Between a Rock and A Hard Place

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Well, here I go again. Hillary is much too left wing for me, Obama even more so. It really frightens me to think what would happen if either of them became commander in chief. With either of those two, I think that the economy, which is rather moribund, will really go into the crapper.

I think that McCain needs to start thinking about playing golf at this point in his life, rather than running the country. To his credit, I think that he understands how important it is that terrorism is contained, but when it comes to the economy, fuggedaboudit! The fact that he even has to consider pandering to the nutjob biblebangers is a travesty.

I could have lived with Rudy, but he screwed up his campaign, big time.

What to do, what to do???

There seem to be a lot of members who are committed to one candidate or another. Is anyone around like me, who (again) is attempting to figure out who is "least worst"?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,343 • Replies: 107

No top replies

Wait for Mccain to announce Romney as his running mate. Listen to the Democrat rhetoric and their plans for directing (and of course improving) our lives. Vote for the option that scares you least.

0 Replies

I'm also trying to guess the least worst.

Ah, how I long to actually vote for someone.

0 Replies

I'm curious what specific policies of the leading Democratic candidates are too left-wing for you, Phoenix.

I would have suspected you were left of both of them on a number of significant issues - simply by following your posts here.

0 Replies

ehBeth- The short answer is that I am extremely left wing socially, and extremely right wing economically, which I know is rather unusual. At this point in my life though, I have determined that the issues that override everything else for me is security and the economy.

0 Replies

I repeat my question.

0 Replies

I'm also a social liberal and fiscal conservative (although not to the same extreme on the fiscal side). I haven't voted FOR anyone since John Anderson (Republican turned Independent) in 1980. There are a couple issues that are sending me more towards the social liberalism than the fiscal conservative side of the fence this go-round, but I'm still on the fence.

First, the right-to-lifers are more dedicated than ever to overturning Roe v Wade. The current Supreme Court has me nervous. As does John McCain's position on abortion. This could become a litmus test for my vote.

Second, I'm more than fed up with battle lines drawn in the sand between the two political parties. Obama is the only front runner who is dedicated to blurring those lines and in working towards a consensus government. McCain is somewhat less a party-all-the-way guy but he isn't nearly as open about a desire for working with Democrats as Obama is in working with Republicans to form viable bi-partisan legislation.

I'm still on the fence, but I can see myself eventually voting For Obama. My vote certainly wouldn't be a vote against McCain like my previous two votes were against GWB (the only two times I've supported a Democratic candidate in 8 presidential general election ballots cast).

0 Replies

Become a single issue voter. Narrow down the one single issue that is most important to you (say, national security or taxes or whatever) and then pick your candidate based on how you think they would handle it. Works for some.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I'm also a social liberal and fiscal conservative (although not to the same extreme on the fiscal side). I haven't voted FOR anyone since John Anderson (Republican turned Independent) in 1980. There are a couple issues that are sending me more towards the social liberalism than the fiscal conservative side of the fence this go-round, but I'm still on the fence.

First, the right-to-lifers are more dedicated than ever to overturning Roe v Wade. The current Supreme Court has me nervous. As does John McCain's position on abortion. This could become a litmus test for my vote.

Second, I'm more than fed up with battle lines drawn in the sand between the two political parties. Obama is the only front runner who is dedicated to blurring those lines and in working towards a consensus government. McCain is somewhat less a party-all-the-way guy but he isn't nearly as open about a desire for working with Democrats as Obama is in working with Republicans to form viable bi-partisan legislation.

I'm still on the fence, but I can see myself eventually voting For Obama. My vote certainly wouldn't be a vote against McCain like my previous two votes were against GWB (the only two times I've supported a Democratic candidate in 8 presidential general election ballots cast).

It certainly seems you are more diven by your social liberalism than your fiscal conservatism if you are considering voting for Obama.

If willingness to reach across the aisle to get something done is a qualification you value highly than I suggest you examine records rather than simply listen to stump speeches. McCain has the record, Obama does not.

0 Replies

Re: Between a Rock and A Hard Place

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Well, here I go again. Hillary is much too left wing for me, Obama even more so. It really frightens me to think what would happen if either of them became commander in chief. With either of those two, I think that the economy, which is rather moribund, will really go into the crapper.

I think that McCain needs to start thinking about playing golf at this point in his life, rather than running the country. To his credit, I think that he understands how important it is that terrorism is contained, but when it comes to the economy, fuggedaboudit! The fact that he even has to consider pandering to the nutjob biblebangers is a travesty.

I could have lived with Rudy, but he screwed up his campaign, big time.

What to do, what to do???

There seem to be a lot of members who are committed to one candidate or another. Is anyone around like me, who (again) is attempting to figure out who is "least worst"?

I don't know that McCain is pandering to "nutjob biblebangers." Dobson sure doesn't think so. I appreciate that you're not impressed with McCain's economic acumen, but that's what advisors are for, and as far him being too old to run the country, that's a low blow, and inacurate.
Never-the-less it certainly seems that he is the lesser of two evils to you.

Obama: Commander in Chief - Disaster
Economy - Disaster
Age - Too young or OK?
Clinton: Commander in Chief - Disaster
Economy - Disaster
Age - OK
McCain: Commander in Chief - Aces
Commander in Chief - Disaster
Age - Too Old

Not pretty, but McCain comes out ahead, or at least not as far behind as the other two

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

JPB wrote:
I'm also a social liberal and fiscal conservative (although not to the same extreme on the fiscal side). I haven't voted FOR anyone since John Anderson (Republican turned Independent) in 1980. There are a couple issues that are sending me more towards the social liberalism than the fiscal conservative side of the fence this go-round, but I'm still on the fence.

First, the right-to-lifers are more dedicated than ever to overturning Roe v Wade. The current Supreme Court has me nervous. As does John McCain's position on abortion. This could become a litmus test for my vote.

Second, I'm more than fed up with battle lines drawn in the sand between the two political parties. Obama is the only front runner who is dedicated to blurring those lines and in working towards a consensus government. McCain is somewhat less a party-all-the-way guy but he isn't nearly as open about a desire for working with Democrats as Obama is in working with Republicans to form viable bi-partisan legislation.

I'm still on the fence, but I can see myself eventually voting For Obama. My vote certainly wouldn't be a vote against McCain like my previous two votes were against GWB (the only two times I've supported a Democratic candidate in 8 presidential general election ballots cast).

It certainly seems you are more diven by your social liberalism than your fiscal conservatism if you are considering voting for Obama.

If willingness to reach across the aisle to get something done is a qualification you value highly than I suggest you examine records rather than simply listen to stump speeches. McCain has the record, Obama does not.

My drive is determined by current times. If the Presidential race of my dreams (Bradley vs McCain) had taken place eight years ago I would have most likely gone with McCain. I have true respect for him and would have been comfortable supporting him. However, eight years of damage have been done on the social side of the fence and I don't have the luxury of hoping McCain is the moderate I think he is. Nor do I think he is an economic wizard who will save us from our fiscally irresponsible selves. Nor do I want to spend another four to eight years fighting against boogie men and embracing preemptive strikes. The collateral damage is too high on both sides of the battle.

One thing that admittedly makes me nervous about a Dem in the White House is an all Democratic government. Here's where my aversion to party politics comes in to play. I would much rather see opposite parties heading the two branches Just So Long As The Relationship Isn't Purely Adversarial! That's where I lose it with Hillary. She's a power-hungry back room politician who plays the game as well and any of the boys she's trying to hang out with. In my not so humble opinion, her interest is in pay-back time to her/their "enemies". I have no interest in watching that happen or being any part of the support that would allow it.

0 Replies

Finn- I tend to agree with you. I am NOT happy about McCain, but I am LESS unhappy with him than with Hillary or Obama. Although I am an extremely liberal socially, those issues pale in comparison with national security and the economy. It is all a matter of priorities.

I don't think that saying that McCain is too old for the job is a low blow. In my years of observation, I have seen much younger presidents age appreciably during their terms of office. At 71, I don't think that McCain has much "wiggle room". When he runs, I would like to see him choose a running mate who would be in line for the presidency after his first term.

I may have went to far to characterize McCain as "pandering to biblebangers". It was just that I got pissed when he was making attempts to pull in the ultra right conservative voters. Hey, the important thing is that he wins, and he needs the votes of those people, if he wants to have a chance.

Although, in hindsight, I think that the war in Iraq was a disaster, telling the enemy that you are going to pull out troops, would, IMO, leave us open to a lot of vulnerability. I think that McCain knows that the only thing that terrorists respect is strength. Although he did a piss poor job of it, I think that Bush probably prevented yet another 9/11.

I think that universal health care sounds good in principle, but like most things that are done by the government, would be an economic nightmare. I certainly don't think that people should be forced to pay for health care.

I never could figure out why health care was tied to employment in the first place. This system favors people who work for giant companies, and
penalizes workers in small companies, as well as individual entrepreneurs.

I believe that the borders must be secured, both for security and economic reasons. Illegal immigrants are, IMO, by definition, criminals. In earlier generations, people waited their turn, came here legally, LEARNED ENGLISH, and prospered. I think that dual language education creates a permanent underclass, and is doing more harm than the good it professes to achieve.

I find that I am rambling. I really need to sit down and clarify this entire issue fully in my own mind.

Quote:

One thing that admittedly makes me nervous about a Dem in the White House is an all Democratic government.

Agree. One of the great strengths of this nation are its checks and balances.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I'm also a social liberal and fiscal conservative (although not to the same extreme on the fiscal side). I haven't voted FOR anyone since John Anderson (Republican turned Independent) in 1980. There are a couple issues that are sending me more towards the social liberalism than the fiscal conservative side of the fence this go-round, but I'm still on the fence.

First, the right-to-lifers are more dedicated than ever to overturning Roe v Wade. The current Supreme Court has me nervous. As does John McCain's position on abortion. This could become a litmus test for my vote.

Second, I'm more than fed up with battle lines drawn in the sand between the two political parties. Obama is the only front runner who is dedicated to blurring those lines and in working towards a consensus government. McCain is somewhat less a party-all-the-way guy but he isn't nearly as open about a desire for working with Democrats as Obama is in working with Republicans to form viable bi-partisan legislation.

I'm still on the fence, but I can see myself eventually voting For Obama. My vote certainly wouldn't be a vote against McCain like my previous two votes were against GWB (the only two times I've supported a Democratic candidate in 8 presidential general election ballots cast).

Wow, that describes my position pretty well also including why I'm leaning for Obama. The war is also an issue for me. Anderson; That brings back memories.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Finn- I tend to agree with you. I am NOT happy about McCain, but I am LESS unhappy with him than with Hillary or Obama. Although I am an extremely liberal socially, those issues pale in comparison with national security and the economy. It is all a matter of priorities.

Well then, then you do know what to do.

0 Replies

Phoenix, we are somewhat alike as far as issues.

I am not nearly as concerned about security as you are though (at least it seems). I think we spend far too much money for some illusion of security. Facts are that we are far more likely to fall off a ladder and die then we are to be bombed by another terrorist. I think we've reached a point where we are "security inefficient" meaning we pay far too much for the little extra security we have.

Healthcare is what that really pushes me towards Hillary's camp.

0 Replies

hope you won't mind me looking across "the fence" .

since some of you are concerned about america's economy ,
here is what i just posted on another thread .
i hope nobody minds a repeat too much .
hbg

if you haven't read what warren buffet recently said , here is your chance - see bottom link .
of course , he's made his money over many, many years , carefully looking at the world and the economy before making his choices .
he doesn't seem to believe in FIXES , but good government and business practices .
you don't really have to read the whole article , this might be enough :

Quote:

As for the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, he blamed the enormous current account and trade deficits the U.S. is running.

"We're still sending about $2 billion a day to the rest of the world," he said. "Force-feeding a couple of billion a day to the rest of the world is not conducive to a stable dollar."

He said U.S. voters have "some interesting and good choices" in this year's presidential election.

link :
WARREN BUFFET

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Agree. One of the great strengths of this nation are its checks and balances.

These 'checks and balances' have failed miserably a number of times, Phoenix and over the last eight years they have been nonexistent. The ole constitution could do with a radical overhaul.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Finn- I tend to agree with you. I am NOT happy about McCain, but I am LESS unhappy with him than with Hillary or Obama. Although I am an extremely liberal socially, those issues pale in comparison with national security and the economy. It is all a matter of priorities.

Well then, then you do know what to do.

Indeed!

To perhaps provide you with some small measure of comfort.

McCain is not an extreme conservative socially.

0 Replies

Just to add my two cents: These next four years will likely require a President to be an effective Commander In Chief, in addition to the Chief Executive. With that in mind, isn't there only one person running that has worn a military uniform? And therefore, in my opinion, has the best shot at being the most competent Commander In Chief. Plus, with the potential for having to deal with Iran's desire to be the "big kid on the block," it would be our Navy that would likely be backing up our diplomacy. The Commander In Chief would benefit from Navy experience. So, who fits that need? I'll whisper it: mccain.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Just to add my two cents: These next four years will likely require a President to be an effective Commander In Chief, in addition to the Chief Executive. With that in mind, isn't there only one person running that has worn a military uniform? And therefore, in my opinion, has the best shot at being the most competent Commander In Chief. Plus, with the potential for having to deal with Iran's desire to be the "big kid on the block," it would be our Navy that would likely be backing up our diplomacy. The Commander In Chief would benefit from Navy experience. So, who fits that need? I'll whisper it: mccain.

History provides no reason to think that former military men make better commanders-in-chief.

War of 1812: James Madison. No military experience at all. Grade as commander-in-chief: poor.

Mexican War: James K. Polk. No military experience at all. Grade: fair.

Civil War: Abraham Lincoln. Militia service during the Black Hawk War, during which Lincoln saw no combat (except against vicious mosquitoes). Grade: Excellent.

Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection: William McKinley. Meritorious combat service in the Civil War. Grade: fair.

World War I: Woodrow Wilson. No military experience at all. Grade: good.

World War II: Franklin Roosevelt. No military experience at all. Grade: excellent.

Korean War: Harry Truman. Service in World War I. Grade: fair.

Vietnam War: Lyndon Johnson. Service in World War II. Grade: poor.

First Gulf War: George H. W. Bush. Meritorious Service in World War II. Grade: excellent.

Iraq War: George W. Bush. Service in the Texas Air National Guard but no combat service. Grade: disastrous.

Previous military experience, therefore, does not guarantee that a person will be a good commander-in-chief, just as the lack of military experience does not guarantee that a person will be a bad commander-in-chief.

0 Replies

Between a Rock and A Hard Place

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know