Monday, June 2, 2008
McCainocrats: Meteor Blades (Dkos) has Questions
Why would Sen. Clinton's most fervent supporters vote for a candidate that stands in opposition to the very things their champion stands for?
To make true their claim that Sen. Obama can't beat the GOP in the fall?!?
Out of plain, ugly, petty spite when so much is at stake?
From Daily Kos:
"...Thus is born a new subspecies, McCain Democrats, McCainocrats.
If your shrieking can be believed, you McCainocrats are premeditating ballot support for an exclusive club of racist, union-busting, woman-suppressing, bedroom-peering, rights-scoffing, warmongering, torture-backing, buccaneering, global warming-denying, privatizing, public land-grabbing, Supreme Court stuffing, empire-building, Constitution-shredding raptors. All for self-indulgent revenge. You’re unhappy that your candidate has not won the nomination. I understand that. Mine didn’t win either. But you’re not just unhappy, you're also willing to contribute to the election of someone who stands against most of what your candidate has been promoted as standing for. That, I don’t comprehend at all. Emotionally, intellectually or morally. I get the feeling you would vote for George W. Bush in 2008 if the 22nd Amendment weren’t in the way...."
If you, like me, are anxious to begin to unravel the Olympic caliber mess of the last 7+ years, you would vote for the democratic nominee even if said nominee were a purple/green-skinned hermaphrodite married to a box turtle in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fer the love of jeebus! Dig up Harry Truman and the corpse get's my vote if he's won the nomination.
Enlightened self-interest should make it clear that intra-party squabbles must end once the nominee is chosen. This is not about the person, it's about policy, direction, ultimately the good of our nation. An "I told you so" vote is a vote against your own interest. Hardly enlightened.
Catch you later.....