VOTE MCCAIN OR ELSE APOCALYPSE HAPPENS!

[MKSheppard]

So I've been hearing this on the usual places; and it's just hilarious.

It always gets trotted out when the Republican candidate is especially weak on conservative credentials (I don't mean weak like he has a 80% conservative rating; but weak as in 60%), in an attempt to convince the base to hold their nose and vote for the candidate.

It would have worked on me when I was 18 and inexperienced politically, but after watching 8 years of Clinton + 8 years of Bush II, I am now a cynical bitter old man politically, and said scare tactics no longer work on me.

The two primary prongs seem to be:

"Under President Obama/Hillary; evil liberal bills will be passed, like socialized healthcare, and gun control!"

Which is especially hilarious. Clinton back in his first term, couldn't get a health care package passed as one of his first initatives (first initatives as POTUS always have a +6D bonus to passing), with an overwhelmingly Democratic congress. Nowadays, Congress is much more evenly split between the Ds and Rs; no one side has an overwhelming advantage needed to push bills through, so any bills that are passed will be significantly weakened or watered down in order to get (R) support.

"Under President Obama/Hillary; we lose the war!"

1.) The only reason I voted for Bush in 2004, was that the Iraq war was still going on, and despite my serious misgivings of his fiscal policies (lets spend like a democrat, and I never met a spending bill I didn't like); the man fights (to paraphrase A. Lincoln). Iraq is now pretty much won, after a long hard slog, the terrorists may be able to cause mass casualty attacks at random, but they've completely lost the initative and no longer can mount serious credible challenges to Iraqi governmental control of the country. So it doesn't matter who wins; we'll be out of Iraq by 2009-2010; since the war will be won and we'll wind down our troops. Even Hillary or Obama can't order an immediate withdrawal; because their advisors would tell them how much stuff we have in Iraq and must ship back home.

"Sir, we cannot leave x,000 vehicles there. It takes time to ship them back home"

2.) Terror Attacks. It's a given that we will be hit again eventually, we have to be lucky all the time, they only have to be lucky once. The American public will not stand for ineffectual fire a few missiles at a tent city anymore. What we'll likely see under President Obama/Hillary is "I have ordered our military to obliterate all terrorist training camps in that area"

*cue footage of B-52s carpet bombing camps to oblivion*

or some variant. They'd be impeached if they didn't do a strong response, because while 9/11 may be seven years old by now, we still remember it. What they won't do is invade a country, when we can kill them all from the air.

3.) Military Spending - With the economic signs looking like it's heading into a recession; this severely limits any democrat president's attempts to trim military spending, because they are good paying jobs in high profile industries, in very politically influental states. Try cancelling CVN-79 and -80; and you kill Northrop Grumman Shipyards, and the Economy in southern Virginia.

Likewise, try killing F-22 or F-35 and you kill the economy in aerospace hubs across the country, like southern California, etc.

What is going to be easily targetable and killable?

FCS.

"This is designed to make it easier for us to intervene around the world and is lighter and less armored than present day Bradleys, so I have terminated the program."

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Haven't conservatives always screamed, " Democrats are godless evil liberals who will stop at nothing to provide healthcare for the needy poor"? I've only started to follow politics more closely for the past 8 years, but the attacks by conservatives that I've noted thus far has consisted almost entirely of labeling the opposition and making baseless accusations rather than questioning and addressing their policies.

Does anyone know whether democratic candidates in recent times have accused one another of being too conservative?

[Pelranius]

It sounds like McNasty is now following in the time honored path of Il Douche (that means McCain is now aping Giulani, in normal language and parlance)