About
A note on our important Editorial Policy.
Your donations help make Dean's World possible.
Or you could buy something for Dean from his WISH LIST!
Dean Esmay
Editor-In-Chief
Freedomist Network
Individual postings by contributors copyright by their respective authors.
Editor-In-Chief
Contributing Editors
Celia Farber
Categories
Music, Movies, Books, and Etc.
Questioning the HIV/AIDS establishment
Subscribe
Archives
Old Archives
We Support
|
Dean's World uses and recommends:
No siting on the couch for me, in spite of the fact that McCain has the nomination. I've not missed an election since I started voting in 1960, and I don't plan to miss one now. However McCain is, in my opinion, the worst candidate Republicans have put forth since I've been voting.
Assuming Hillary wins I will vote for her. Maybe even Obama should he win, but that would be like choosing between eating sand with or without salt. At least there is a chance that Hillary (or Obama) will be more enthused about stopping illegal immigration.
McCain is not. Like Bush, he is for open borders and amnesty for all here and all to come in the future. No, don't tell me about the small fine, that is simply a shot of water to make the amnesty pill go down easier. And the get-in-line is BS that McCain has never been for in spite of his rhetoric. It has been in House bills but not Senate bills.
The Republican leadership is at fault. Instead of putting their weight behind the best candidate, they go by who's turn it is. Bob Doyle is a hell of a nice guy, but he wasn't the best candidate... but it was his turn. Bush II wasn't the best candidate in 2000, but the party decided it was his turn because of hid Daddy.
God do I wish there were viable third party candidates.
Well given the whining I'm hearing about McCain I might have reconsider my standing as well.
If you think GW Bush got the 2000 Republican nomination "because of his daddy" you are exposing some serious ignorance about, at least, Republican politics. If your argument about "turns" were completely right, John McCain would have gotten the 2000 nomination. In fact many on the right believe that the reason McCain has been at odds with the conservative wing of the party is BECAUSE he lost "his turn" in 2000 to the upstart GW Bush, and he's been bitter about it ever since.
Now, in general I agree that Republicans tend to respect party loyalty and contribution more than the Democrats do, but that should not be surprising from a party that supposedly respects tradition and virtue.
Scott: As one who has been doing some of the "whining" about McCain, let me say that McCain's sponsoring of the McCain-Feingold debacle was a serious, serious blow to my opinion of him, and I may never again have the positive opinion of him I had before that travesty. But I am now resigning myself to his nomination and re-adjusting my expectations to the benefits of having a moderate Republican in the White House instead of a Clinton or a near-socialist.
BUT, unless McCain surprises the heck out of me as President, I won't be automatically supporting him for re-election in 2012 if a better conservative candidate is available.
I am working on my other conservative friends to take a similar attitude. As much as I would prefer Romney to McCain, I prefer McCain to either of the Democrats by a much wider margin.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.