30 January 2008

Acceptance (or resigning myself to the inevitable)

Yes, I've replaced the Anyone-But-McCain image with a patriotic elephant (what other kind is there?!).

I'm not happy that McCain will likely be the Republican nominee. However, I've grasped that sometimes painful concept known as reality. If he's the Republican candidate then I'll slap his bumper sticker on the pickup and vote for him this November. He's flawed, but he's my party's choice. Also, he's a sight better than Clinton or Obama.

A thoughtful piece by Don Surber helps.

Of course, he could still lose to Mitt.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

This line from Don sums it up best:
He has baggage, true, but he has proved himself able to carry his own baggage.

I cannot quite bring myself to vote Democrat, although I am strongly opposed to Bush and what he stands for. For 10 years now the GOP has strayed further and further from representing my beliefs which are suprisingly conservative politically, although much less so socially. I want someone to govern my country, not force feed morality to everybody. That's the job of our churches and parents and peers.

I do not agree with McCain on several issues, enough to make me wince at times. But he speaks straight, plays nice in the sandbox when the situation requires it, and probably most importantly, makes the decision he thinks is best, regardless if he'll take political hits for it. I think having a statesman in the White House rather than a bratty child will help our standing in the world a lot.

That he makes the ones in my own party who I dislike the most "run about and scream and shout" in horror is just a plus. America should not be governed from the fringes.

As for Romney, what exactly has he done? Sure he had some pretty good success in MA, but rather than own up to what he accomplished and saying, "I did the best I could, given the liberal bent of the whole state", he denies his own accomplishments. Sorry, I can't vote for someone without personal fortitude, regardless of how good a CEO he might have been.

Ummm....OK, I guess I have to quit saying "I'm not really all that political". Drats!

R'Ed

A.G.T. said...

Well, George sure didn't do much to control the earmarks. By the Republicans, no less! But I'm sure glad he was in office on 9-11-02 rather than AlGore or some other Democrat.

I was going to continue to rant, rave and pout for a few more months. I even considered going into a snit. Then I read Surber and thought that "Yeah, he's right, it's time to get over it."

I agree with you also, Ed, I'd be hardpressed to vote Democrat. But the Republicans, once they were in charge after all those years in the wilderness, sure did disappoint.

Have a safe trip!

Layla said...

Can I borrow the elephant? LOL!

I agree with you here 100%.

A.G.T. said...

It's not mine to loan, Layla. You're going to have to go to the Republican party website and steal your own, just I did! :-)

Anonymous said...

I thought about your statement "But I'm sure glad he was in office on 9-11-02 rather than AlGore or some other Democrat" and almost didn't agree, in hindsight, of course. But then, as I pondered it (I am prone to pondering) I realized that GW wasn't the problem in that case.

I suppose my statement would have been "But I'm sure glad he was in office on 9-11-01 rather than AlGore or some other Democrat. Too bad he was surrounded by Rummy and Cheney getting bad advice."

Yes, it's true. I found 9-11-01 more traumatic than 9-11-02.

R'Ed