial in the democrat mind. Here’s what she said:
Twenty percent of the Democratic base voting for McCain? The pollsters call it "some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats." I have a different name for it: political suicide. ** This is how a Democrat could lose an election after eight years of a Republican administration that has taken the economy into recession, the country into an unpopular, costly and dubious war, and bailed out Bear Stearns instead of the thousands of hardworking Americans who were taken advantage of by subprime lenders and are now losing their homes and their life savings. This is how Democrats could end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Or, with all due respect…
…democrat voters have seen dubious tactics, a smattering of racism, indications of possible hatred for America, and straight out lies and fabrications from these two candidates. And perhaps in her fervor to change the subject by painting a slanted, erroneous accounting of the last eight years, Ms Estrich missed these (and other) items of interest:
1. Complex election rules and changes in rules that threaten to disenfranchise democrat voters
2. Bullets over Bosnia upon First Lady Clinton’s arrival
3. Rev. Wright’s US of KKKA speeches
4. Bill Clintons opening salvo in the great democrat racism unveiling
5. Michelle Obama’s “proud” moment
6. NAFTA posturing
These troubling events hint at deep flaws in character and speak to the trustworthiness of each democrat candidate. Estrich chooses to ignore this and instead concludes:
Could McCain win? He could, if enough Democrats forget that the end policy should count more than personality, and the real fight is for the country's future and not the party's crown.
Perhaps Ms Estrich, in her forgetfulness, doesn't realize that, at least in the case of Obama, personality is the major fuel behind his presidential bid. In the case of Hillary Clinton it may be that we actually agree…“the crown,” (the throne) has always been the name of her game.
Vote wisely pilgrims.
Posted by Post Scripts at March 29, 2008 08:12 PM
Comments
Perhaps Susan will also remember that it was largely at congress' urging, and later at their insistence, that they extend "dubious" loans to "poor" people.
In an all too common move, a Democrat controlled congress started accusing lenders of being biased against the poor. So they started with giving incentives to banks that favored the poor, and then slowly moved toward a more threatening stance.
Essentially, if you were one of those evil "profit minded" lenders that withheld loans from people who would most likely not going to be able to fulfill their commitment, then democrats branded you as heartless profiteers, prejudice to toward the unfortunate. Democrats insisted on being generous with other peoples money.
So banks complied, and now that the obvious has happened, Democrats are once again screaming about evil profit minded banks. What strikes me as interesting, is that none of these "charitable" liberals seem to want to open their own bank, and distribute loans as they see fit. Instead, as with taxes, they prefer to impose their sense of charity on those of us who produce.
We are damned if we do, and damned if we dont. If banks withhold loans from poor people, they are discriminating, if they give high risk loans, and people fail to fulfill their obligation, then banks are predatory.
Maybe the real problem is, distant politicians trying to "do good" with other peoples time and money.
Now I want to make one thing clear...
I am NOT on the side of the banks...and
I am NOT on the side of the poor!
I am on the side of the hardworking, honest and JUST!
And those people always seem to benefit, and benefit others, when do-gooder politicians stay out of their way.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at March 30, 2008 01:00 PM
Great points Nick.
Democrat politicians are good at meddling and then later punishing those who were forced to comply. The way they pretend innocence makes this behavior doubly insulting...that they usually do this for political advantage stinks.
Posted by: Tina at March 30, 2008 01:35 PM