|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2008 15:10:54 GMT -4
Okay, I don't get it. What do these "Democrats for McCain" hope to prove or accomplish? I mean, I voted for Hillary. Hells, I almost considered becoming a delegate for Hillary, were I not concerned that I'd have a panic attack on the convention floor. But do these people think McCain is really closer to their beliefs than Obama (which spell check abhors), or is it just sour grapes?
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 28, 2008 15:21:12 GMT -4
While I think that the Dems got it wrong (I think Obama is a little inexperienced and naive) I think it is mostly sour grapes that some aren't getting in behind him.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 28, 2008 15:24:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2008 16:37:01 GMT -4
Oh, fabulous! So as big a con as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," then?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2008 17:06:43 GMT -4
As big a con as the Swift Boat vets? Wouldn't that mean they're legit?  |
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 28, 2008 17:11:33 GMT -4
They're lying *%#@ers who would have fit right in with the Bush I mean Nixon Administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 28, 2008 17:15:19 GMT -4
Don't forget that Republicans are the party of values.
Jon Stewart: "Michelle Obama has to prove her patriotism! She’s a Democrat. She must prove she loves America, as opposed to Republicans who everyone knows love America. They just hate half the people living in it.”
|
|
|
|
Post by lennison on Aug 28, 2008 17:50:55 GMT -4
Okay, I don't get it. What do these "Democrats for McCain" hope to prove or accomplish? I suspect they are hoping to get John McCain elected to the presidency. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon, many Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan when their own party's candidate was not to their liking. But do these people think McCain is really closer to their beliefs than Obama (which spell check abhors), or is it just sour grapes? The many millions of people who voted for Hillary Clinton are not a monolithic block with identical beliefs. Some of them probably had only a slight preference for Hillary Clinton over John McCain in the first place. For them, McCain's positions might be closer to their own than Obama's. Or maybe they just can't bear the thought of what the spell checker is going to do to them for the next four (or eight) years if Obama wins. |
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 28, 2008 17:56:53 GMT -4
The PUMA group is a group of Republicans, not Democrats. Just more Republican dirty tricks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2008 18:01:28 GMT -4
I was very nearly a Hillary delegate to my county convention--I decided not to take a chance at having a panic attack on the convention floor. Granted, she was my third choice, with my first two having already dropped out of the race, but still. And the fact is, it took serious consideration for me to choose between the two, because so much about them is so similar. (I went for her science policy over his.) I just don't see how you can agree with both Hillary and McCain, since they're much more different than Hillary and Obama. (There's that little red line again; I'm going to have to add it into the system.)
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 28, 2008 18:44:27 GMT -4
The PUMA group is a group of Republicans, not Democrats. Just more Republican dirty tricks. Well actually the evidence isn't entirely that this is the case. Her stated reason for giving the $500 to McCain's campaign and voting for him in the primary in 2000 was to try and prevent Bush from getting the Republican nomination against Gore, who she claims to have voted for in the Election. Such an explaination is certainly plausable so unless you have more to prove that she really is a Republican in Dem clothing...... |
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 28, 2008 19:19:38 GMT -4
Massachusetts has a "modified open primary," so she was certainly not a registered Democrat (unless they've changed this since 2000). I don't buy her claim that she was trying to stop George W. Bush by voting for McCain in the 2000 primary. She seems to think that kind of behavior is just peachy -- and it is the same kind of behavior of which she is now being accused. The facts that we know for sure are that she voted for McCain in 2000 and she is supporting him, now. Her spin on it is just that -- spin.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2008 19:33:39 GMT -4
In 2000, McCain was the better Republican candidate. I found it true again this year--he was the best of a bad lot. (I cannot think of a possible running mate for him who will appease everyone, though!) I just have less and less respect for him as the election progresses, whereas my respect for Obama has remained level.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennison on Aug 28, 2008 20:23:25 GMT -4
I just don't see how you can agree with both Hillary and McCain, since they're much more different than Hillary and Obama. You don't have to agree with someone on every position to vote for that person. It sounds like you don't agree with Clinton (your third choice) about everything, but voted for her anyway. As you can't understand how someone who supported Clinton could now support McCain, may I take it that you plan to vote for Obama? If so, then you'll be voting for someone who was at best, your fourth choice? Then, I don't see what the problem is. Paris is closer to London than it is to Milan. London is much closer to Edinburgh than it is to Milan. It does not follow that Paris is closer to Edinburgh than it is to Milan (and it isn't). Take London=Clinton, Edinburgh=Obama, McCain=Milan, and Paris=voter, and there you go. Besides, are you sure Clinton and Obama are much closer than Clinton and McCain? I can think of issues where I would judge Clinton and McCain to be substantially closer than Clinton to Obama. I can also think of issues where some candidates (one in particular) have taken obfuscation to a high art form, so that I can't figure out who is closer to whom. |
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 28, 2008 21:19:36 GMT -4
In general, Democrats stand for certain ideas. If you are a Democrat and you supported Hillary, a good part of the reason likely was that she supported those ideas. If Hillary had supported Republican ideas, Democrats who supported her would likely not have been supporting her. So it is a huge stretch to think that Hillary supporters are so pissed off that they are going to sell out all the ideas that Hillary supports by voting for someone who has ideas that are very contrary to Hillary's ideas.
|
|
