too far, even for me
Yesterday, I happened to catch a few minutes of the Rush Limbaugh show. To give you some background: I never listen to Rush. It's not that I don't like him as much as I think I've got better things to do. I get the "gist" of his sentiments from other sources, and that's more than enough for me.
But there I was yesterday, listening for probably 10 minutes, and he said something that I found deeply disturbing.
Keeping in mind that this isn't verbatim, here's the "gist": woman caller takes him to task for saying that IF the Republican nominee doesn't pass his muster, then he'd probably sit on the sidelines this fall. Her question was : isn't even a non-conservative GOP candidate better than either Obama or Clinton in the White House? To which he answered something to the effect of: if I think the President is going to steer the country straight into a trainwreck, then I'd rather it happen on a Democrat's watch rather than a Republican's.
That is too far, as far as I'm concerned.
A "trainwreck" is bad for everybody--liberals, moderates AND conservatives.
And if the best we can do is hope that the trainwreck is stalled or lessened or whatever, then that's what we must do.
And there's no way that you can look at the field of 4 serious contenders for the GOP nominee and believe they will be as complicit in working with a Democrat-controlled Congress to lead the country into a "trainwreck" as will either Clinton or Obama--however you describe that trainwreck to be.
Is McCain a little too "maverick" for the base? Yes. . .but at least he won't back down from the terrorists. Is Huckabee a little too "thin" (legislatively) to fight for American foreign policy? Perhaps (it's yet to be totally known)--but at least he likely won't disappoint most social conservatives. I don't even need to address the question towards Romney and Giuliani, 'cuz the base is largely comfortable with either of those guys.
And let's keep something in mind: at least as important as the executive him- (or her-) self is the people who will be involved in the important decisions. What are the chances that at least one of those advisors for the GOP nominee will have some common sense? What are the chances of that same occurence on the Dem side?
So EVEN IF the nominee for the GOP side is someone who I don't particularly desire to be my President, I will still vote for him because I KNOW that I ABSOLUTELY don't want either Clinton or Obama in that office starting in January 2009.
I know it's not very sexy to be voting for the "lesser of two evils". . .but that doesn't make it any less important. And let's be perfectly clear here: all of the GOP candidates have a long way to go before they qualify as a political "evil" as compared to the socialist-inspired and integrity-challenged Clintons and the vacuous Obama.
Regardless of the "discomfort" one might have with the GOP nominee, ANYTHING is better than turning this country over to that other party--regardless of who their nominee is, too.
It's easy to be emotional right now, when the focus is on the conservative shortcomings of the GOP field. My hope is that as the general election approaches, and the GOP starts to really focus on the Dem candidate rather than their own, then the decision will be made much clearer.
We MUST not let either Clinton or Obama lead this country into the next decade.
And although it may not make for the best slogans or bumper stickers, it sure as heckfire is a sentiment that conservatives NEED to rally around.
But there I was yesterday, listening for probably 10 minutes, and he said something that I found deeply disturbing.
Keeping in mind that this isn't verbatim, here's the "gist": woman caller takes him to task for saying that IF the Republican nominee doesn't pass his muster, then he'd probably sit on the sidelines this fall. Her question was : isn't even a non-conservative GOP candidate better than either Obama or Clinton in the White House? To which he answered something to the effect of: if I think the President is going to steer the country straight into a trainwreck, then I'd rather it happen on a Democrat's watch rather than a Republican's.
That is too far, as far as I'm concerned.
A "trainwreck" is bad for everybody--liberals, moderates AND conservatives.
And if the best we can do is hope that the trainwreck is stalled or lessened or whatever, then that's what we must do.
And there's no way that you can look at the field of 4 serious contenders for the GOP nominee and believe they will be as complicit in working with a Democrat-controlled Congress to lead the country into a "trainwreck" as will either Clinton or Obama--however you describe that trainwreck to be.
Is McCain a little too "maverick" for the base? Yes. . .but at least he won't back down from the terrorists. Is Huckabee a little too "thin" (legislatively) to fight for American foreign policy? Perhaps (it's yet to be totally known)--but at least he likely won't disappoint most social conservatives. I don't even need to address the question towards Romney and Giuliani, 'cuz the base is largely comfortable with either of those guys.
And let's keep something in mind: at least as important as the executive him- (or her-) self is the people who will be involved in the important decisions. What are the chances that at least one of those advisors for the GOP nominee will have some common sense? What are the chances of that same occurence on the Dem side?
So EVEN IF the nominee for the GOP side is someone who I don't particularly desire to be my President, I will still vote for him because I KNOW that I ABSOLUTELY don't want either Clinton or Obama in that office starting in January 2009.
I know it's not very sexy to be voting for the "lesser of two evils". . .but that doesn't make it any less important. And let's be perfectly clear here: all of the GOP candidates have a long way to go before they qualify as a political "evil" as compared to the socialist-inspired and integrity-challenged Clintons and the vacuous Obama.
Regardless of the "discomfort" one might have with the GOP nominee, ANYTHING is better than turning this country over to that other party--regardless of who their nominee is, too.
It's easy to be emotional right now, when the focus is on the conservative shortcomings of the GOP field. My hope is that as the general election approaches, and the GOP starts to really focus on the Dem candidate rather than their own, then the decision will be made much clearer.
We MUST not let either Clinton or Obama lead this country into the next decade.
And although it may not make for the best slogans or bumper stickers, it sure as heckfire is a sentiment that conservatives NEED to rally around.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home