Preservetherepublic’s Weblog

Keeping Capitalism off the Endangered Species List

5 Real Reasons Why Clinton Supporters Should Vote for McCain

with 12 comments

Let’s not pretend that women voters will vote for McCain just because he put a woman on the ticket. Don’t get me wrong, I think Palin was an excellent pick but she would not be on the ticket if Hillary Clinton had been placed on Obama’s ticket. Palin is way too conservative for most women voters.  So why should women voters go against their beliefs and vote for McCain?

Reason #1: Obama does not deserve your vote. His campaign has disrespected both women involved in the election this year. First of all, he ignored 18 million voters and picked Biden as his running mate. His campaign along with the news media has also attacked Palin on levels that a man would not be attacked. Did anyone ask Biden if he could handle being a father and VP at the same time? This hasn’t been asked of any male candidate.

Reason #2: Obama has done very little for women in the past. During his time in the Senate, Obama managed not to vote on most legislation that came up concerning women’s issues. What makes you think that he will do anything for you as President? Don’t feel too slighted though, because he hasn’t voted on much of anything else either.

Reason #3: Abortion will not become illegal if McCain is elected. Obama uses this scare tactic because he thinks that it is the only issue that women care about. First of all, McCain can’t pass a federal law against abortion. The only thing he can do is appoint a pro-life Supreme Court justice. Even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion won’t become illegal. It will become a state issue. Most states won’t ban it. The only way a federal law against abortion could be passed would be for it to go through a Congress with a Democratic majority. But, please don’t forget about other issues outside of abortion.

Reason #4: If Obama loses, Hillary will probably be the next President after McCain. McCain will be a one term President if he wins. That will give Hillary a good chance to win in 2012 because four years won’t give McCain’s policies much time to have an affect in time for people to notice. As a matter of fact, 2012 could be Clinton vs. Palin. If Obama wins, Hillary will never be President. Obama will probably get two terms. By then, the political pendulum will be swinging back the other way. It always does. Each party has had several turns and people always are disappointed. Hillary would lose in 2016, because it will be the Democrats’ turn to be hated.

Reason #5: It is the right thing to do for the country. I am not going to pretend that Bush has been good for the economy. However, even if Obama only raises taxes on businesses and the wealthy, it will hurt the middle class severely. These companies are going to make up the extra taxes by cutting jobs. Obama is trying to start class warfare. His strategies and campaign promises are right out of the Karl Marx playbook. Obama also lacks the foreign policy experience to be President. Terrorism and Al-Qaeda may be secondary threats soon. Russia is the biggest concern right now. This is not time for Obama. Putin will see him as a weakling. Did anyone else noticed how he has faltered and stuttered all over himself with the issue going on in Georgia?

Advertisements

Written by preservetherepublic

September 5, 2008 at 3:58 am

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. good article. I completely agree. I do not plan to vote for McCain because Sarah Palin agrees with Hillary althought that is what the Obots think. I want to also get rid of the crooked DNC and the hijackers of the Democratic Party.
    http://hillarysmygirl08.wordpress.com

    hillarysmygirl08

    September 5, 2008 at 6:08 am

  2. “Hijacked” is a very good word for what has happened hillarysmygirl08. They are not the same Democratic Party that they use to be. They have almost become some sort of Socialist/Marxist regime and the only thing standing in there way is an impotent Republican Party.

    preservetherepublic

    September 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  3. You make some very good points. If only I were a Clinton supporter, I might be even more impressed. But…

    1. No one should ask Biden if he can be a good father and VP at the same time. His daughter, and youngest child, is 26 years old. Palin’s is 4 months old. I’m a 26 year old woman and I think I could manage on my own if my parent happened to be running for office.

    2. I agree Obama hasn’t voted on much of anything. He’s been too busy running for president! Then again, hasn’t McCain missed an similar amount of Senate votes in the last two years?

    3. I haven’t forgot about issues outside of abortion. McCain is much, much to hawkish on Iran and even Russia for me. Nuclear war with Iran I can do without just as much as the new Cold War. I was put off when McCain said “We are all Georgians today.” I side with Russia. And, yes, that means I don’t agree with Obama.

    4. Like I said before, I hope Hillary can stick to Senate work and forget the whole notion of the presidency.

    5. On the economy, at least Obama pretends to understand it while McCain freely admits he doesn’t. Because of that, I think McCain would keep Bush’s advisors and thereby keep Bush’s economic policies.

    idealskeptic

    September 5, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  4. Biden’s kids are older now, but they weren’t when he first tried to run against Dukakis for the presidential nomination. No one ever asked any male candidate those questions. The Democrats are coming out more sexist than the Republicans ever have.
    As for Russia, Putin is testing us to see how far we will let him go. He threatened to nuke Poland even. He won’t do that because there is nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. He is just a bully who needs someone to stand up to him just as Kennedy did with the Soviet Union.

    preservetherepublic

    September 5, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  5. Why shouldn’t Putin and Medvedev threaten Poland for that missile defense shield? Maybe, being a conservative, you can explain to me what good the missile defense shield does in Poland and the Czech Republic? Haven’t most people agreed that it would be all but ineffectual for a missile launched from, say, Iran?

    No, it is between Eastern and Western Europe. It is meant antagonize and threaten Russia. And Russia should reply in kind.

    Also, there should most certainly not be US military meddling in the Georgian military. What did they say it was, training Georgian troops to help in Iraq? Why aren’t those troops training Iraqi troops to serve in Iraq? Because we want to make sure Russia knows that we still think we are the superpower.

    My philosophy always has been and always will be that until the US is willing to begin getting rid of ALL of our nuclear weapons, we have no right to forbid any other country to have them.

    idealskeptic

    September 6, 2008 at 3:06 am

  6. How could a defensive missle system threaten Russia? Also, even if the missles aren’t the best, some defense is better than none.
    I agree that Russia does have some valid points with Georgia. However, Georgia is an ally and we are suppose to help them. Russia’s invasion was over the top. Putin is trying to intimidate all the former Soviet satellite nations. He is testing the world to see how much slack we will give him.
    Finally, I strongly disagree with you on Iran. We have every right to forbid them from having nuclear weapons. They will use them. At least Russia and China have restraint. Exteme Islamic countries have rather suicidal tendancies. The US would be foolish to disarm itself as long as ither countries have them.

    preservetherepublic

    September 6, 2008 at 6:02 pm

  7. South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been autonomous regions of Georgia since 1991. Georgia, Russia, and the two provinces themselves had been keeping peace in the area all along. It was Georgia that was trying to reign in South Ossetia and force the revolutionaries out when Russia stepped in.

    I agree that Putin is testing the limits of what he can do. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is much that the US can do to stop him. Not while we are tied up in Iraq.

    I also wonder why Georgia is such an important ally. What does the US get out of the alliance? Then again, the US (and George Soros) funded Shaaksvili’s (excuse my spelling) bloodless revolution so I probably shouldn’t be surprised.

    I wasn’t saying that we should disarm all of our nuclear weapons and let everyone else have them. Not at all. I simply mean that the US does not have the right to say who can have them and who cannot while we do. Especially considering the double standard that exists in letting Libya and Egypt develop nuclear programs.

    idealskeptic

    September 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  8. Georgia is an important ally because it is a buffer zone between Russia and Israel. Israel and Iran could go to war at anytime. There is fear that Russia could intervene and launch an attack on Israel. To do that, they would have to go through Georgia.

    preservetherepublic

    September 7, 2008 at 9:33 pm

  9. your reasons are unreaslistic and stupid.
    ”four years won’t give McCain’s policies much time to have an affect in time for people to notice.”
    how many US soldiers and innocent lives would be killed in iraq for four years?

    babygirl

    September 11, 2008 at 7:10 am

  10. Babygirl, I would day the number of troops in Iraq that die will be a fraction of the number that will die due to Obama’s lack of foreign policy experiment. The guy wants to attack Pakistan who is our ally and taking steps towards a more democratic gov’t.

    preservetherepublic

    September 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  11. Lordy, Obama does not want to attack Pakistan. Please provide proof of that.

    Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

    Mind you, that is “strike al Qaeda” not “attack Pakistan”, lol.

    Pakistan and the US are allied and Obama is well aware of that since he does have knowledge of foreign policy.

    LJinFl

    September 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  12. Actually, he said he would attack within their borders without Pakistani permission. This is as good as attacking Pakistan. It is kind of hypocritical considering his criticisms of Bush. This is stupid because Pakistan has a new leader that we can work with. He wants to attack Pakistan but sit down and have milk and cookies with Iran. Pakistan would see such attacks as an attack on them. However, I will give Obama kudos on one statement. We need to make sure Pakistan isn’t using our aid to be aggressive with India.

    preservetherepublic

    September 13, 2008 at 1:03 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: