If the 2008 election was upon us and McCain was running against Hillary, I would vote for John McCain. Please, hold your gasps.
But wait! She's a "feminist," you say. She should jump at the chance for a woman president! First of all, that's ridiculous. If a qualified minority ran for president (like Shirley Chisolm), I would expect him or her to get a fair shot at office. But she or he should never be judged on the basis of their minority status (positively or negatively).
So let's look at Hillary and John. She's a "Democrat," he's a "Republican."
Both voted to invade Iraq in 2003.
Both support different kinds of guest worker programs for illegal immigrants (though Hillary's position is a little wobbly).
BOTH are self-proclaimed "anti-abortionists." Hillary believes that criminalizing the process would not abolish abortions, McCain has said he would have signed the South Dakota legislation banning all abortions but, unlike South Dakota's law, McCain believes pregnancies resulting from rape or incest should be legal. As for Hillary, she is again wobbly: "Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this — and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts..." Yes. Ultimately she admits there may be a problem with abstinence-only education. But to give it any credit at all is criminal in my eyes.
Both expressed opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Hillary, however, does not believe in (?) same-sex marriages. She supports civil unions but also supports the Defense of Marriage Act.
Hillary supports making flag burning illegal *without* an actual amendment.
She PROPOSED the Family Entertainment Protection Act, a bill that would prohibit the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18. She has called Grand Theft Auto a "major threat" to morality. More on that in another post.
Do I feel betrayed by Clinton? A little. Okay, a lot. Maybe she's justdesperatee to get elected. But I don't think so. I think she's finally showing her true colors. And I would take a "Republican" over a "Democrat" any day. At least McCain journeys over to the light. Hillary is being dragged over to the dark side. It's taking over. I don't want to see her in office. I think she would disappoint a lot of people.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
This Could Shock (and Awe) You
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Though I like McCain much more than any other Republican throughout the past 20 years, and I feel that based on your observations/opinions that he is better suited than Hillary for the position, I am very surprised at your statement of voting Republican over Democrat. Having read all of your posts (political and non) I would have thought you rested on the Democrat side of the coin. I don't like labels, so I don't consider myself either, but I do find that I agree more with the Democratic views. It does bother me that Hilary can be so "wobbly" - this will be her biggest downfall with the Democratic voters. I just hope that when it comes time to vote, that our potential candidates will be similar to John or even Howard Dean; another Bush/Kerry choice will be too harmfull to this country. Amy G.
A great deal of information about Clinton, but little about McCain, who is squarely in the conservative ranks and whose voting record is very conservative.
As far as being wobbly and moving to the dark side, what else is McCain doing when he cozies up to Falwell, speaks at Liberty University, and gives Bush a smooch? Nothing wrong with speaking to all groups, and taking their opinion, but that's not why McCain did it. This is a group that he previously denounced as dangerous.
The main thing McCain had going for him was his reputation for integrity, being plain-spoken, telling the truth, etc., come what may. He's losing that in his run for the 2008 presidency.
Hillary: can't win, and probably shouldn't.
Shirley Chisholm: dead!
You are absolutely correct and I regret that I didn't have more time to flesh out my post during my lunch hour.
McCain has definite faults and he is almost as disappointing to me as Clinton. The difference is that McCain is coming FROM the dark side. Of course he's campaigning, tying all his bows, kissing all the ... um ... cheeks he needs to. I do hate him for that.
But I think Clinton's crap is much worse. I am a registered independent who generally looks to the democrats to give me some faith in the "system." As I said, I feel betrayed.
I guess I was going for a lesser of two evils. But thank you for adding some negative stuff on McCain. I was about to do so myself. Here's another one: he supports teaching intelligent design in schools. Maybe I'm being too lenient. But I can excuse a lot of it because he has an excuse. He IS a republican.
Post a Comment