Why vote Republican?

[Neil D]

I know..you don't like Obama....

.....but why do you want to vote Republican?

I don't want to hear "because McCain is the best man."...because I am going to ask the next question-which is why is he the best man for the job?

So, list out your positive statements for McCain....

[John317]

Not sure who you are asking but I'll give it a try:

I don't always vote Republican. I've voted more often for Democrats than for Republicans.

As for McCain, I've made up my mind to vote for him and Palin for some of the following reasons.

1) Generally more in agreement with McCain on the issues than I am with Obama. (Later we can go through the issues in detail.)

2)McCain's decision on Iraq-- to keep the troops there until they successfully completed their mission. This decision included the "surge."

McCain was right-- Obama wrong.

This shows that McCain puts the country ahead of his own ambitions because it would have been easy for him to call for the US to lose and withdraw when it was an unpopular war.

3) McCain's 5 years experience under pressure during torture and horrible treatment shows that he has guts and strong resolve.

It also shows that McCain loves his country more than he loves his own life. He could have taken the easy way out. (This is admitted by Obama.)

4) McCain's 4 years in Congress and 21 years in the Senate.

That is to Obama's 3 years in the Senate. Obama had been in the Senate about 140 days when he decided to run for the Presidency.

5) McCain's forthright answer about abortion compared to Obama's mistaken, weak answer that he is not qualified to give an answer.

6) McCain response to the problems in Georgia compared to Obama tepid, uncertain response to the Russian invasion.

7) McCain did not make the mistake of sitting in a church for 20 years listening to Liberation Theology (which is Marxist based) and anti-American rhetoric.

8) McCain never did campaign for socialist candidates as Obama has.

9) McCain never said that he was shocked by 2 different friends whom he knew for about 20 years, when other people who knew them were not shocked at all.

This makes me wonder either how honest Obama is or about his powers of observation and judgment in regard to people.

Think of having a president who needs longer than 20 years to know someone well.

10) McCain did not have a friendship as Obama has had with a man who bombed America and who says he wished he had bombed us more often.

11) McCain has the good sense to know to put his hand over his heart when the National Antham is played and does not need to be told to do it. Obama claims that he didn't do it because he didn't know any better-- even though all the other adults on the stage were doing it right. This again calls into question Obama's judgment or honesty.

12) McCain knows the American people. Obama shows he does not when he does things like go into Penn. and then says that those people cling to their religion and their guns because of the economic problems and depression, etc. Reminds me of Marx's view of religion as something that the poor "cling to."

13) McCain is a centrist compared to Obama. Obama is very liberal, more so than any other Democratic candidate for the presidency in history.

Obama's been voted the most liberal member of the US Senate. No doubt this is reason why he campaigned for a socialist-- they think alike. You usually only campaign for people who are fairly close to you in viewpoint.

There are more reasons but these will have to do for now.

[Bravus]

Um, an awful lot of those points are about Obama...

[John317]

I believe that when Americans understand the above points about McCain and Obama, the latter will be toast. In fact, it looks like could be seeing the beginning of that process right now.

America has never elected a president as far to the Left as Obama is. He is farther to the Left than McGovern, Gore, or Kerry. All of those lost.

Have the Democrats done it again? I think that is a good possibility.

But the truth is that anything can still happen. Yet I would say now that it's McCain's to lose. If McCain and Palin do OK, and don't mess up big, in the debates, I believe they will win.

[John317]

4 out of 13 are negatives about Obama, and they are important because it is contrasting McCain with Obama. I think that in any election, some of the negatives about a particular candidate must be weighed, don't you agree?

You have 11 that are strictly positive about Senator McCain. Not enough?

Still, if you like, ignore the ones about Obama and merely consider the positive ones about McCain. The one about the experience in government and in the Senate for 21 years is enough by itself, in my opinion, when compared to Obama's very brief time there. Then on top of that, you have the fact that Obama had been in the Senate all of about 130+ days when he got the idea he was prepared to the next American president.

Then consider that Obama was wrong about Iraq. His one big decision in the Senate during that short period and he made a big boo-boo. If we had done what he wanted to do, the troops would have been pulled out prematurely and the war almost certainly lost. As it is, they will be coming home in victory and with pride, having given the Iraqi people a democracy, a stable society and government. The dark, evil forces of al-Qaida and terrorism lost, and freedom won. McCain was on the winning side. Obama would have lost it for us. That speaks volumes.

The other day I saw an interview on Hard Ball where Matthews asked a supporter of Obama why this supporter thought Obama's work in the Senate meant he was ready to be president. There was a long silence and then the man said he did not know. That was a supporter. 130 days! I've kept good ice cream in my freezer longer than that.

[Bravus]

'wrong on the surge' is a Republican narrative, as is victory - Iraq already had a democratically elected government (remember all those purple fingers?) years before the surge, and there is still massive on-going violence and a completely unacceptable death toll in Iraq now, so victory and triumph seem a bit premature

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_military_death_toll_in_Iraq_reaches_4,000

[Bravus]

The surge has reduced casualties, that's clear, but they are still at levels of 700 or so a month on average after the surge: or a September 11 of casualties every 4 months or so.

http://icasualties.org/oif/ (relevant table is low down in the centre column)

Not sure how that translates to 'triumph' - or how we'd know whether it would be lower or higher by now if the US troops had been pulled out last year rather than increased.

[John317]

The fact that the Iraqis feel strong and confident enough to want to stand alone is itself a very good sign. And also, the fact that Iraqis are filling up the stores and malls and restaurants. All those are wonderful signs.

One way you can tell the surge has worked is that its failure no longer appears on Obama's campaign website. And to go along with that, it is no longer a big issue with the Democrats. These are all positive signs that the surge is working. Or do you think the Democrats should still be harping about the failure? Would you advise Obama to put that back up on his site?

[Bravus]

We're never going to agree on this, but this was a war that never had to happen. Over 4000 US service members would be home and happy living with their families, tens of thousands more would be unwounded, the US would be in billions less debt, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be alive and well, Iraq's infrastructure would be actually working all the time... but for a war of choice that McCain has supported to the hilt all along. The surge was a bandaid on a gaping wound that the Republicans made - hard to get excited about it.

[John317]

While you're at it, also include that Hillary Clinton supported it as well as most Senators.

The point in all this is that we are in Iraq, and we have to decide what to do about it. McCain said to do one thing; Obama said to do something else. Who is right? Who has had to change their website about it?

And more importantly, who will win the election? We know the answers to the part about the surge. Now we will let the Americans decide who is best able to be our commander in chief.

It's too late to get into the blame game. Let history judge, as it surely will.

[John317]

We're never going to agree on this, but this was a war that never had to happen. Over 4000 US service members would be home and happy living with their families, tens of thousands more would be unwounded, the US would be in billions less debt, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be alive and well, Iraq's infrastructure would be actually working all the time... but for a war of choice that McCain has supported to the hilt all along. The surge was a bandaid on a gaping wound that the Republicans made - hard to get excited about it.

Well, we can certainly agree that war is terrible and that the death of any soldier is a horrible thing.

But, as you'll probably agree, we live in a dangerous world where wars do occur and where there are times when a nation must fight.

Was going to war in Iraq absolutely necessary? No. It was a war of choice, as they say. Most wars are. Even WW2 was a war of choice for the US. We could have done differently.

But once we got over there and began fighting, we could not just pack up and leave. That would have been wrong also. So we stayed. And stay we must until the job is completed. I don't think that will take more than about a year now.

I really believe that history will record that those 4000+ will not have died in vain.

Would you at least join me in that hope?

[carolaa]

The surge has reduced casualties, that's clear,

According to Bob Woodward, the recent secret program of assassinating targeted enemies has been at least as effective as the surge. That's actually what I thought we should have been doing all along.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, it sounds like it isn't secret anymore. I guess that means it won't be effective either. Nothing like the press undermining our national security. Thanks Mr. Woodward. Where do I send your Christmas card?

[CyberGuy]

1. Obama is inexperienced.

Obama voted to withhold funds that was to put armour on the vehicles to protect our boys in Iraq. Seems Obamas agenda is closer to Al Qaidas than our American troops.

Obama sides with whatever is popular at the moment to get elected.

McCain sided with the surge dispite it being unpopular. Now Obama was forced to admit to O'Rilley that the surge worked.

Obama admits he made a tactical error in judgement and McCain was right.

2. Obama also was hesitate in Condeming Russia. McCain was firm right from day one. Only when it became clear where the american public stood on that issue did Obama come out against strongly what Russia did.

3. Obama said he would cut the military and cut military research and development. BAD MISTAKE. That would give Russia and China an edge in R&D while we do nothing under Obama's leftist leadership.

4. Obama said to keep the campaign clean yet he sends 30 people to Alaska to did up dirt on Palin and much of what they are saying are totally false. I guess Obama is desparate.

5. Obama will raise taxes on business and americans alike. He says he will give Tax Relief which is not the same as tax cuts.

Why not cut government expenses like social programs and welfare programs and cutting off illegal immergrants from getting social security and medical and emergency care. If you are not a citizen we are more than happen to transport them to the nearest hospital in Mexico. Not in our ER treat them but the next stop will be the mexican border and deportation. That will stop a lot of illegals from overburdening our health care system.

According to the Kiplinger letter Government under the democratic congress is getting bigger by leaps and bounds. Taxes will have to go up to do what the liberal congress wants to do. They want to undo all the progress the republican congress has done in the last 12 years by setting up government run regulations in everything from which car you can drive to what you can and cannot eat and drink etc.

This is what Obama wants. Remember he has voted the party line 96 percent of the time.

[Bravus]

Um, I think the intention of the thread was to give positive reasons for voting for the Republicans, not negative reasons for voting against the Democrats.

Try to stay on topic, kids.

[Neil D]

1. Obama is inexperienced.

Obama voted to withhold funds that was to put armour on the vehicles to protect our boys in Iraq. Seems Obamas agenda is closer to Al Qaidas than our American troops.

Obama sides with whatever is popular at the moment to get elected.

This is NOT about Obama....

This IS about why YOU are voting Republican....

Please rephrase your post...

[John317]

Hey you said the same about me and I gave 9 positive reasons for voting for McCain. 4 were contrasts with Obama where it seems obvious that McCain is better than Obama, but isn't that allowed?

[Neil D]

Your post started talking about why YOU were voting republican...

cyberguys post started talking about Obama....and how bad he was....and how McCain was the lessor of 2 evils..

I chose to rail again Cyberguy's post as his was in clear violation as to what was desired.....

If you are feeling left out, John, I can start chastizing the 4 posts that were more about Obama than McCain, if'n you want......

[jasd]

QR frame:

The question is - Why vote Republican?

I'm voting Republican _mainly_ because of the 5 reasons posted by Cyberguy as well many others.

The other guy, not Republican, scares the bejeebers outa me - that's why I am voting Republican.

Honestly.

On the flip side, The Republican Ticket represents the better side of the equation.

[John317]

Oh ok, that's fine. I spoke too early maybe. LOL.

[Bravus]

Yeah, your post was fine, John.

The reasoning by cyberguy and jasd seemed more to be 'lesser of two evils' - which got me thinking of this:

[jasd]

That summarizes it. Actually,

I do not believe that the POTUS serves independently - but answers, primarily to THE money interests. That is not good; and their interests are inimical to the America I want my children to inherit.

The issue for me boils down to - which will take longer to 'get us there'.

Generally speaking, there is not a proverbial dime's worth of difference between the ultimate goals of both Parties; however, I believe

Cthulhu will take us 'there' much too quickly. :-o

[Neil D]

Quote:

1) Generally more in agreement with McCain on the issues than I am with Obama. (Later we can go through the issues in detail.)

2)McCain's decision on Iraq-- to keep the troops there until they successfully completed their mission. This decision included the "surge."

McCain was right-- Obama wrong.

Assuming the surge was the right thing to do...how is that going to stablize the country when you have 3 factions and 2 are more represented in thier goverment than the third? In fact, the third is quickly becoming the bottom of the social tier in a country dominated by 2 other factions...

Quote:

4) McCain's 4 years in Congress and 21 years in the Senate.

That is to Obama's 3 years in the Senate. Obama had been in the Senate about 140 days when he decided to run for the Presidency.

While you talk of politics and experience, you feel a politician is better at being president than a volenteer who works for the common american. Obviously, you value political experience to running the country than running a sucessful volenteer organization.

Well, I have run a voleenter organization. My drama group was total volenteers...And let me tell you, to run it sucessfully, there have to be a lot of talking and a lot of explaining and a lot of leadership qualities...most that don't come with a politician job resume....where you stick your finger in the wind and see which way the wind is blowing...

Quote:

5) McCain's forthright answer about abortion compared to Obama's mistaken, weak answer that he is not qualified to give an answer.

You don't want a Marxist state, and yet, you want the goverment to regulate a woman's body just so she don't make the mistake of aborting her child. I have worked in health care for many years, and all I can say is, that I am not qualified to make those decisions for others...It's hard enough for me...why do I want, thru the goverment, to rule others? God entrusted me to make these decisions, not some committee....nor the goverment.

Quote:

6) McCain response to the problems in Georgia compared to Obama tepid, uncertain response to the Russian invasion.

I am tired of America getting involved in the world's problems. Russia's response to America's saber rattling has been to rattle thier own sabres, to which, america is now looking for deplomacy.....I prefer that America get out of local wars and use a more thoughtful diplomatic approach...

We're doing some more stupid stuff in confronting Russia over Georgia's shoot first ask questions later policy....Now we have another problem, or rather a resurgance of an old problem...Russia...[Which I have NEVER trusted since Bush looked into Puttin's eyes and said that Russia is our friend].

Quote:

13) McCain is a centrist compared to Obama. Obama is very liberal, more so than any other Democratic candidate for the presidency in history.

And with McCain courting the Ultra concervatives republicans just to get elected, and pacifying them with a Ultra Conservative woman, you think that McCain is a 'centrist'?

Wow.......

[Neil D]

Quote:

I do not believe that the POTUS serves independently - but answers, primarily to THE money interests. That is not good; and their interests are inimical to the America I want my children to inherit.

Well, Obama has taken compaign money from the people, not major political interest groups....soooo, wouldnt that make him responsible to the people....not major monetary interests...?

[John317]

Quote:

You don't want a Marxist state, and yet, you want the goverment to regulate a woman's body just so she don't make the mistake of aborting her child. I have worked in health care for many years, and all I can say is, that I am not qualified to make those decisions for others...It's hard enough for me...why do I want, thru the goverment, to rule others? God entrusted me to make these decisions, not some committee....nor the goverment.

You misunderstand my position.

I believe that McCain answered right about when life begins, and I think that Obama's answer was poor-- as he himself admits-- but personally I favor a woman's right to choose, even if I disagree with her choice. My position is actually the same as Fred Thompson's. I just think Obama's answer shows he's not ready to be president. He might be ready in 4 more years. McCain spoke from the heart-- Obama out of political expediency, showing that he was trying to be careful not to make any mistakes. I would rather have a man speak frankly and strongly but mean it from the bottom of his heart than give a weak-kneed answer that shows he's afraid to make a choice or that he hasn't thought deeply about the subject.

I like Joe Biden's answer. It shows more reflection, I believe, than Obama's answer shows.