McCain All But Owns GOP Nomination
Much to the chagrine of conservative talk radio folks, Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today for the GOP nomination, all but handing it to John McCain.
Glenn Beck made an interesting point on the whole election issue in a recent posting at his site, noting that nothing would be better for him professionally than a democrat in the White House.
That might explain his recent ideas about who he'd vote for in a Hillary/McCain election. Beck and Coulter wouldn't be voting for Hillary as the best thing for America, but instead the best thing for their personal pocketbooks.
The problem is, that for the long term good of the country, Hillary or Obama would be a huge problem. Consider that 4 of the current Supreme Court Justices are over 7o years old. Should Stevens (87) and Ginsburg (74) decide to leave, who would you rather have appoint their replacement, McCain or Hillary? Yes, I know the whole "Alito arguement", which most of the far right hasn't listened to all the way through. McCain said that justice like John Roberts are the type he'd be appointing, guys who are conservative but not in a confrontational way as Alito can be.
Worse, consider if Kennedy or Scalia both 71 were to retire with Hillary in the White House. Replacing a reliable conservative and the current swing vote on the court with two Ginsburgs probably wouldn't be a great thing.
On the topic of health care, how many folks really think that after electing Hillary, and getting some sort of HillaryCare passed we could just undo that after the next election? If you raised your hand go to the corner and put on a dunce hat. Killing a federal program, especially ones that the arguements "for the children" or "saving grandma" can be applied to is impossible. Look at the fight over common sense market reforms for Social Security, making it so that it would actually grow at a faster rate than the government IOU's the trust fund contains do now. It didn't happen because it was demonized. Try and kill health insurance for a few million see how that works out.
On the subject of money, while McCain argued against the Bush tax cuts, he's said he'd make them permanent. Hillary and Barrack won't, period. Add to that the fact McCain's biggest arguement against them wasn't the class warfare one that Rush clings to like a life preserver, but the growth of federal spending. He wanted spending cut before taxes. Considering that position it's likely he'd actually try and cut spending from our bloated 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Does anyone think that either Obama or Clinton is going to champion smaller budgets anywhere but the Defense Department?
When I think of those three issues; whether I'm crazy about McCain's stance on some other things or not; I can't stomach the idea of a Obama or Clinton White House controlling them. If you can you've got a lot stronger stomach than me.
Glenn Beck made an interesting point on the whole election issue in a recent posting at his site, noting that nothing would be better for him professionally than a democrat in the White House.
That might explain his recent ideas about who he'd vote for in a Hillary/McCain election. Beck and Coulter wouldn't be voting for Hillary as the best thing for America, but instead the best thing for their personal pocketbooks.
The problem is, that for the long term good of the country, Hillary or Obama would be a huge problem. Consider that 4 of the current Supreme Court Justices are over 7o years old. Should Stevens (87) and Ginsburg (74) decide to leave, who would you rather have appoint their replacement, McCain or Hillary? Yes, I know the whole "Alito arguement", which most of the far right hasn't listened to all the way through. McCain said that justice like John Roberts are the type he'd be appointing, guys who are conservative but not in a confrontational way as Alito can be.
Worse, consider if Kennedy or Scalia both 71 were to retire with Hillary in the White House. Replacing a reliable conservative and the current swing vote on the court with two Ginsburgs probably wouldn't be a great thing.
On the topic of health care, how many folks really think that after electing Hillary, and getting some sort of HillaryCare passed we could just undo that after the next election? If you raised your hand go to the corner and put on a dunce hat. Killing a federal program, especially ones that the arguements "for the children" or "saving grandma" can be applied to is impossible. Look at the fight over common sense market reforms for Social Security, making it so that it would actually grow at a faster rate than the government IOU's the trust fund contains do now. It didn't happen because it was demonized. Try and kill health insurance for a few million see how that works out.
On the subject of money, while McCain argued against the Bush tax cuts, he's said he'd make them permanent. Hillary and Barrack won't, period. Add to that the fact McCain's biggest arguement against them wasn't the class warfare one that Rush clings to like a life preserver, but the growth of federal spending. He wanted spending cut before taxes. Considering that position it's likely he'd actually try and cut spending from our bloated 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Does anyone think that either Obama or Clinton is going to champion smaller budgets anywhere but the Defense Department?
When I think of those three issues; whether I'm crazy about McCain's stance on some other things or not; I can't stomach the idea of a Obama or Clinton White House controlling them. If you can you've got a lot stronger stomach than me.
Labels: Barack Obama, Elections, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Supreme Court
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:00 AM
0Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home