Recently in ZOMBIES BUDDING

Category

Update, 06/16/08: I am voting Republican this Fall and I am taking the advice of other Republicans and supporting the McCain ticket. I'm not pleased about some of McCain's positions, as I've written about in this blog (and will continue to as/if they arise), but I will vote the GOP ticket this Fall. Let us all, Republicans, hope that this dedication by us voters is well regarded and remembered in D.C.

Since it's now Doomsday-or-McCain, if what most media is saying is to be believed, along with the top-heavy GOP and DNC manipulators o' voter perceptions, and since the one intelligent gentleman in the current political range -- Mitt Romney -- has today concluded his campaign for the White House 2008, AND since the air-waves and keyboard-ways are today littered with the "why Conservatives should compromise their ethics and vote for John McCain" (as also is my email inbox with similar assinine messages from the elected), I thought I'd take a moment here and explain why I won't be voting for John McCain. Not that I haven't explained, or tried to explain, as much on this site in previous entries.

So, here goes, WHY I WON'T VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN:

• McCain is not a Conservative, regardless of how many times he lies about it -- and his "record" which is anything but that of a Conservative despite what John McCain brags otherwise (more lying or delusions, or, perhaps, both);


• McCain's campaign as has McCain has run a very dirty, gutteral and stupid negative politic upon Conservatives, as has John McCain in that past of his, which he now brags represents exemplifies what and who a Conservative is, when he isn't snickering about Conservatives and Conservative goals and opinions;


• McCain's a nasty man who poses a very probable erratic if not threatening lack of personal, emotional and reason control and I can't support John McCain in any responsible position, particuarly in relationship with our national security and as Commander in Chief -- he lacks reasonable capacity to entrust with the serious responsibilities of the White House;

and,

• McCain's no Conservative (intentionally repeated here) and his belittling of and exploitation of Conservative opinions and positions can reasonably be used to estimate what he'll do tomorrow when he's not speaking at CPAC (where he made his pitch to sell himself as a "Conservative" and was roundly boo'ed, as he deserved to be, by actual Conservatives attending the Conservative Political Action Committee annual meeting in D.C.).

Another small but meaningful observation I've made as to media in reference to McCain -- who has received an overwhelming gaggle of gawing from Liberal media that is far out of proportion for McCain's achievements and noteworthiness -- is that the likes of arch-Liberal Alan Colmes has been intensely pushing a John McCain nomination in his explosive efforts to protect and defend McCain's political record when it's questioned by...Conservatives.

That so many Democrats and other Liberals insist on a McCain nomination (Colmes is but one among hundreds in media who insist "it's McCaaiin") should be more than enough to embrace caution among the reasonable, not to abanon it -- and reason -- just because other Liberals in the GOP think McCain is, well, practical (and even that criteria is highly dubious, given McCain's age and noticable mental limitations -- age-related or not, regardless, they're noticable).

Moreso, I viewed the Neil Cavuto interview earlier today with Clint Eastwood in it's LIVE broadcast, and I disagree with Eastwood in his negative opinions about us Republicans who are not going to vote for John McCain.

(I note here that FOX News' Rupert Murdoch has endorsed John McCain [and Barack Obama] -- there's now no longer much "balance" to FOX News other than a few featured individuals who are genuinely Conservative -- Cavuto is one, Colmes, of course, is not one.)

In that interview today with Cavuto, Eastwood referred to Republican voters who will not vote for McCain as "masochists" -- that to expect any or all candidates to be acceptable "completely" or "right on all the issues" was not realistic (I agree with that) but to not vote for someone as a party nominee was "masochistic" (implying that the current impending nominee, McCain, is one of those "not right on all the issues" but still acceptable as party nominee, so not voting for him was "masochistic").

What I disagree with is Eastwood's including McCain in that concluding acceptable status, implying that McCain is right on SOME issues so therefore to not vote for him is wrong (or, "masochistic"). I disagree that McCain is acceptable at all on any of the issues and because of that, not voting for McCain is both reasonable and self-respecting.

I have to live with my conscience. I can't compromise my conscience to such an extreme that I subjugate my values and reason to mere for-party voting. That criteria is used by one-party or digtatorial and communist nations as they require of individuals to vote as they're told, to vote for "for the good of the party" (or, committee, or dictator or monarchy or ruling family or whatever else is rejectable to me as a free person in what remains of our country as a republic).

Eastwood also said that he "(likes) John McCain" (implying that excuses John McCain). Sorry, that's not going to fly with me. First, McCain isn't likable in my view -- he's an antagonistic, egotistical, abrasive and insulting braggard who lacks humility (though he does make a big effort to "play humility" when he thinks it'll get a tear or otherwise, a gullible voter to go his way), and, moreso, he lacks masculine authority in the sense that might otherwise justify that degree of indifference at times of greater importance (which means McCain fails my instinctual evaluations as a leader and is assigned to jerk category).

Essentially, McCain typifies all that I define as one-who-should-not-be-followed and to follow such a person is to be misled -- in times of severe conditions, that's the meaningof self-defeat, and, is real masochism, not what Eastwood suggests is the contrary of that (follow because we're told to, vote because of party regardless of compromising personal intuitions or ethics, or both, though those were not Eastwood's words but mine added here to express my own lack of revulsion at the idea of surrending a vote for someone -- McCain's -- whose politics represent insult and betrayal).

I've liked dogs and cats, horses, fish, birds and avocado trees and most other plants but it doesn't mean they're viable candidates for the Presidency. So, that criteria for the Presidency -- someone "just likes" solmeone else -- is a moot point, essentially, in regards voting by the rest of us for the Presidency.

I also noted that, when comparing even so much as the one snarky speech today by McCain at CPAC, he made several self promotions that are just not true, and that's beyond him claiming that his "record" is "one of a Conservative." He appeared a day or so ago on the TODAY show on NBC and claimed that he'd been "defended by" Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly said on tonight's later broadcast that he had never "defended him (McCain)." McCain makes similar wandering-reality statements and it's not the stuff upon which any reasonably aware person can or should ever trust with confidence. McCain is suffering some sort of dementia, some sort of personality problems or he's patently lying (or all three, in McCain's case, I think all three are likely).

Worse, McCain's campaign has written screed after screed after despicable screed all over the internet on site after site of ugly graphics distorting and maligning the person of Mitt Romney AND attacking outright with nasty insults the opinions of Conservatives. Posing a Conservative opinion or countering the monstrous McCain ugliness is to receive flaming pejoratives from the McCain supporters.

So, today, Mitt Romney graciously concluded his campaign and his speech today in doing so at CPAC was commendable, but in comparison with the speech and behavior at that same venue, McCain was hideous, immature, insincere, deceitful, inaccurate and just plain creepy. He can onlly get so much mileage out of that snickering and at some point, he doesn't have a Liberal talk show host to his side to bail him out and change the subject from meaningful issues to the irreverant, McCain Flip-Off of meaningful issues in favor of the flippant.

Which means, I won't be voting for McCain. If the GOP wants to cast blame, let them act responsibly and blame themselves for pushing the errata that is McCain onto the nation in reference to the White House, which the GOP is going to lose and McCain as nominee is why.

So don't even try to chastise those of us Republicans who refuse to support John McCain for the White House. If the GOP loses, blame those who have supported McCain and face the music.

And just look at the fascist screed the "KOS" groupies write in comments: they're planning on placing everyone else (outside their clique) in something that sounds like a gulag once they -- and Hillary -- enter D.C. with "the new regime." The Democrats really, really do plan on crafting a U.S.S.A., just as soon as they can sweep all Republicans, Conservatives and white heterosexual males -- especially the ones with guns or who fly helicopters and "do stuff" -- into the gulag/s, just after they "clear THE VIEW" of white, heterosexual females, especially anyone who is "other than Barbara Walters."

Meanwhile, Joe Klein and his randy MoveOn boils say that THE DRUDGE REPORT "thinks (they're) dumbolic." Take a look at TIME's editorial staff to round out their opinion: you'll see a cascade of obtuse Liberals. That means, they make up things when they really, really, really want something (or something else) to be so.

WHY DRUDGE IS A DISGRACE by Joe Klein-olic

Mmm, my jammies sure are cozy.

I was reading the news.

I followed a link to an article on REUTERS about "a sharp rise in unwanted pets" in Britain...via an image thumbnail of two cute, abandoned kitties...

I accessed a larger image view of that pix and I got this pix o' group o' Democrats on popup instead.

Then I visited another Reuters news article about "ice shrinks" in the Arctic and, again, via selecting an image thumbnail of various ice-cave images for purposes of viewing any larger image sizes...

I got this recurring pix o' group o' Democrats on popup at that page instead of ice caves.

When I revisited both articles and repeated the same steps, I got the accurate images on popup (larger views, abandoned pets and ice caves), but when I cleared my cache (all/everything), and performed the same steps yet again, I got the pix o' Democrats yet again on larger-view popups, which means it's a REUTERS content manipulation issue (hapless or intentional, can't say) and isn't some limitation or hangup of my desktop.

Note I haven't yet made any attempts to individually access by choice, my selection, this pix o' group o' Democrats. But REUTERS sure doesnt' want me to miss it.

HOWEVER, as to the pix o' group o' Democrats, what is Bill Richardson grabbing? And why? Shrinking ice? Rise in unwanted pets?

Select image for larger view of captured desktop, or, view here...