I will not, will not, vote for John McCain.
I will not, will not, vote for Mike Huckabee.
I will not, will not, vote for Ron Paul — unless he runs for Fuhrer. In which case, he’s got my full support.
I might hold my nose and vote for Mitt Romney, but to be perfectly honest, I have no confidence in him, and my vote would be moot, anyway: there’s no way he wins a national election. Because let’s face it: the average US voter is simply not ready to give the White House to a guy named after a first baseman’s glove.
Which means that if Fred Thompson drops out of the race (aside: I have no idea what Republican primary voters are thinking — other than that they are no longer interested in conservatism, and have become every bit as statist as their progressive counterparts), I’m resigning myself to a Democratic presidency in 2008 — and to the years of pain that will follow should the Dems maintain control of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Who knows? Maybe they even get the courts, too.
In other words, Hello “progressivism”! Which, as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn can tell you, is simply another word for tyranny of bureaucracy under the auspices of an anti-individualistic, centralized coalition government — and is about as “American” (in the strictest, foundational sense) as caviar or goulash or the Yugo. Decline and fall.
So, what to do? Well, my first thought is to buy some remote land in Idaho and try to hole up for the next decade or so, learning to sustain myself with nothing but a Bowie knife and some animal pelts. And maybe Dish Network and a HD DVR receiver.
But why bother? Some well-meaning Green group empowered by the progressivists will no doubt find a reason to “re-claim” the land for the common weal, anyway, and pretty soon, anything good on TV will come under the auspices of some intrusive unelected commission or other.
BECAUSE OF THE NORTHERN GOSHAWK AND THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!
So. There you have it, comrades. It’s Mourning in America.
Meh.
I’ll vote for Romney especially if he panders to me and picks Fred for vp. It’s goddamn about time someone pandered to me.
I was helping my friend work on his race car today, so when I started listening to the results still in a racing mechanic mindset. It occurred to me that it is not unusual to hear a driver say after a big crash that is was just as well, the car was an ill-handling piece of shit and needed to be rebuilt anyway, crashing just sped up the process. Considering the shape Washington is in, if I can’t get the driver I want, I am ready to give the keys to Hillary. Fuck it, let’s get the wreck over with now so we can get on with the rebuilding.
Jeff,
Hope you got some good word on Thursday.
In the meantime, try some Plimsouls.
Also I think Romney can beat Hillary. Thompson can beat Hillary. McCain can’t beat Hillary. Especially if Bloomberg runs and everyone gets all confused which is which.
I could (possibly) vote for McCain; if it’s between him and the Hildabeast. I wouldn’t vote for Huck if I was the VP.
If Fred drops out, I say we start an actual Conservative Party.
“Fuck it, let’s get the wreck over with now so we can get on with the rebuilding.”
I dunno. I went through the first Malaise Era, I don’t have a particular enthusiasm for doing so again.
Re: Tuesday. Orthopedist didn’t know what it is. X-rays showed nothing, but he thought the “mass” (his word, bless him) was too hard to be a lipoma. Having an MRI done next Friday, and then have a follow up appointment on the 31st.
It’s wait and see time, I guess.
“Hit something hard, I don’t want to limp away from this one!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-TRk4q-l4
Oh. You had said Thursday and I thought happy thoughts on Thursday and you can check cause I made a comment. I can think them again though.
Lastly also I lied about the part where I implied I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee. I would just cause kinda for the same reason I always buy Coke never Pepsi and even though I talk big about buying a Toyota and screw the UAW I’m really likely getting a Saturn later this year or at least something for sure American. It’s just a how-I’m-wired thing. I can’t help it.
Mike Huckabee blew it because of his ridiculous “fried squirrel” comment. He should have known that, in this day and age, us health-conscious Southerners much prefer baked squirrel.
Fred, or I say home.
I will not, will not, vote for John McCain.
Could you, would you, vote McCain?
Up a tree, or down a drain,
On a gnu, or in a train,
Could you, would you, vote McCain?
Also they said if the Republicans lost in 2006 everything would get better and Republicans would coalesce around a set of core conservative ideals blah blah Ramesh Ponnuru is a fucking idiot blah. Well they lied and things didn’t get better and really I think they could simply get a whole lot worse and keep going – look at Europe – so I think if there is sand left at all this is as pretty good time to draw a line in it even if it’s not exactly the best most emphatic line of all possible lines.
And… I… I don’t want to paint any more.
Fred or I’m only voting for congress and Senate.
Oh. That was *a pretty good time*. We can fix that in post right?
I mentioned over on Vodkapundit that I think this country needs a “Get Offa My Lawn!” party. I think “Conservative” is too gooey a word these days, when people actually apply it to the likes of Huckabee with a straight face, so we need a name for our new party that’s sufficiently crusty and irascible.
“Vote GET OFFA MY LAWN — or get offa my lawn.”
Well if you can’t vote for McCain I’ll do it for you.
McCain! McCain! McCain!
See this is that “the worst are filled with passionate intensity” part.
I love John McCain. I’d take out his trash. I’d screw his wife. I’d eat the leftovers in his fridge. I’d be his Veep!
Dish Network?? Dude. Do you still have a Betamax lying around the house?
Yep.
Nice to see you back, JG.
Well tomorrow is the Charger/Patriot game and I promise that if the fates let my Chargers win, I will not care about politics between then and Feb. 3rd.
It’s just that I will not, will not was the media’s plan all along. Don’t you people listen to NPR?
McCain or Huck on the ticket? I will not cast a vote for president. Better to have a uniformed, card carrying statist/Leftist/communist than some bozack pretending to be a conservative.
If we could just ship our twenty-somethings back to 1977 for two weeks we’d never see a Democrat President in what’s left of my lifetime. 1977. The mission: You have to a) get a job, b) drive a Vega, and (c)watch network news for your information.
I dunno if it’s time to bury my guns in the desert. This being Utah I will have move other folks’ caches out of the way in order to bury mine.
If Huckabee gets it, we’ll see the gates of hell alright.
Fred Thomson must win.
I’ll vote for Romney especially if he panders to me and picks Fred for vp. It’s goddamn about time someone pandered to me.
Me too. And I think anyone who picks Fred to be their Dick Cheney most possibly will get my vote.
If Fred is Veep — are conservatives voting for vice president?
I would vote for Romney if he pandered to MALES against the feminist Hillary while mentioning the word feminism often enough. No Republican has mentioned the word feminism since Bush was elected in 2000. Rush stopped using the word femininazi years ago and replaced it with…nothing. Like the Republicans he stopped talking about the subject. Which left the more radical feminists to make deals with RINOs like McCain and Brownback where they voted for the Iraq War bills and the Republicans voted for laws like VAWA and IMBRA and more outrageous Internet regulation that forces American men to be background checked just to say hello to others online.
Now Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo were the only politicians who voted against feminist laws in Congress and Ron Paul is the only one I can now vote for…unless Romney starts pandering to me and other men.
Check out http://www.mensnewsdaily.com to see that this election is men against the ultimate radical feminist.
If someone runs against the radical feminist without highlighting that she is a radical feminist, that person will lose.
I will not cast a vote for president while our boys fight and die that others may have the privilege. I make haughty and dismissive face while maintaining air of bemused detachment. How is it that a disgusting failure of an odious McCain presidency would be any less in your face and damaging to the powers that wrought this fiasco than a full-steam-ahead Hillary Clinton four-year socialist fiesta? Carter only gave away the Panama Canal. This bitch will trade our sovereignty for an embossed certificate thingy from the ACLU. You’re like those people who want to bring the alien back to Earth so we can study it.
THAT NEVER ENDS WELL.
“. Considering the shape Washington is in, if I can’t get the driver I want, I am ready to give the keys to Hillary. Fuck it, let’s get the wreck over with now so we can get on with the rebuilding.”
Someone cleaned up from the 80’s, and someone will now clean up from the 00’s. What else you gonna do?
Did I make myself clear or will a bunch of girly men manginas ignore what I just said and return to ignoring the true elephant in the room regarding the coming showdown with the Hildebeast?
Oh good fucking Lord. Now it’s goddamn drum circles.
well, for one thing, you’re wrong Jack, quick search turns up Rush using the term “feminazi” on July 31, 2007. He often talks about the “feminization” of the culture and it’s a topic that’s covered quite a bit here if you’d bother to look. so yeah, most are ignoring you, BECAUSE OF THE RON PAUL!!!
I might vote for Romney/Thompson if that’s the ticket. Anything else, it’s a write-in for Zombie Ron W. Reagan. Giuliani was a maybe/probably if it came to that but he appears to be at best a Florida spoiler now.
It just astounds me that Huckabee has gotten as far as he has; and he’s relatively unknown compared to Johnny Mac. If there’s anyone out there who really believes that John McCain won’t sell out the people who vote in Republican primaries in a split-second….what on earth would lead you to think that?
So how come I see so may htat support Fred onthe blogs I frequent and the people I talk to around the country, and it’s not translating into votes? Just haven’t hit the right states yet?
But look–it’s WAY to soon for handwringing just yet. I understand nervous. I’m nervous. I’m also the Rowlett Area Coordinator for Texans for Thompson. Do you have any idea how far away that Texas primary looks right now? I’m not even thinking about November yet. Too much calendar between here and there.
Sara, you could go comatose between now and Feb 3 and I don’t think it’d matter to the Presidnetial race–just becasue they’ve been allowed to stretch thing thing out so long.
All the primaries/caucauses should be held on the same day in August and anyone who mentions running for Presidnet before May should be barred from ever seeking elected office again.
Can I vote for Teddy Roosevelt? As Jeff said: Meh.
Cleaning up from the 80s when we had the longest peacetime economic expansion in history, defeated the Soviets, etc. Followed by 2 years of Clinton that lost Dems control of Congress, governorships and state assemblies. Of course, with Bill still running foreign policy and the military, we spent out time emboldening OBL in Somalia, not paying attention to nuke proliferation, etc. Good times.
well, at least we didn’t invade any foreign countries…. oh wait.
Jack, I’m an independent-living/thinking female and I would not vote for Hillary even if they offered to pay me to do it (not so far fetched). And if you were only for Paul and Tancredo and Tancredo endorsed Romney, why not give him a second look. Romney will have a field day with Hillary’s socialism.
So how come I see so may htat support Fred onthe blogs I frequent and the people I talk to around the country, and it’s not translating into votes? Just haven’t hit the right states yet?
See Kos and his record.
He can’t admit it, but the internets are truly a precious few.
“Followed by 2 years of Clinton that lost Dems control of Congress, governorships and state assemblies. ”
Cleaning isn’t free. Taking out debts is free. Paying them isn’t.
BTW, I may delve into what people are thinking about McCain in a future post. In the meantime, I would note that 70% of SC GOP voters did not vote for him.
As far as debts go, the GOP Congress did get the budget balanced.
Topsecretk9, you are so right on.
If the only thing standing between us and Hillary and George Soros and his Democracy Alliance and MoveOn.org is John McCain, who is a founding member of the Soros-funded Republican Main Street Partnership, then
oh fuck. we’re so screwed.
deep breaths, happyfeet, deep breaths. think of the bunnies.
Maggie,
That answer was not really good enough because where is the discussion of how the feminization of America will become part of the 2008 campaign? Hillary will put in 3 Supremes to seal that deal. As much disrespect as you feel for Ron Paul, he is the only one with a track record of actually voting AGAINST feminist laws and he will run 3rd party unless the Republican Platform adopts a serious love for the Constitution involving the elimination of the Department of Education, the phony Office on Violence Against Women ($430 Million per year budget) and a lot of the pork that McCain created while pretending he fights pork.
McCain is, of course, the biggest sellout of American males to the NOW. He traded them his votes for everything they wanted in return for their votes on the Iraq War (which were not needed at the time) and Maria Cantwell’s vote to end the filibuster of Alito (traded for the Republican’s acquiescence on VAWA/IMBRA – most Republicans do not remember voting for VAWA at 5PM on the last day before Christmas break in 2005).
Romney said a few days ago that he doesn’t know what VAWA is. Feminists issued press releases condemning him for saying he did not know. But the MSM squelched that which means he did not have to embarrass himself by pandering to the NOW and losing the respect of more men. In the MSM, they don’t want the issue of feminism discussed at all anymore. But Romney’s track record in Massachusetts showed that he always sided with feminists against males.
Huckabee has a feminist as a top director who is blocking attempts by father’s rights and men’s rights organizations to get him to show he would support them as president.
Fred is silent on the issue.
And one wonders why there is no enthusiasm in the Republican base as the Hillary juggernaut revs up to win in November.
Yeah. Yes. I think I’ve already done two 360s here.
Jack, I’m an independent-living/thinking female and I would not vote for Hillary even if they offered to pay me to do it (not so far fetched).
Gosh. This has been bugging me.
NO matter how hard the left blogs and the media try an paint and pretend Hillary as a feminist, let alone a women, she is not.
Hillary is an entity. A machine. She does not represent woman or Americans at all. She represents herself and issues that insomuch fulfill her vision. They don’t necessarily have to help women pr children or Americans – they help Hillary, help Hillary fulfill her vision of what she envisioned Hillary doing.
Her mother said. She’s lie to get what Hillary wanted no matter what.
Look, dude. Sorry your check’s getting drafted, but there’s kind of a bigger picture here.
I think I need a vacation. Maybe I’ll go looking for the real killers and the Giuliani and Thompson campaigns. Or perhaps I should spend some down time bolstering my stocks of ammo and beef jerky.
It’s gonna be a long year. And with Silky out of the mix, it won’t even be funny.
please Jack, I’m begging you… the VAWA discussions never end well here. go read them…… pweeeeeease.
Well Hillary put in Bader-Ginsburg who will retire in the next few years, so it will be a wash if Hillary gets elected and simply replaces her. What concerns me is that Hillary seems to have promised judge Clarence Cooper of Atlanta a Supreme Court position.
But there are two others Hillary will probably also get to replace. The Supremes are aging fast.
Of course she is all about herself, but her constituency is solidly liberal women over 50 and she is tbe best friend of the victim-feminist branch that controls the NOW and its various branches including Legal Momentum.
Incidentially, who cares if Rush uses the term Feminazii? They are and it’s apt.
Getting back to McCain, you are all aware the ABC News and the New York Times spiked a big story in December on McCain’s illegal pandering to lobbyists. McCain requested that they spike the story and they happily did so.
Where is that story now? I am not so proud that they spike something like this and then put on such a love fest for him in NH and now in SC. I just saw American TV for the first time in more than a year and I could not believe that CNN was giving McCain $1Million in free advertising just now when the bastard had just LOST to Ron Paul and Romney in Nevada which had more delegates.
Jack, there are a number of problems with Ron Paul but the most relevant one is that he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting elected. He’s also said he won’t run 3rd party, and if he does he probably increases our chances of President Hildabeast, where Bloomberg would drain much of her nanny seeking vote. Ron Paul is not the answer.
“How is it that a disgusting failure of an odious McCain presidency would be any less in your face and damaging to the powers that wrought this fiasco than a full-steam-ahead Hillary Clinton four-year socialist fiesta?”
I said: “Better to have a uniformed, card carrying statist/Leftist/communist than some bozack pretending to be a conservative.” As in, “I believe Democrat agendas and policies will damage this country tremendously. Electing McCain is electing a Democrat but allowing history to lay the onus of the subsequent disaster at the feet of the Republican Party.
A Hillary! presidency and Dem congress just might terrify the nation enough to freeze the government. Electing McCain actually provides cover for the Democrats’ agenda to unfold.
And I think that the lesson, where our troops (and our enemies) are concerned, is to fight wars the old fashioned way from here on out. Sad to say.
The next time we trace a terrorist act back to a government, I want a declaration of war. Or we can just f*ck off in the UN and start building mosques.
Comment by Jack Sanderson on 1/20 @ 12:59 am #
I see your concern, but given the massiveness of of Hill shit they are sitting on they needed to justify not printing. Maverick is their favorite excuse. He is a media trick pony they love.
—-BTW – I am not opped to voted Mac – if he has the good sense to make Fred his Cheney.
Jack, are you actually reading the post and comments? there aren’t many that are too enthusiastic about McCain.
I’m with maggie. I mean do glaciers even have genders?
that was TSK9, who I only wish I was as smart as.
maggie katzen
I am humbled. Especially since my typos are inexcusable.
I stand corrected. Thanks maggie and thanks TS.
I see your point TmjU, but I have a lot of faith in McCain’s narcissistic concern for his legacy, even if he won’t be around for much or really any of it. The war issue counts, even if his nonsense on “torture” and the Geneva conventions negate a lot of it. Crap. My heart’s not in this because I despise John McCain. Contemptible freaking geriatric worm is what he is. Ok. I’m standing with RTO for now. And the bunnies.
I don’t know who Jack is talking to maggie, but if he thinks Mormon women have any love for NOW, he really is a Paulian nutcase. Besides NOW wouldn’t consider them worthy of their time anyway since Mormon women actually think motherhood is a noble undertaking and that good mothering and quality home management is what truly makes the world go round.
Maybe I’m a stupid optimist, but I’m not ready to hole up in Idaho just yet. American citizens are not stupid and will only take so much malarkey out of any president and/or congress. After that, they will vote in the other party (like in 1992, 1994, 2000, 2006, etc…)
So, I have faith that everything will be just fine in the long run. Unless, you know, the president makes some really, really bad national defense mistakes. And even then I wouldn’t be completely hopeless.
Ok…so the LA Times has ventured out into the zone — pretty tamely – snap that they are alone , really.
Who has Bill Clinton been screwing pre Hill PRES run?
PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW – gawd damnmit!
An mra paultard. Who would have imagined it.
Tsk9, do you suppose that might be a Hillary sympathy ploy? I don’t have the data but I’m thinking her Q rating was probably at its peak when she was the poor wifey wounded by her philandering hubby. Which ain’t very Presidential, but then, what about her is?
actus, having been prepped with you, we’re ready for pretty much anything.
I only made the last comment to illustrate Bill Clinton’s new purple rage and lying to the press.
I guess I might act PURPLE with rage at a press that USED to be complicit in HIDING my TRYSTS. — couple that with the lack of bootie call Bill gets – most the chicks don’t even know who he is!]
…they don’t seems so nice, the Burleke paid trysts must be on the horizon….hence the purple.
Paul is against all kinds of things and we’re already very aware of what they are.
What he’s FOR is far more of an open question.
Find out what that is and get back to us, will ya?
He did well in Nevada, which didn’t surprise me. He did well in Michigan’s upper pennisula too. I expect him to do well in Arizona and Montana as well, and probably Idaho. Anywehre else, I’ll be surprised if he gets more than 10% of the vote.
Thompon’s record is exactly the same as McCain’s. McCain-Feingold warts and all. McCain’s and Thompon’s lifetime ACU ratings are both mid 80s.
I find it hilarious that you are so agasint McCain and so for Thompson.
Roy, I’m guessing it’s their divergence on immigration and maybe “torture”.
Crap. I come here for solace …and it seems I’m still at AOSHQ.
…but yeah, I’d rather see a Democrat-Democrat do the dirty and catch the blame than have a Republican-Democrat provide cover.
Which is beside the frickin’ point that I can’t get past McCain-Feingold, and actually consider that anti-Constitutionalist bastard to be a worse threat to the US than Hilary “Huey Long” Clinton (her, I understand at least).
So cries warning of the Hildebeast gyring and gymbaling in the outwabe aren’t eliciting the felicitous herd response you’re hoping for dude.
Comment by Pablo on 1/20 @ 1:27 am #
YES! Super yes. And perchance his campaigning is seen as a pussy boy at work?
Actually the paultard had a good point about the Supreme Court I thought.
Is Bubba whipped now or is he a purple liability? He doesn’t seem to throb quite like he used to.
Bubba is a liability. Except if he’s a liability for McCain to exploit. Then he’s something else.
I just want to make one observation before I head out…
If BUBBA was so secure in the “woman’s presidency” he would NOT be vocal or a part. He’s chauvinistic .
That he is shows insecurity and misogyny – quality that liberals ignore in their own like it’s an “Okay mistreatment sitcom”.
Anyhow,
Very true, ‘feets. Jimmy Carter type damage can be undone pretty quickly. SCOTUS appointments don’t get unscrewed for decades.
Right. And I know in my heart that McCain and his super-bff Arlen would safeguard the gains we’ve made on the Court.
So the easiest best thing would be to get Huckabee out of the race. His people hate Romney, and not being original thinkers, I’m pretty sure they think “Giuliani is too liberal.” What we know about Huckabee is that he likes his money. And he has lots of excess skin.
Ok someone else has to take it from here.
Yer scarin’ me, ‘feets.
Pablo: Romney needs to pander to RP supporters if he wants to keep what will be at least 10% or more of the Republican electorate by November. RP’s 14% NV showing today will be repeated in Washington State in February. RP has $10 Million to spend on Tsunami Tuesday ads and he plans to spend it.
It is basically blackmail. We want issues discussed that are being ignored (you can ignore the anti-war stuff, however, because non-interventionism is not what is really driving the movement).
Remember, I am pro-OIF, but like a lot of vets and servicepeople, we want the Constitution strictly adhered to and there is a concern that the elites control too many candidates theory that these groups have influence, have meetings, and invite Hillary(whether or not anyone here cares about the Council on Foreign Relations and the so-called Bilderberg Group that does exist and did honor Hillary Clinton at the last meeting in Canada).
Most of those issues involve civil liberties such as outrageous Internet regulation.
It should be a no-brainer for Romney to do some research and come down agreeing with Ron Paul on most measures. Sure, I doubt Romney will say that the Internet regulating COPA law needs to be stopped but, since COPA is flawed and will be overturned, it would be smart of Romney to indicate that he will oppose any new Internet regulation, period, which will send the signal that he will not work with religious leaders to devise a new airtight COPA.
It might be hard for Romney to make sure he will not appoint a Supreme Court nominee who thinks porn is not protected by the First Amendment.
The book “The Elephant in the Room” explains a lot of what needs to be done. The evangelicals who would regulate others have had power too long under W (RP does OK with evangelicals who don’t want their moral views imposed on others by law).
Libertarians, who intend to take control of the Republican Party via Romney (if he is smart and lets us) are into the principle that “I may be a vegetarian but I will defend to the death my right to eat meat.”
So my opposition to COPA does not mean that I value viewing porn, but Romney’s potential willingness to regulate other’s rights to view it is enough that millions of men will prefer to let Hillary take the White House.
This is just one issue on which libertarians are blackmailing the Republican Party to change its ways. Another is that there will never again be any federal funding for abstinence programs.
Ron Paul is a Christian with high morals, but he has the right attitude in not using the federal government to impose those morals on others. Period.
Romney needs to get this point across if he wants to win in November. Ron Paul is just the vehicle in which millions of Republicans will be blackmailing Romney into doing so.
I just looked at the VAWA threads that Maggie suggested.
They were tepid arguments about whether men should pay for children sired. This is not what the Men’s Rights Movement is really all about, although the kind of Republican male who hates premarital sex so much that he says with malice “You had your fun now PAY”…is not acceptable as someone many men would want to have in high office.
That kind of man is no better than Hillary IMHO, because of the bitterness he expressed, as if he is a woman who had her husband cuckold her. I don’t want a guy like that anywhere near political power.
One can check http://www.mensnewsdaily.com and http://www.mediaradar.org and http://www.online-dating-rights.com to get a more up-to-date idea.
The new VAWA’s big problem is that it allows a live in girlfriend or foreign-born wife to profit handsomely from making false DV accusations against a man even when it is clear that she entered the entire relationship under false pretences. Men are not even allowed to testify under the new VAWA and, in practice, the men always make a special out-of-court deal with their false accusers that involve paying a bribe or letting the false accuser have citizenship when she deserves to be sent home because of her pre-planned duplicity.
This is huge. About a million men will not vote Republican in November unless a candidate takes this up. That is why Romney was confronted two weeks ago and he and McCain will be confronted more soon.
Ron Paul, of course, is home free already because he voted against VAWA.
Romney just needs to see the light. It is not as if he has a choice if he wants that million votes.
Whether Maggie or Darlene argues on the matter here won’t change the fact that this million voter bloc expects relief.
Furthermore, at the back of VAWA is IMBRA, which forces Americans to have background checks before being allowed to communicate with foreigners online. This law has, so far, been upheld by a judge saying:
1) There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner (Bush appointee)
2) Men who advertise themselves online are subject to product marketing law which means they cannot falsely present themselves and should carry warning labels as possible domestic abusers
3) Meeting someone online is like purchasing a gun…both should require background checks
Nobody in the MSM or right wing blogosphere is paying much attention to IMBRA but it is part of the Men’s Rights platform and, if upheld, it will be applied to all social networking websites.
Romney needs to publicly say that men are not “sex offenders until proven otherwise” which is what laws like this imply.
Failure to address these issues will result in a loss to Hillary.
I could write a book on McCain’s proposed Internet regulation for the coming years.
It’s strategery, P. I kinda suck at strategery. Whoa. I swear to God I just saw “Romney” and “porn” in the same sentence.
And, by the way, nobody in the next administration will use the phrase “MRA Paultard”.
I would sooner see Hillary have 8 years in office than have the MRM disrespected by anyone important on “our own side”.
What’s an MRM?
I’m closing my briefcase now. All my McCain bumberstickers, glow worm necklaces, just-add-water seahorses and clear plexiglass boomerangs – they’re all leaving out that door with me.
I will not listen to another moment of all you people sullying the good name of John Mc-Goddamn-Cain. He’s a war hero! His wife is fuckable! He wore a feather boa on the Senate floor! Da fuck more do you want from the man? As if he has to un-clench his jaw for you people! Not gonna do it!
I can’t make him taller, younger or grow tits! McCain is the best we McGot. Now if you’ll kindly step away from the door.
oh. Nevermind.
or mra? I’m not up on my alphabet soup.
It looks like a Huckabee front group.
CFR, Bilderburgs—you left out the Trilateral Commission.
Oh, and the Knights of Malta. And the Templars, the Grays, Bob Lazar and Area 51, the Grassy Knoll, the Rothschilds, Elizabeth II, and Colonel Sanders.
But thanks for bringing up what you did. It makes it apparent I don’t have to bother reading anything else you post–it all stems from the same set of discredited 50 year old paranoid conspiracy theories I learned to dismiss a decade and a half ago.
Thor, if you walk out that door… Um… if you walk out that door… it’s just that the seahorses sound kinda cool.
It’s those wee beady eyes!
I think that’s not the case. Paul wouldn’t have half the buzz he has without it.
As you may have gathered if you’ve perused the archived gender threads, I’m very sympathetic to your argument, especially re: VAWA. And I’m associated with Fathers and Families which was one of the groups taking the lead in pointing out to Romney what was going on under his watch. I’m also well aware that it was Romney’s AG, Kerry Healy, who filed this piece of legislation which Romney signed into law on his way out the door.
No matter how much you shame him, Romney is not and will not be your friend. He is a patriarch, and he sees himself as a protector of women, just like Joe Biden. He’s not going to take on the feminazis, though he might pat them on the head. The only upside of Romney to the men’s rights movement is that he’d probably appoint decent judges. And I’m not all that confident of that.
That million voter bloc isn’t going to get any relief in this election, not with the crop we’ve got to pick from.
Is this the deal on that?
I had no idea, and someone has even died. His regular entry seems pretty sanitized.
Hah. SarahW would get a kick out of this maybe, and since it’s on topic and all…
this
here ya go, happyfeet
Thanks, maggie. It just wasn’t adding up.
you’re welcome hf. I sometimes forget how old things are.
Every piece of the puzzle helps, maggie. And it looks like Kansas is more deeply involved than anyone has suspected.
[But thanks for bringing up what you did. It makes it apparent I don’t have to bother reading anything else you post–it all stems from the same set of discredited 50 year old paranoid conspiracy theories I learned to dismiss a decade and a half ago.]
Well good for you. But what is “discredited” is the notion that these organizations do not exist and these organizations do not vet political candidates in at least the US. Just admit that you do not CARE that our candidates, both Dem and Rep, are often vetted by the same people. Just admit that you do not CARE that Rupert Murdoch is running a fund raiser for Hillary. He openly admits it and Republicans still watch Fox News as if it represents them. :-)
Why deny that? If you want to say “conspiracy theory” then say that the existence of the Tower of London is also a “conspiracy theory”.
I, for instance, do not mind if there is going to be a NAFTA Superhighway. Who cares? However, it is strange that some people pretend that this is all a myth as well.
I personally would not mind voting for a candidate that was vetted by the CFR so long as the candidate is libertarian.
Pablo: If what you say is true, Romney is a No-Go. Period.
Since Ron Paul might be unacceptable as the nominee, we may need to shoot for a brokered convention and find a new person in the meanwhile who can be voted on after the 3rd vote when 80% of the delegates will be freed up to vote how they want.
We can all agree that McCain needs to be stopped. The over 60 crowd, that does not read the Internet, votes for him.
Meanwhile, back at the booby hatch:
A Jewish Defector Warns America
Happy Feet,
The MRM referred to does not mean that Mormon organization but, rather, “Men’s Rights Movement” that is best represented by the following website: http://mensnewsdaily.com/
A great library on the coming fight to overturn VAWA is at http://www.mediaradar.org.
The basic idea is that the Constitution does not include among its “19 Enumerated Powers” the police protection of anyone, including women and children from “domestic violence”. Those are states rights issues. Therefore, the entire VAWA is unconstitutional because it considers itself a federal law.
Off topic: You know, Bill Clinton did a very smart thing in Las Vegas. He went from casino to casino on the strip shaking hands with people, especially workers. That is exactly what I would have done.
Fixed that for you.
Yes, I’m part of the conspiracy. But I’m used to hearing it.
Thanx for that link. This blog seems to have some cool, informed people. Pablo’s link to that new Massachusetts law about putting GPS devices on men was also informative.
I was just kidding about the MRM thing. It’s sort of a thing I do. But I’ll support getting rid of VAWA on Pablo’s say-so. There’s no tent in the world big enough for that stuff at the Ron Paul Forum that P linked though. That’s just wrong.
Also that highway thing Rick Perry is or maybe was going for is I think super-cool. It’s distinct from the conspiracy one.
Oops. That first highway link is dead from when it was first proposed. It still lives here though.
I’m all for it. Especially if it leads to an Interstate highway between Dallas and Tulsa.
[…] Goldstein, Protien Wisdom: I will not, will not, vote for John […]
um…is Giuliani persona non grata around here or do y’all think he’s the new Duncan Hunter (best guy left but hasn’t a chance in hell)? Hasn’t been mentioned but once on this thread.
“Well, my first thought is to buy some remote land in Idaho and try to hole up for the next decade or so…”
Sounds like “to hell with my country” to me. I’m disappointed in you.
Yeah, we all wish conservatism were more popular right now. But, for me, national security trumps all and I’ll vote for ANY of the GOP candidates rather than leave her in the hands of Hillary or Obama. It might not be a happy 4 or 8 years. But at least I’d know my president is serious about national security.
[Note: When I say “ANY” candidate, I do not consider Huckabee a contender after last night.]
Thrice, actually and now four times. But finding the references to him are apparently as difficult as finding his campaign’s pulse. I could vote for Rudy…if he’s still around to vote for.
I actually did vote for Rudy. I fear, however, that his strategy of concentrating on Feb 5 is not going to work. He’s finished behind Paul in most states so far. The race will be over before he really even gets into it.
I voted for Fred, here in Michigan, but I think he finished behind RonPaul. In my area, there are a ton of those nuts. They were the only ones out with signs in front of the voting joint. And, they are the only signs in yards.
I won’t vote for Huckabee either. I’ve already moved out to the middle of no where, so I can hole-up here for a while. I’ll need some more guns. Perhaps a few more dogs.
Honestly, what this has shown is that the internet is totally useless. If it can’t, somehow, get the message out regarding Huckabee, what’s the point?
I’m also worried about the courts. Many of the other things the Dems might smash up could be fixed in a follow-up conservative term. But, damage to the courts and by the courts is very hard to undo. Hells bells, look at McCain-Feingold’s attack on free speech… that might just be the begining if the wrong folks are nominated as justices.
Without having read through all the comments, part of me wants to say to wait until February 6. I’m voting for Fred Thompson. But at this point he doesn’t have momentum. In the general election, I’d be willing to vote for Romney or Giuliani pretty easily, and if McCain is in there running against the Hildabeast I’ll vote for him as well. Other than that I probably won’t register a vote for President, which is the same as a vote for the Democrat. No way in hell will I vote for Huckleberry no matter who the Democrat Party nominates.
I feel pretty bleak right now but I’m going to keep my fingers crossed until after Super Tuesday.
Jeff. You’ve said all I’ve been thinking.
I’ll be hunkering down, protecting me and mine. Because most of America has gone stupid.
Whatever.
Ron Paul can’t help the GOP anymore since he’s been labeled a racist for those hideous screeds and their rants. The GOP doesn’t want anything to do with Paul, so libertarians are screwed: third party or stay home or hold your nose and vote. I’m betting a bit of each, which will probably cost votes in some key states (votes in Wisconsin, Arizona, and other places with “Get offa my lawn”-ers and the college students who weren’t around to get excited by the howlin’ Vermonter last time around.) But if the GOP embraces Ron Paul? Big losses everywhere and well deserved.
Fred Thompson is getting creamed by Ron Paul, who is a hopeless candidate himself. Both may be committed and steadfast, but both are losers in this age of pander. Rudy is just as dead in the water, and Florida won’t matter anyway since he’s a dead man in a general election considering his actual 9/11 record: say a lot, do nothing, be ill-prepared, fuck your mistress on city’s dime. Hillary will eat him alive. Obama would do so with a smile on his face.
It’s Mitt, Huck, or McCain. Choose your poison carefully. You’ll only get to lose once this November.
…Thompon’s record is exactly the same as McCain’s.
I can think of a couple of differences.
http://tinyurl.com/yvqe56
’m not voting for McCain.
I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket. “Americans†want a socialist who’ll destroy the country? I can help give them that, and not provide an ounce of cover by putting RINO’s back in. Let them “get it good and hardâ€Â, as Mencken would say, dipped in ground glass and no lube.
Maybe after a generation living like Eastern Europe under the Russians, this country will realize a few fundamental truths.
Time to put this country back into the crucible, refine out the slag, and remake it.
Oh, and JeanneB, I care about my country. I just don’t see it any more. And I see NO chance that under the current set of chains and shackles there’s any way to bring it back that doesn’t involve guns. So my new role is to create the circumstances that will make enough people angry enough to pick them up. A vote for Hillary is the best way to do that.
To: mgroves
“Maybe I’m a stupid optimist, but I’m not ready to hole up in Idaho just yet. American citizens are not stupid and will only take so much malarkey out of any president and/or congress.”
I wish that was true, but I don’t think it is. Have you been watching TV or listening to the little socialist AP news all the stations have every half hour for the last 15 years? Every issue begins and ends with liberalism as the default.
There is absolutely no way the educational system is producing a population with any critical thinking skills.
I have been working with college graduates for the past 15-20 years. And yes, when you are young you are supposed to be liberal. The problem is, most of them have never been around a conservative thinking person. Their adult associations have all been liberal, congratulating them on their brilliant liberally educated mind.
To: mgroves
“Maybe I’m a stupid optimist, but I’m not ready to hole up in Idaho just yet. American citizens are not stupid and will only take so much malarkey out of any president and/or congress.”
I wish that was true, but I don’t think it is. Have you been watching TV or listening to the little socialist AP news all the stations have every half hour for the last 15 years? Every issue begins and ends with liberalism as the default.
There is absolutely no way the educational system is producing a population with any critical thinking skills.
I have been working with college graduates for the past 15-20 years. And yes, when you are young you are supposed to be liberal. The problem is, most of them have never been around a conservative thinking person ever. Their adult associations have all been liberal, congratulating them on their brilliant liberally educated mind.
Unfortunately, I do believe the American citizen is stupid. Thank goodness the right has a place to go in the blogosphere but we’re a pretty tiny part of the population. Most of America is not interested and not paying attention. Liberal thought pretty much has control of all the issues at every level.
SDN:
There’s another chance, and probably one with far better odds of success: A solid majority of Constructionist judges. Unless it’s led by the military, there will be no successful armed revolt. You can bank on that.
2-3 liberal SCOTUS seats are likely to open up in the next term. A vote for Hillary is the best way to ensure that all 3 branches of government are completely fucked for the foreseeable future.
“2-3 liberal SCOTUS seats are likely to open up in the next term. A vote for Hillary is the best way to ensure that all 3 branches of government are completely fucked for the foreseeable future.”
Agreed, but given McCain’s record of pandering to the opposition and the media I don’t see him being any better. Do you really think he would be able to resist the media adulation if he appointed liberal justices?
BECAUSE OF THE FAIRNESS!
I’d vote for McCain. I’ll be mad at him a lot in the next few years, but I’d happily vote for McCain.
I’m not a McCain fan. Like you I wonder what the hell are republican primary voters thinking. Why hasn’t Fred caught on, but I’ll vote McCain. Won’t like it. He’s pissed me off in so many ways over the last few years. Swore a year ago I wouldn’t, but I will. He’s been right on the war. He’ll probably appoint acceptable (non-idealogical either direction) judges on the whole. He at least talked a good game on ear marks. On the gang of 14 issue I thought he was right all along… doing away with the filibuster was short sighted and Republicans would eventually have been hoisted on their own petard on that one. McCain-Feingold… ugh! Squishy on 2nd amendment too.
I’ll vote Romney and not be thrilled about it. I’ll vote Guilliani and not like it much either.
I won’t vote Paul or Huckabee. Unlike McCain, no way I’ll change my mind and vote for either come November. I’ll vote Hillary or Obama or unknown Dem #C over either of them. In those circumstances I’d rather the train wreck happen under a Dem going by the name Dem admin.
Maybe Thompson will pull it out. If not and McCain (or Romney or Guilliani) is it, maybe he will pick Thompson as a running mate. If push comes to shove I’d feel a lot better about voting McCain under that banner, but I will vote McCain if that’s what I’m left with.
B Moe, there’s the possibility that McCain would appoint a decent judge or two. There is no such possibility that Hillary will.
He’ll probably appoint acceptable (non-idealogical either direction) judges on the whole.
What makes you think that a guy who’s repeatedly wiped his ass on the First Amendment is going to appoint acceptable judges?
Not voting for McCain or Huckleberry. Nope.
Huck is a red herring now, like Paul he’s propped up only by the media and his small tribe. We have Thompson to thank for that. I should put that in caps really. A McCain presidency would not wreck the party because everyone knows he’s not a Republican. Huck would have. Fred stopped him.
[…] Goldstein strikes in on the depression: I will not, will not, vote for John […]
Jeff and I are in the same boat. He’s come to the same conclusion as I have, Obama will be president, and the GOP has abandoned conservatism entirely. The Reagan revolution is done, stick a fork in it. I suspect enough conservative Republicans abandoned the party over the last few years of orgiastic spending glee and contempt toward conservatives that the majority is the country club big government idiot. The party is dead as it was in the late 70s, and there’s no Reagan in the wings working for change.
Why so glum, Jeff?
John McCain loves you. All we’re asking is that you try and love him back.
Don’t worry. All this “conservatives are going to stay home if McCain is the nominee” blather will dissipate when we get eight months of Obama or Hillary talking about how they’re going to tax our asses to death, and bring the troops home. Johnny Mac is going to look pretty damn good.
I’m in denial about the whole thing. I’m still hoping for a chance to vote for Giuliani.
JeffG- hope all is figured out soon. FWIW, lipomas can be quite hard.
Johnny Mac will always look like an opportunistic geriatric media whore. Has he said which cabinet position Chuck Hagel is set for?
Oops, sorry for double post.
Hmmmph. I’ve seen RINOS at work. I’m still in disgusted mode right now, but I’m agreeing with TSK9 on #27. Thompson has to be on the ticket.
Or will I have to lodge a Ron Protest vote Feb.2?
I’ll bet candy apples RP will take an independent ticket offer. Ron Perot, the Vaseline for Hillary’s victory. I’ll buy stock.
happyfeet, you owe me a new keyboard…
It’s a toughie, alright. I’m an AZ boy (4th gen) and I’d have huge trouble voting for McCain. I can go with pretty much anyone but McCain and Huckabee. Michael Medved helped me with that. Bless his soul.
I do have to agree with the “If we’re gonna elect a Democrat, let’s make sure they actually do have a “D” after their name and not a small “R”” crowd. McCain has done much work for them, let’s let them stand up and take the reigns and the blame.
I’m sure the world will learn to fear Democrats in power as much as we already do. /shrug
Sorry. This whole McCain thing is really compromising my bemused detachment.
Read all the above comments. Yeah, it ain’t lookin’ good. I mostly agree with the guy about twenty comments up: if the countries gonna go socialist, let Hillary take it there; McCain will take it too, and the GOP will get the blame.
I am gettin’ real depressed.
Let’s peruse a little of McCain’s conservative CV, shall we:
McCain-Feingold – The greatest frontal assault on the 1st Amendment since the Alien & Sedition Acts. Also allowed for the creation of 527’s, which are overwhelmingly dominated by wealthy liberals, who now longer have to worry about contribution limits or transparency, either.
Opposed tax cuts – The centerpiece of any conservative fiscal policy must be keeping taxes low and government intrusions in the lives of individuals and businesses limited. His opposition was ostensibly based on the idea that spending cuts must be made first or in tandem with tax cuts. This is putting the cart before the horse, as spending cuts are not possible without reduced tax revenues. Give the government money and it will spend it. Spend everything you have whether you need it or not is what they teach in Public Administration classes, fergawdssakes.
Interrogation techniques – John McCain is a genuine war hero and overall a much better and more eloquent advocate for most of the GWOT than the President himself. While I can appreciate someone who had suffered actual torture himself not wishing it on even his enemies, his opposition extended to techniques that are most certainly not torture. Our interrogators are now left with the uncertainty that they may be prosecuted if they do anything beyond asking “pretty please?”
Gang of 14 – Conservatives got what, 2 judges out of this. And don’t believe for a second that, with a Dem Pres and 51+ Dem Senators that they wouldn’t hesitate to kill the filibuster, with the enthusiastic support of the MSM.
Global Warming – Buys the AGW hype hook, line and sinker.
I could go on but don’t want to make this look any more like a datadave post than it already does. In short, John McCain has quite possibly done more to weaken conservatism and the Republican party in the last 7 years than anyone.
Bah. I already cast my absentee ballot for Thompson.
Don’t anybody think about taking up arms against Uncle Sam while I am still in, please. I’d hate to shoot any PW commenters…
All we really know is:
a. He survived.
b. He had a pretty mouth.
That was outloud again wasn’t it?
Putting that with a little more maturity, an assessment of McCain’s character can just as readily be extrapolated historically from what we know now as it can be extrapolated forward from what we know of his past.
>>>The party is dead as it was in the late 70s, and there’s no Reagan in the wings working for change.
Fred ’12?
yesssssssssssss
this a very good time for Evil.
as ur occasionally Resident Evilcon….i urge u all to vote for Bilary.
its inevitable….the Clinton dynasty shall rise again.
Come on folks, read what Jeff wrote carefully! He said he will not, will not vote for John McCain. Parsing that one carefully reveals that what he means is that he will vote for John McCain.
You it’s funny, but over on the progressive side, some folks are posting the same thing! Change ‘McCain’ to ‘Clinton’, and its the same freaking post. Alot of folks on that side feel like Hillary CANNOT win a national election and the McCain will trounce her. Shoot, a couple of Dem friends of mine said they would vote McCain over Clinton if Obama doesn’t win the nod.
So, you know, all a matter of perspective! :)
“Fred ‘12?”
Naptime or coma: america decides.
Actually his first name is Willard. So there.
any?
I think he meant on accident.
[…] Meanwhile, Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom narrows his options. […]
That’s because “here” hasn’t grasped the totalitarian nature of its social government. Yet. Any country that tolerates a Department of Health and Human Services never ends well.
That’s the Department of Health and Human Services somehow operating under a US Constitution. One that costs each of us $2500 a year, and each of our kids, our grandmas, our neighbors, you name it.
Handy, topical, presidential-race “issues” are diversionary bullshit. Institutions are the problem.
‘fraid not.
andy, how very droll, original and…well, expected from, uh, you…
Or it could be more like the Wolverines I guess but with more bemused detachment and a certain understated insouciance.
When’s the last time a poster here lobbied against social government? Mormon women lobby against NOW? How well is that going?
I’m not disagreeing with you and I’m not challenging anyone who dislikes the cancer that is the NOW. But until we lobby effective countermeasures, what do we have?
And no Executive is going to be able to fix those problems. No Legislature is likely to fix them. It’s going to be the courts, or not at all.
McCain may indeed beat Hillary — especially if he picks Lieberman as a running mate. Meaning we’ll have a statist autodidact with an R after his name as Pres, a guy who will trample the First Amendment without batting an eyelash but can’t abide interrogation techniques that he knows to be effective (and that most certainly do not rise to the level of torture, unless and until torture is defined down to uselessness), a guy unwilling to tackle head on the problems arising from illegal immigration but willing to back environmental initiatives based on junk science and media trendiness.
And God only knows what kind of judges this guy would appoint. How long will we have to hear, “yes, but Justice X was appointed by a Republican president!” when Justice X is the swing vote in deciding the return of the Fairness Doctrine or some such?
I don’t care about party affiliation, to be honest with you. I’ve long noted that I’m a classical liberal, which in today’s terms makes me a Reagan conservative, or a libertarian not of the Reason/Ron Paul stripe. Thompson needs to backtrack on McCain-Feingold, but beyond that, he strikes me as the only real conservative in the field (even if to get there, some of his earlier positions have had to evolve).
Maggie,
Any.
I am very selective about using deadly force. Now ridicule is another matter…
suuuuure, ya are. I’ve seen that NYT piece.
And that’s not going to happen until we have an Executive willing to appoint judges who will take on that 800-lb gorilla. Hint: It won’t be McCain or anyone with a D after his/her name.
McCain is just the media’s hedge against a Dem defeat. If you strip down an analysis of the voting so far to just registered Republicans, that R after his name is really pretty hypothetical.
Wait? We’ve already got that!
Ok, OK…Souter isn’t generally a swing vote. But still.
Jeff, after they equip the satellites with the carbon emissions sensors, no place will be remote enough to hide the generator you will need to run your sat TV.
Right, but there is the veto pen for attempted new measures. And who’s the one guy willing to use it as a thumb in the eye of the Gang of 535 for being the corrupt, grafting whores they are? Sadly, Paul.
Choose one: The principled non-vote for the McCain or Huckabee that elects a Hilary thereby crashing the works, or a vote for Paul…thereby crashing the works.
Interesting times.
It goddamn sure isn’t going to be Hillary or Obama. If there’s a choice to make in that vein, I’d have to pick McCain over anyone with a D. But I’d rather have Rudy or Fred.
McCain might appoint less than desirable judges. He’s made the right noises about such things, though I know that doesn’t mean a whole lot in his case. Hillary or Obama will definitely appoint disastrous judges, and there is no question about that.
Given the choice between a bullet behind the ear and what’s behind Door #3, I’d have to pick Door #3.
While in the subject, Pablo, what’s it going to take to present a case to the SCOTUS against any number of federal programs and institutions — especially education and medicine — on constitutional grounds? Judges are one thing, litigants are another.
One word for you spoiled children: Grow up and vote for the lesser of two evils. Staying home is childish when PURE evil is running on the Democratic side. Ultimately, we only have ourselves and our fellow Republicans to blame if our preferred guys don’t get the Republican nod. But stay home? Puh-leeeeeeeeease!
It’s not coinkadinkle that McCain gets his name from a psychotic fratricidal pariah, I don’t think.
Exactamundo.
I’m not voting for John McCain either.
I could possibly hold my nose and vote for Mitt Romney.
Do Republicans know what being conservative means? We had Fred Thompson standing tall telling it like it is and they pick the biggest freaking RINO of them all? Disgust is too mild for what I am feeling today.
Drama Queen Conservative Bloggers
The idiot lib-bloggers spent all of 2006 trying to beat a Democrat because he was an apostate on one issue. The conservative bloggers look like they’re going to be spending all of 2008 trying to beat a Republican because he was an apostate on one issue.
Conservative bloggers at PW?
only you, JHoward, only you. ;D
[…] Andy quotes our esteemed host’s most recent post on the election, but seems focused on Jeff’s opposition to Sen. John McCain: Yeah, they […]
I don’t want to have a beer with John McCain. Maybe an Ensure, but only if it’s really really cold. Grandma drank a lot of those towards the end.
Looks like a have a new place for my Blogroll – people who think basically like I do.
I’m in 100% agreement. I WILL NOT vote for McCain, Huckster, or Paul. I might be persuaded to vote for Romney, but it will take something huge happening to do it. Which – like you – leaves me with Fred, who I’ve been for since the giddy-up.
I find myself saying out lous every day lately … “WTF are these idiots thinking!”, and I haven’t a clue. Your posit that they are now firmly in the “what can you give me” sector like the other party is probably more true than most would believe.
I don’t get it. I don’t get a LOT of this crap. I will sit this one out in all likelihood.
It’s not that confounding really if you pay attention to liberal broadcast media. They’ve pwned this whole dealio from the get-go. They Rebelled. They Evolved. There are many copies. And they have a Plan.
OK, push it to the convention.
Compromise:
–Fred for President. Strong head of the country, scares the right people overseas.
–Romney for VP, with assurance of strong role managing domestic policy stuff with the exec departments and Congress (that’s his strength, anyway). Fred will deal with international stuff.
–McCain for Secretary of Defense. He’d scare the bureaucracy and might be able to cut through it for once so that we don’t spend scads of money on weapons research and end up with crap that doesn’t work two decades later.
–Giuliani to go back to New York State and run for governor against Spitzer.
–Huckabee to just go home. (He has lots of delegates, though. OK, let him be Secretary of Transportation or something.)
–Ron Paul to go back to being one of the pet nuts Congress always has.
not that it hasn’t been said before, but it bears repeating. The Paultards are delusional. Sure, he is right on spending, but his plans are not possible. He could not be more wrong on the war and foreing policy. He aligns himself with overt racists, and his followers are kind of creepy.
McCain – if it is inevitable that the bus is being driven over the cliff, best there be a Dem at the wheel.
Romney – better than the Dems but not saying much there. His views seem to have evolved very recently, and stand in opposition to his actions when governing.
Huckabee – He can claim to be a Christian, but any claims to conservatism, or competency, are laughable.
Fred, for no other reason than attrition.
I never knew the VietCong operated right-wing torture squads here in America. Why are you people dripping hot wax on McCain’s balls? Granted, the guy’s name is attached to some bad legislation, but at least his name is attached to something. Half the freaking Senate is a bunch of lifers who’ve done nothing but trade hand signals in the men’s lavatory with Barney Frank.
You’d hand the country over to a feminist bobblehead with a hot spur in her uterus all because the McCainmeister isn’t a perfect rightwing boyo. Selfish. Self-centered. Self-defeatest. Cannibalistic!
Let me ask;
When any of you state who you will not vote for, you do mean in the primary, right?
In 2000, I was a McCain supporter. When GWB won the nomination I held my nose and voted for him. I’ve been, generally, pleasantly surprised ever sicne and cheerfully voted for him in 2004.
In the primaries, McCain is the guy I really honestly wish I could support. The emotional connection is there and he’s who I want to vote for, but I cannot find the rational basis to do it.
Giuliani, I ‘d vote for him but for one thing–infidelity. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 (and Michael Dukakis in 1988–full disclosure, I was a liberal then), and I had genuinely believed him when he said that the Gennifer Flowers thing was behind him. Then it turned out that I’d voted for a dirtbag. If a person will make an oath before God and his community and then break it in marriage, how can I know he won’t in government?
Romney just seems the slick politician and the Presidnet form central casting which makes me distrustful of him at a gut level. His changing positions make me uneasy as they seem to have been too easy for him. If I can’t have the candidate I’ve chosen, he’s my second choice.
Huckabee and Paul–we’ve covered that plenty.
And Thompson’s been remarkably consistent and, if you go read his papers, he’s actually laid out a number of plans for different things that include the usually taboo campaign detail of ‘how.’
But, no matter my qualms and misgivings on any of these save Paul, I’m voting for whoever the guy with the R after his name is in the General. If it’s Paul–I vote Democrat. He’s wrong on the war–the only issue in his campaign he can actually have an effect on and I feel more comfortable rolling the dice on the probability that Hillary will renege on her campaign promises or Obama recognizing his own youth and inexperience and accepting the counsel of military men or simply having to adjust policy to reality.
The Mourning After South Carolina: Jeff Goldstein
After my near-disaster yesterday, in which I actually flirted with Ron Paul (then after some real soul-searching and a draught or two of the Demon Rum, I’ve rethought that…there’s no way Ron Perot will get my vote. And if he does, someone needs to …
I’m reminded of the old comic Jon Sable Freelance. He is hired to retrieve a valuable diamond. He says that his finders fee is 70% which prompts this exchange:
“That’s pretty steep!”
“Depends on how you look at it. I figure 70% of something is worth a lot more than 100% of nothing.”
Based on my own positions and looking at the record:
It would seem to me that Sen McCain is wrong on immigration, campaign reform and Global warming.
It seems to be that Gov Huckabee is wrong on immigration, taxes and social programs.
It seems to me that Rudy is wrong on Abortion, Gay Marriage and immigration.
It seems to me that Gov Romney is at this moment right on all these issues but that can change at any given moment. (I live in Massachusets. When he was Gov he said the right things but didn’t seem able to deliver.)
Fred is wrong on Campaign finance.
In fact the only person I know who is right on all of my issues that I can trust to keeps those positions is well…me.
However if you look at the other side of the coin the reverse is usually true, I can find maybe one or two positions I like from the Senatorial Three Stooges but on the rest my old party is wrong and particularly on the war.
If you choose to sit it out it will be a mistake, particularly since (at least in my opinion) the war trumps all.
You can repeal a law, undo an exective order and even repeal constitutional ammendments but you can’t unlose the war if it is lost.
Making a choice is important. Even if you feel it won’t make a difference you have to stand up. Here in Massachusetts I know that my vote on the federal level will just decrease the margin of victory for either Sen Clinton or John Olver but by God its my right to stand up and yell stop and if the rest of the state doesn’t follow well its on them.
No matter how you decide as always we will get the government we deserve.
McCain scares me more than Hillary, in a way. Matt Welch had a nice piece on McCain in Reason a few months back that, forgiving a bit of overwrought psychoanalyzing, pretty much tracks with my read on Johnny. I don’t dislike McCain personally. I dislike him as a politician. And not because he doesn’t care. Rather, because he does — but his remedies are shortsighted, often statist, and carry with them a whiff of authoritarianism.
With Hillary, at least we know what we’re getting and what we need to fight against. With McCain, there’s always the threat of a blindside.
This I think is to say that no Republican whose career is grounded in any number of states is ever to be considered fit for higher office. Maybe that’s right and proper, but I think that idea maybe should be a bit more explicit and kind of explored to see if that’s really the right idea there.
Humph. Last week I lunched with 3 Black Democratic coworkers. All are bored with Obama (“empty suit,” said one). All are highly irritated with Hillary–need I say why, really?
All 3 started talking about Fred! with what I thought was amazing interest.
Note: Just because I feel the need to say so, Ron Paul is an ass, and his followers, whether Naziesque or hopeful importers of meek foreign female livestock, are also asses.
Also if I’m going to be doing any disliking of McCain, it’s gonna be personal. I’m just not sophisticated enough to parse a career politician like that. You can take the media out of a media whore, but you’re still kind of left with what you’re left with.
Well, Major John, you and every other member of the US Military is going to have to answer one simple question:
Is the oath I took to defend the Constitution against all enemies, or to defend the Government? And are they the same? Or is one a collection of principles and the other a collection of men? And when the Government is doing things that are unconstitutional, which side are you on?
If you can obey, for example, an order to confiscate all the firearms in the country, just because the “elected” government gave you the order, then obviously you’ve picked option 2. Maybe you can live with that.
I’m voting for Pat Paulsen. But a McCain nomination is inevitable. I know because my next-door neighbor’s father was a Mason, and when his roses were in bloom last year they spelt “train” and that rhymes with “McCain”. I mentioned this to his daughter and six months later I get laid off. You can call it coincidence, but you’d be willingly blinding yourself to the great conspiracy that is American politics. Also, McCain is really an illegal Mexican immigrant named “Flores” who was planted by the Communists during McCain’s stay in Hanoi. The real John McCain is still in Russia where he lives with his wife Martinka and three young girls. Ask Ross Perot.
Ok new rule. No shooting peoples. Also whatever happened to that Toy Soldiers chick anyway? She was inoffensive I thought.
Which increases when he abdicates the office in lowly Arizona for his birthright in Washington.
The word isn’t Iraq anymore, it is indeed statism. What #195 said.
JHoward,
And there’s your revolt, right there.
There’s also what #19 said too though.
Which is one of only two ways this is going to play out, Pablo.
Which leads to the amazing luxury of taking the anti-establishment candidate purely for the tone of his hangers-on and not for his anti-establishmentarianism.
Teh Paulbot is only one of an entire field of kooks and when we exempt Thompson from that crew as we should, let’s please be consistent and paint him with the same brush we do Paul: With the consistently low polls, he can’t win either, not in a land choking itself only over the flavor of it’s dole.
and pretty soon, anything good on TV will come under the auspices of some intrusive unelected commission or other.
What makes you think they will stop at TV?
Goodbye economic liberty … hello, Internet censorship!
Even censoring the Intartubes won’t waken the peeps, GC.
Negrodamus says: Americans are not stupid, Democrats are stupid. Anyone not voting against Democrats is stupid… and, er, shall eat burning fish.
For me, it’s down to Romney or Obama. I will not vote for Hillary or Edwards. I will not vote for Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani. So there you go. If the GOP chooses Huckabee as their nominee, I’ll just vote for whoever the Democrats put up just for the HELL of it. Hear that, Huckabee? The HELL of it. My rundown of the candidates:
Hillary – why?
Edwards – sorry, not into giving the keys to a slick, lying, ambulance chaser
Obama – short on experience, idealistic, perhaps a bit naive… but damn he is likable
Giuliani – ugh… give the 9/11 a rest, won’t ya?
Huckabee – as an atheist, yeah, go fuck yourself buddy
McCain – old, mean, and a wanker
Thompson – I don’t even know, he hasn’t given me any reason to dislike or like him
Romney – likable, seems like he knows how to get shit done, I can get behind a lot of his policies… meh
Paul – no, silly, trix are for kids!
Thing is, JHoward, Thompson is palatable in decent society. Paul is simply not. I find him approximately as frightening as McVain, and his leadership qualities are absolutely nonexistent. With both of them, I agree about half the time. The other half disturbs me.
I wish it weren’t the case, but it is. Hell, I voted for Ross Perot.
BECAUSE OF TEH CHANGE!!!
For me, it’s down to Romney or Obama. When this happens to me I do my A*Teens videos thing and then I feel lots better. Just search on YouTube.
Here’s the thing: The nature of stuff means that piling on Benevolent Government is a Good Thing and so it attracts all sorts of Good People. Tearing down the rotting architecture of government is not a Good Thing and so it doesn’t get done. Further, tearers-down don’t pull their heads out of their asses until it’s all over. That’s how stuff works.
A hundred people persistently pestering an average state’s legislature makes change. Yet change in favor of ripping down federalized medicine, education, finances, social norms, and welfare hasn’t happened.
There’s not but maybe one candidate who’s up to maybe not giving enough of a crap about the second term to start gutting federal government whenever possible. But he’s unelectable.
And we do nothing, because?
I can not understand the depth of the hate on the right for a truly principled, experienced, often inspirational national hero like McCain just because he isn’t a knee jerk corporatist or knee jerk social conservative.
Nor the hate for the corporatist, foreign interventionist Clinton.
You guys confuse the shit out of me.
What idiot actually expects to get whatever promises were pandered by Mitt or anyone else? How is Mitt’s pandering going to help pay your higher taxes coming with his “work-out” fascistic overhaul of Washington? The only candidate who the MSM continue to strangle hold is Fred Thompson, silenced because he is the only candidate who will beat their chosen Hillary Banshee in the general election. Keep supporting your hope with faith. Fred’s candidacy is very real; he is the best contender keeping up his momentum against the MSM tsunami. Give Fred your voice and be heard.
I’d agree, Pablo, but with the condition that I think it’s all so far gone that either Hilary/Obama/Edwards/Huckabee/McCain or Paul would crash it, and crashing the fucker is what’s both inevitable and therefore needed.
Thompson doesn’t factor. He won’t last March.
So which would we prefer?
When this happens to me I do my A*Teens videos thing and then I feel lots better.
Well, now I know what A*Teens are (is?) and I think eh… I’ll listen to some ABBA? Which candidate would be most able to dance to ABBA? That’s where my vote is going. Oh, and Huckabee, I’m NOT looking at you! HELL! You hear me?
I can not understand the depth of the hate on the right for a truly principled, experienced, often inspirational national hero like McCain just because he isn’t a knee jerk corporatist or knee jerk social conservative.
1. Immigration
2. He’s an ass
Simple
Um. If I work all day at the Blue Sky Mine there’ll be food on the table tonight is all I know. Mostly this is one of those binary thingers. I either pull the straight R lever in November or I don’t pull the straight R lever in November. The rest is mostly just news what needs summarizing.
I don’t think they crash it, JHoward. I think they just make it uglier and harder to fix.
It’s too big to crash by the hand of one or another. And it doesn’t crash until the people with the big guns say it does.
We don’t do nothing because Paul is not electable, JHoward. It is because he is nuts. He has not only impractical ideas, but flat out crazy ideas. He has openly courted thr fringes, and the 9/11 asshattery should disqulify him on its own. Add in an isolationist foreign policy, and being painfully wrong on the war, and he is scary.
Yeah. Anti-establishment. Sure. But for Paul, that is a bug, not a feature.
The bottom line is that the anti-Semitism that orbits Paul means thanks for playing you stupid redneck hick simpleton.
Corporatist, Tom? Let me guess, life-long Republican, never voted for a Dem until W came along?
Pablo, I’ll take that final step and expose myself to ridicule: Monetary policy. Controlling the money, very badly for us, they control the entire place. JD calls that nuts, I disagree with JD.
They won’t crash it, but the next eight years will, in my view, complete the program. In eight we’ll have no recourse but to be plugged into govt so deep they’ll tell us what to eat. Call it a crash of reason, freedom, the American Dream.
(Re: Paul and foreign policy, let Congress declare war if he won’t. At worst, they’re itching to dick around just because they can, so give them a bone. At best, they’ll bow to pressure just like they did starting 9/12.)
JD, doing nothing in a national election is one thing. Doing nothing locally between elections is suicide. “Conservatives” do nothing locally insofar that mammoth social government is never rolled back — did you catch that part about the budget of the DHHS alone? Yet it’s not an issue, anyplace.
This is why eight years could be all it takes to render the place unrecognizable, at least by comparison of original intent, such as it may have been.
Hell, Europe is now said to be economically freer than the US.
Great thread. I’m in Ohio and I still have no idea who is getting my vote. I do like what Paul says in regards to domestic policy and fiscal policy but his naive foreign policy eliminates him for me. Yes, I know he has some serious pieces of shit on his side, but that doesn’t factor too much in my decision. McCain? Well, McCain-Feingold eliminates him. Seems like another statist in Republican clothing. Also, I disagree with his liberal definition of torture. Huckabee? I like my politicians as far away from religion as humanly possible. And that’s being said by a very Christian human being. I just don’t play that game. Kind of why the jihadist thing is so damned important to me. Which leaves me with Rudy, Mitt or Fred. One of those three will get my vote. I’m just not sure, which one.
Let me expound on one point. It’s not so much Paul’s “naive” foreign policy as it is his insistence that the United States is more to blame for terrorism than the terrorists themselves. I really think he has no idea about the jihadists’ intents and real motivations. That is a very dangerous attribute to have for a president of the United States. One that precludes him even sniffing the office, imo.
I mean this nicely. It’s not right to criticize Paul for his naive foreign policy or his heterodox economics when a vote for him is a de facto validation of anti-Semitism. In fact it creeps me out.
happyfeet:
happyfeet:
So buy your own admission, you’ll vote Republican no matter what happens, and then you wonder why none of the Republican candidates cares about your agenda. Well of course they don’t, there’s absolutely no cost involved with completely ignoring you.
Former Republicans still voting for Fred
Even though most of the “conservative” talking heads are trying to convince us how sexy these lipsticked pigs McCain (RINO, Screwedus), Romney (RINO, Lastpoll) and Huckabee (RINO, Heaven) look, I’m still voting for Fred. If he drop…
Yes, Stormy, probably. What you should know also is I live in Hollywood, district-wise. I’m disenfranchised before I have my coffee in the morning.
Two years ago I argued against those who were fed up with Republicans and who wanted to “teach them a lesson” by letting the Democrats have Congress.
Mainly I couldn’t see why anyone would want to punish congressional Republicans for being better on immigration than Bush. But there were enough idiots out there who thought that tearing down the barricade against Bush’s immigration ideas was the way to stop Bush’s immigration ideas. That’s like keeping the Palestinians out of Israel by popping the balloons holding up the fence.
So here we are, the Dems are in control of Congress and I don’t see any indication that the Republicans are going to take it back. They might could do it if the presidential nominee were inspiring enough to enough people, but that ain’t gonna happen. There isn’t a single person on this thread who literally CANNOT WAIT to vote for any of these clowns — even against Her Inevitableness. It’s all, “I’ll do it, because I have to.” Not “because I want to.” Not “because I’m really stoked about what he’ll do when he gets in.”
Congress is going to stay D.
What kind of Supreme Court justices are going to get confirmed with Harry Reid and Anvil Head in charge, and one of these weak sisters making the nominations?
I’d vote for Thompson, happily, even though I’m convinced he’s not going to make it. I’d vote for Romney or Giuliani if they manage to pull it out in the end.
I won’t vote for McCain or Huckabee. Deal with it.
Monetary policy? Back to the gold standard? I look forward to gallons of milk costing $3000 or $0.000003.
JHoward – I am not suggesting you are nuts. far from it. RP, on the other hand, most certainly is. Outside of spending, I cannot hink of a reason to listen to him. Even there, that must be done with the assistance of Congress.
Really simple pessimistic view coming … if the Republicans cannot inspire me, someone inclined to want to do so, into wanting to actively support someone, how are they expecting to galvanize anyone else?
SDN,
You really think you’re telling anyone anything? Much less Major John, who is not only a Soldier, took that oath, but is also a lawyer and had to, you know, read and study the Constitution.
JHoward,
Maybe it’s not about electablity. Maybe it’s actually about principle. The Paul Bearers seem to think they have a monopoly on that, and you may willing to conceed the point, but I’m not.
I am sincerely FED UP with nonsense such as
“I will not, will not, vote for John McCain.
I will not, will not, vote for Mike Huckabee.
I will not, will not, vote for Ron Paul…”.
I honestly wonder if there aren’t alot of DEMOCRATIC TROLLS out there, busy working at the
tried and true, age old, step one of the art of war: DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
Grow up, kiddies! Sometimes it is necessary to “hold yer nose” and hold together to VOTE TO BLOCK THE OPPOSITION!
I am not fond of the three options mentioned above – especially the latter two.
Having said that, IS Obambi or Shrillary PREFERABLE?!
I say decidedly no, and respectfully request an end to this self-destructive behavior (whether you choose to call it in-fighting, debating, or just plain whining): GROW UP! THIS ELECTION – that is to say, OUR COUNTRY at this point in time – IS TOO IMPORTANT TO ACT WITH SUCH HUBRIS (“my way or the highway”).
Unusually fractious around here today. Jeff’s post especially the Idaho part does kind of invite a certain amount of going there I guess, like I think it was David Brin that did this book called The Postman that Kevin Costner did a movie of but I never saw it I don’t think. Sometimes it’s fun to think about that stuff is mostly the deal I think.
Feets listens to Midnight Oil?
busted. I’ve been ripping a lot of cds ever since I found out they sued that guy for ripping a lot of cds. That’s more of that how-I’m-wired stuff I guess.
Perhaps. As it stands it’s technical fraud, it’s counterproductive to whatever aims it may have for working America, it doesn’t work as advertised, it enriches the elites, it inflates the debt, it costs us fortunes via unrepresented taxation, the list goes on.
Nope. Back to facing the rather serious problem of an unpayable debt and its interest.
Fallacious. A problem may be what monetary reform ultimately means, but the problem of fraudulent monetary policy is statism.
How would you define such principle, RTO?
This polling thing that says McCain can beat Hillary is hogwash. The MSM are pushing McCain precisely because Hillary can destroy him in the election. Somewhere in all the FBI files and opposition research is a nuke that she will use on him. In fact the only good thing that could come of a Clinton – McCain match-up would be his elimination from politics.
The Democrats view politics as actual war and view actual war as a game. In war you do anything to defeat your enemy. Infiltrate them, blackmail them, disinformation campaigns, anything goes if you are to win.
The Obama – Hillary stuff so far is just a minor skirmish and the Republican primaries are looked at as prepping the battle-space. do the prep right and the actual battle is a stroll in the park.
Peering into the altenate reality where Paul becomes President we find a country wiht effectively no Executive.
Departmetns have been gutted, not because they are unconstitutional, but because any of the positions that the “President” has nominated have not been confimred beyond the first dozen or so. This is because he melted down three veto pens in the meantime.
The only thing that happens at all is whatever the legislature can pass that they can also override a veto on. In some ways this is beneficial, but there are thigns that teh federal gvernment has to legitimately be able to do. And it can’t.
So effectively, there is no Presidnet and the Congress is completely in charge.
Oh, and we’ve absicated the War on Terror by leaving the field. Withdrawl of other forward forces are resulting in a rise in piracy in the South China Sea, the Bay of Bengal. The Persian Gulf is about to become the Lake of Iran, unless Saudi Arabia openly goes to war with them instead of just the proxy war they wage in Iraq. Pakistan is considering heating up relations with India to distract form domestic problems, North Korea is preparing to move south, China is preparing to move east. Georgia, the Philippines, and Indonesia are experiencing more and more terror incidents….
Yeah, that crashes the system. Reboots are beneficial, but only if the hardware can still support a restart.
Oh, and the Post Office and the Fed are the only things that continue operating as normal.
more geoffb please, also, Taiwan is what comes after the 2008 Olympics anyway I’m pretty sure. The New York Times already has a stern editorial written on that ready to go.
I thought I already laid it out. Or are you looking for a simple label?
I’d like more happyfeet. With Jeff G. not posting much your comments hit a good note.
That’s the nicest thing anyone ever said to me.
Paul mostly says the right things on taxes and spending but his foreign policy is not merely naive but dangerously so. Free trade between nations is possible only because of the presence of the US military, specifically the US Navy, to ensure the flow of goods unencumbered by pirates and the like.
Western Europe is currently in its longest period without collapsing into armed conflict since man inhabited Europe because of the presence of the US military. In addition to the consequences outlined by RTO, were the US to leave Western Europe the Europeans would be forced to rely on a Maginot Line of soft power to deter aggression from Russia, Iran and whatever other threats happened to prop up in our absence. Britain, France and Germany may survive but there’s no telling how many nations would end up being modern day Czechoslovakias.
The world is a dangerous place and is in desperate need of adult supervision. Unfortunately, we’re the only grown ups around. We tried to retreat from the international scene and leave the rest of the world to its own devices. That was in the 30’s and, as we all know, it didn’t turn out too well.
BTW I listened to a few Paul supporters yesterday. WRT the global jihad their stance is essentially if we leave them alone they’ll leave us alone. Like I said, not merely naive but dangerously so.
McCain covers that in his memoirs.
… our isolationist period. Ahem. I’m gonna go see the big scary monster rip off lady liberty’s head now.
That wasn’t another McCain crack.
I’m not a libertarian. I can’t be – libertarian’s believe my line of work (industrial safety) is a rape of the free market run by evil statist people. That said, the democrats completely lost me on the war. They can’t wait to surrender and stab our Iraqi allies in the back. That doubly rules out Ron Paul, who is everything I despise in a politician.
McCain is far from the best choice, but he will succeed on at least one issue – more than the democrats will. There is a chance he might even be conservative now and then, especially with judicial appointments. I think he finally picked up on the fact that we want real enforcement at the border – he’s going to have to build the fence before he can have his amnesty. He is also NOT going to pick Joe as running mate – Joe might get State, but no way is he going to be the VP. Even Huckster is going to be better than a democrat by a slim margin. (He still makes me shudder, and I’m an evangelical!) So, I will campaign for the GOP nominee in the General election. We tried losing before, it didn’t improve our choices or strengthen our positions.
We have primaries for a reason. Because of the current undecided nature of the race, they are extremely important. Hopefully it will go to the convention, and any delegates a candidate gets will help advance their cause. If Fred doesn’t get the nomination, we could get him a VP slot. He is a ticket balancer for any other candidate. I wonder how a Giuliani – Romney ticket would work? Fred could be given the NID position, and told to clean house in our “intelligence” services. McCain might make a nice cabinet official, as would Hunter.
“progressivism. . . another word for tyranny of bureaucracy under the auspices of an anti-individualistic, centralized coalition government  and is about as “American†(in the strictest, foundational sense) as caviar or goulash or the Yugo. Decline and fall.”
Are you serious? After the Bushies have trashed this country, anything is better! Progressivism sounds like perhaps science really exists, tax cuts don’t always help everybody, and a government that may function.
Don’t need a simple label, RTO, #238 is fine. A shorter version of it I’d read as: tyranny is inevitable and attempts to reign it in will only ruin it.
As to foreign entanglements, in a nuclear age one need only speak softly but damn well mean it. No second chances. As to local terrorism overseas, if those terrorized lack the will to defend themselves, then should they stand? If they should indeed stand, we can finance them, much as we do now.
I still see no evidence that a nation that awoke to its constitutional sensibilities (as ours will not) enough to elect a Paul would then allow it’s Congress to behave as you suggest it would. You’ll never have a scenario with a Paul at the Executive while Socialists still infest Congress.
Back to the point: We go down by way of another 8 years of statism or we wise up and eat the bitter pill now, before it’s too late.
But individually or collectively we lack the will to do the right thing and keep ourselves free.
I’m ripping a lot of cds.
Besides your screen name always makes this song go round in my head.
Mike C, excellent comment (#244). Kind of what I was thinking, but as usual in here, somebody says it better than me. Also, I share your sentiments (#245). My comment (#221) is basically saying the same thing. Yeah, my “niave” designation may have been too soft. In this day and age, dangerous is probably a better description for it.
Not a huge fan of President Bush, but I have to ask…How have the “Bushies” trashed this country? I’m not sure what the term “progressivism” has to do with science, but the inference is that either, republicanism or conservatism, must be antithetical to science? If so, then recalibrate that tin foil hat. You need it.
I was going to write a screaming rebuttal to those deriding my decision to not vote McCain or Huck, if it came down to it, but McGehee already put it up at 226.
We’re going to societal and political hell, boys and girls. Think New Jersey – but with no roads out. I won’t vote for a candidate that will put a Republican imprimatur on the socialist, 1970’s shitstorm about to happen. And I won’t apologize for not voting, either.
What part of “vote FOR” escapes you?
For a while there, we here on the New Media frontier were kind of assuming that Old Media was going to have to evolve, or die along with government. That representative politics would finally approach the ideal state of informed, engaged constituents being represented by elected people cognizant, and respectful, of the sacred trust and RESPONSIBILITY they had assumed.
Nope. Doesn’t have to happen that way at all. Not if the statist hacks (with the support of their willing media toadies) shove that nasty old interwebs distraction back to the labs and libraries where the smart folk will know what to do with it.
Glenn Reynolds uses (I paraphrase) the “They said that there would be crushing of dissent is George W. Bush…yadayada blahblah..” all the time.
Just what do you think is going to happen with a Dem congress, a Dem Executive, and two or three Supreme picks up for grabs? In addition, every Old Media actor and Soros- stripe political pirate on the planet will be writing checks to Democrats, with their first order of business being a reinstatement of the (I puke) “Fairness Doctrine”?
A long time back, long before Massachusetts went blue, a man stood on his village green and said “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
Here I am on the green. Waiting to see what happens.
I can vote for Senator McCain. He has endurance, good sense and commitment. He is knowledgeable of foreign diplomacy. He knows repulsive governments when he sees them. He possesses ability to forgive as he did those who so cruelly treated him in Viet Nam. He is thankful for those who have helped him through the years. He does not think he is God’s gift to humanity but he is committed to his oath he gave to God to protect and defend the United States. He has good sense about how to deal with aliens. Only a moron can be so naive as to think that we can simply pass a law and ship everyone out. He has good sense on Iraq and time is proving him dead right about the surge.
: Grow up and vote for the lesser of two evils. Staying home is childish when PURE evil is running on the Democratic side.
In other words, “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”
Sorry, not buying it.
I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m just a guy who’s been voting Republican a lot lately. The lesser of two evils thing only goes so far — when it comes down to Hitler v. Stalin, all bets are off.
Minnower – Where can I observe this phenomenom of the Bushies trashing the country that you describe? Do I need special glasses to be able to see it?
He does not think he is God’s gift to humanity but he is committed to his oath he gave to God to protect and defend the United States.
The oath is “I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The First Amendment reads, in part: “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
John McCain: “He….also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform….I know that money corrupts….I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected.”
Yeah, that’s some fine respect for the oath there, all right.
McCain isn’t doing it.
OI,
Absolutely nothing. See global warming.
“Yeah, that’s some fine respect for the oath there, all right.”
A palpable hit, and exactly right.
“I’m in denial about the whole thing. I’m still hoping for a chance to vote for Giuliani.”
Pretty much sums it up for me, too.
TmjUtah,
Not long ago, a guy tried that in his house. In Massachussetts. They shot first. And it turns out that that’s OK.
Which was also on Mitt Romney’s watch, though he doesn’t know about such things.
Nothing’s changed in the last 10 years. Any defense of the system, even if it’s just a desire to reform it without scrapping it, is labeled as defense of tyranny or statism. So I can’t claim to be surprised.
It does make debate kind of pointless though, so since you’ve now branded me as evil, and I know that short of conceeding that we need to blow up the White House to save the Consitution, there’s no way to redeem myself, I’ll just bow out.
“Grow up, kiddies! Sometimes it is necessary to “hold yer nose†and hold together to VOTE TO BLOCK THE OPPOSITION!”
No, sorry – I did that with Bush 1, ans twice with Bush the Younger. No more. If we keep voting for the unprincipled morons the Republican party keeps dredging up – many of who are nothing more than democrats in sheeps clothing – we will continue to get more of them.
If we sit out, we will be doing 2 things … repudiating the party for giving us no choice to vote for, and taking a shot ripping the dems apart as was done with the “contract with America”. The public already sees this democratic Congress for what it is – public opinion polls prove that – so it is there’s to lose.
Nope … I’ll stay in bed, thanks. I’m sick of voting for eunuchs claiming to be Republicans.
“You really think you’re telling anyone anything? Much less Major John, who is not only a Soldier, took that oath, but is also a lawyer and had to, you know, read and study the Constitution.”
Since when do lawyers have to actually read the Constitution – except maybe to find ways to circumvent it?
RTO, when the Major comes out with little comments like this one:
“Don’t anybody think about taking up arms against Uncle Sam while I am still in, please. I’d hate to shoot any PW commenters”
then yes, I’d say I do, because that indicates either he HASN’T thought about it that way, or he’s already made his decision to “just follow orders, Constitution be damned.” Perhaps he’ll clarify which?
They read it in law school, silly. You’re just letting 95% of them color your view of the rest.
Pablo, no shit. And that global warming (of which I have done my damnest to help accelerate) is giving me 10 degree temperatures right now and snow squalls. Of course, I live in Ohio, where it’s known to snow and be cold. But, my wife’s family in north central GA is experiencing snow flurries. Not exactly an ordinary occurence.
“Grow up, kiddies! Sometimes it is necessary to “hold yer nose†and hold together to VOTE TO BLOCK THE OPPOSITION!”
Depends on how you define the opposition. Hillary is a populist running as a populist, everything she fucks up will be in the name of populism. McCain is a populist running as a conservative, everything he fucks up will be in the name of conservatism, because the vast majority of the voters in this country have no fucking clue what is going on. I agree with the concern about judicial appointees, but I think it is even more crucial we get the Feds and the NEA out of the schools so we have a chance at real education and stop indoctrinating our children in the glories of big government.
Ditto that.
And some say he’ll destroy conservatism? Au contraire–he will make conservatism palatable–even attractive–to independents/swing voters.
fixed that for ya. If he’s gonna fold like a lawn-chair on conservative issues, why bother?
Just like he has with Iraq!!!
And how does Hildabeast in the Oval Office move that ball forward? That’s like giving up a safety.
happy,, thx for playing one of my fav. Environmentalist bands. Midnight Oil.
Jeff’s got him a problem. I hope he gets that fibroid off his back or whatever. Honest. Being a statist “Liberal” I wish him and all his fans the best. Really think about second opinions, Jeff, and think about any toxins in your life…esp. food. Not a granola-head myself but thinking good things and eating good food plus sun and exercise and relating to close friends is the ticket for long life and happiness…not that I am an example, I like fried foods and verbal fights and maybe a little Karate too…but I dropped the dojo after I gave the sensei’s oldest son a rear kick to the solar plexus and neither the kid and I could follow up as we were both too winded to move. Then I realized I was getting too old for this, as I was close to a heart attack after those two minutes. Time to move on to another ‘dojo’. They neglected the cardiovascular system there. Maybe back to Tai Chi which looking back was a pretty good form esp. if you’ve seen a real Chinese tai chi swordsman at play. Seeing happiness and health from just watching other people who are doing it better than I, I suggest avoiding toxins in all their forms, esp. “processed foods” types, ‘corportive’ food’s pretty scary and gotta admit Skinny Bitchimo, maybe the internet at times incl. My Private Idaho was a pretty sad movie I recall.
skinny bitch was a good read soaking in the wifi at the local b ‘n n…not buying coffee there anymore.
This is a creative answer to the person who said Ron Paul supporters want to import foreign women like cattle, whatever that means:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2srnz-sgGU
The ABBA singers originally got me hooked on living in Europe.
Crap, I didn’t close my blockquote.
I’m gonna get datadave a case of paragraph breaks for Kwaanza.
Oh, and fuck Ron Paul.
I suppose that’s why I qualified it with “conservative issues” you’re saying he’s redefining “conservative”. fine. so maybe that makes it something other than “conservative”? admittedly it’s not on every issue, but the 1st amendment and immigration thing (as many have already mentioned) are kinda biggies.
Think of the commercial possibilities. Lots of people will want to do the same thing. We could round up every copy of Stalking the Wild Asparagus and sell them at a huge premium. And then there would be a huge demand for squirrel and rabbit recipes.
“And how does Hildabeast in the Oval Office move that ball forward? That’s like giving up a safety.”
As I stated before, the blame for fiscal populism will get blamed on fiscal populism, rather than on conservatism. If we keep elected populists and calling them conservatives, it is only going to make things worse.
I don’t disagree with you on that; I’d just rather not give up on *all* the conservative issues, particularly the war and foreign policy in general.
I’m not saying McCain is perfect–he isn’t, but none of them are. It’s just a matter of what one’s priorities are. I know McCain can run this war, understands the military and its chain of command, and understands the realities of the world (not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but elsewhere as well). Sure, I have reservations about some of the issues, but the war trumps all of them.
For the record, I’ve been a Fredhead for about a year now, but I’m not under any illusions about where his campaign stands today. It sucks, but I’m cutting my losses and going with my #2, and that’s McCain.
The media will decide McCain is a conservative though cause if he wins they’ll tell us that the center has moved to the left. They’ve already screentested that on NPR.
Here is another Ron Paul ABBA song video for those who either like the RP campaign or like ABBA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egjRW3v4S_Y&feature=related
By the way, I agree with those who criticize Ron Paul’s foreign policy, and there is a chance that we would have another Jimmy Carter hostage taking on his watch, however RP is correct when he says:
“America will never be destroyed from without. We will destroy it ourselves from within.”
But I do understand those concerns. Vote for him anyway in the primaries so we might end up with someone coming to the convention with a reasonable foreign policy attidue + Ron Paul’s Constitutional focus and focus on serious dismantling of US government institutions.
There is nobody else besides Fred Thompson talking like that (McCain votes for everything the Democrats want and it is a solid lie that he is some kind of pork buster).
The problem with Fred is that he has not said that he would fire all the Bush administration employees in Washington. The American people want that as a minimum in January 2009
It makes no logical sense to vote for McCain if Thompson is on the ballot. It’s like I’m really hungry for spaghetti but ooh look they have vegan tacos so I’ll get those.
But I thought you wanted spaghetti – it’s right there.
Two vegan tacos please and can I have the salsa on the side?
Christ. You were talking all year about how when we came here you were getting the spaghetti.
Don’t ruin this for me.
Whatever.
But that only addresses where to place blame, not how to solve problems. It also assumes that those who aren’t really paying that much attention, but vote anyway will detect that bit of nuance. If we elect obvious socialists, that will make things even worse. Especially if they’re able to appoint judges.
I do recognize that Pajamas Media, including Instapundit, is trying very hard to sell McCain today with the old “nobody’s perfect” line. But it is not going to work. Enough conservatives will boycott McCain to make it a 50 state loss. Over at http://www.freerepublic.com, they are even cheering for Julie Annie today because they’d rather that Annie gets 200 delegates (FL, NY, NJ, CT) than to see those go to McCain. Rush is correct that McCain can destroy the Republican Party.
Romney is the frontrunner
You realize that you’re talking about firing nearly everyone that works for the federal government, don’t you? Does that include everyone who draws a check from the DOD?
RTO, I respect you as much as anyone here, but this doesn’t qualify. Should you be addressing my addressing your previous point, I never rejected reform. I just don’t believe it’s even remotely possible.
A bit hyperbolic and you’re anything but evil. If you want to go there, have a ball, but back to the point of which Lesser Evil — speaking of which — does it really matter? Without reform, which ain’t happening, how could it? Bush more or less proved the point about domestically dicking around while it’s your watch.
Look, Beth, about McCain, please first define conservatism. Then define Socialism.
Now ask yourself if there really, really is a dime’s worth of difference between Clinton and McCain when the federal programs account? Not on your life.
This media talk of the center moving Left is hilarious. We don’t even know what Right is.
I don’t know about PJM, but Instapundit isn’t trying to sell McCain. Click on his little polling widget thinger and you’ll see that his readership is overwhelmingly Fred. And also really he’s not pushing McCain cause I read the posts for today, and also that would be irresponsible and Mr. Reynolds is a very responsible person.
I think conservatives in the US have had enough “back the RINO because the Democrats are worse” in hopes the GOP listens to us and does the right thing. They couldn’t have had any better chances to do the right thing and almost every opportunity they crapped on us. Enough. Take some pine for a while and watch from the sidelines until you can learn your lesson. I’ll never, ever vote for McCain. Ever.
“The problem with Fred is that he has not said that he would fire all the Bush administration employees in Washington. The American people want that as a minimum in January 2009.”
First fire all the hangers-on from the Clinton administration, then work on the ones from Bush I. That would go a long way to make it better even though the NYT might stop getting all those exclusives from their ‘sources”.
I know, happyfeet. The reason why I’m jumping ship now is because the polls right now show the race in Alabama is tight between McCain and Huckabee. I just can’t let Huckabee win here, and that’s a definite possibility.
Amen to that!
It might have been just the paragraph this morning where Reynolds’ linked to three blog postings that said McCain was “not perfect but you have to go with what you have”. Reynolds may be “responsible” but I could do with better agents of change (he and Drudge are wide open for someone to replace them with edgier observations). FreeRepublic itself has been surpassed by wwww.dailypaul.com in traffic. RP isn’t perfect either (I disagree with hom on the Iraq War), but I cannot say enough that I want to see the Constitution upheld. Plus I want to see judges like Kazinski, Pozner and Easterbrook nominated to the Supreme Court. I no longer want to see judges chose based on their opinion of abortion and, while I prefer conservatives, I wasn’t impressed when all the conservative justices ruled recently that an American can be asked anytime, any place for their ID for no reason (again…I may be a vegetarian, but I would defend to the death my right to eat meat).
Oh. That makes more sense I guess, but I still think that was the media’s game all along.
“Not long ago, a guy tried that in his house. In Massachussetts. They shot first. And it turns out that that’s OK.”
Elect a conservative: Cops won’t shoot first. That’s a good slogan.
Actually that was a link to a William Kristol piece that wasn’t McCain-specific. Not really worth reading though I didn’t think. I like Reynolds except for the pox on both your houses thing he does sometimes which is odd I think. And the lightbulb thing. And I’m not really big on cookware but I just skip those. I’m not anti-cookware, it’s just not my thing.
That whole thing was covered at #197, andy.
“But that only addresses where to place blame, not how to solve problems.”
You can’t solve problems until you locate and define them. Electing people who are not quite as left as the extreme left and calling them the right does neither.
“It also assumes that those who aren’t really paying that much attention, but vote anyway will detect that bit of nuance.”
No, I assume nothing. They will never figure it out if we have people who consider themselves “very conservative” supporting Huckabee. I am just saying this shit has to stop, we don’t need someone redefining conservatism, we need people who fucking knows what the real definition is. I am sick of listening to people calling W an extreme right winger. It is nuts.
Vote for Ron Paul! ;-)
“This is a creative answer to the person who said Ron Paul supporters want to import foreign women like cattle, whatever that means:”
Not crossing the rio grande with fernando? damn.
andy, I know a lot of my comments are superfluous but yours are really a lot superfluouser. You seem kind of off your game today.
Pablo –
I did look through your links concerning the LE shoot from back up there. I don’t see how they are relevant to the topic at hand, though.
BTW, you show up with a gun in front of the cops, who are there responding to a domestic, they will shoot first. And I’m cool with that. And I stipulate that I know NOTHING of the backstory beyond the husband had been served with a restraining order, and an order to surrender his weapons… which is the law NATIONALLY if you have been ACCUSED of domestic violence and could provide fodder for its own lengthy debate…
But I’m talking about McCain not getting my vote, and why for that is so. Massachusetts as an evidence point for individual liberty? Now, in 2008? Hell, they’ve already got barcodes on their left buttcheeks and all the straight male kids get Ritalin beginning at six, don’t they? My B-in-L escaped to NH two years ago.
He’s going to move again. The other Massimmigrants are screwing up New Hampshire.
So…why is Rudy not in your calculation? I’ll vote for Rudy in a heartbeat. As soon as he gets into it.
I think Beth’s #298 should not be overlooked. Polls are of the devil I think.
Several years ago, the right-leaning editorial board of one of the local papers spoke with the head of the teachers union, who was making the biannual plea for increased school funding/teacher salaries. (I’m writing this from memory so have no links, sorry.) They asked what would happen if they were given everything they asked for and the schools still didn’t improve. The reply was that then they’d just have to take a look at it.
In other words, if you give them everything they want and they fail they’ll still claim they didn’t get everything they needed. This is typical of the entrenched bureaucracy. Witness the War on Poverty programs that have consumed trillions of dollars, yet the poverty rate has not significantly changed. They will never accept failure only claim they weren’t given sufficient resources to succeed.
“Polls are of the devil I think.”
Regardless of the polls, you can’t get the nomination with 35% of the delegates which is what has constituted a win so far. It is important to donate and vote for the candidate you really want at this point because a brokered convention is a very real possibility, and anything can happen then. Don’t get caught up in the polls and the horse race/sporting event mentality of the morons on TV. It was not a “gutty performance” by McCain in SC, it was politics as usual.
See I agree. Also I gave Fred money.
This is off-topic, but in regard to those ABBA videos: the brunette Anna-Frid was the out-of-wedlock offspring of a German soldier occupying Norway in 1945. This soldier, her father, was then killed when his ship was torpedoed as the German troops were quickly sailing back to save the Fatherland from the final American and Russian attack. Her mother, a 19 year old who had fallen in love with that German soldier, was vilified by other Norwegians for getting herself pregnant from a “Nazi” and she died soon after the child’s birth (heatbreak?). Norwegians did not want the child around them. It was called a Tyskbarn (which means German child). A grandmother in Sweden ended up raising it.
On April 6, 1974 the now 29 year old Tyskbarn appeared in Brighton, England for a song contest with her boyfriend and some friends. Against brutal competition the following performance won the top prize and launched the rejected child of a drowned World War Two Wehrmacht soldier into music history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5woqCVd0NEY
Someone should make a movie of that unlikely love affair in Norway, ending with the clip of the baby being successful 29 years later.
Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion of the 2007 implosion of the US Republican Party:
And now datadave’s ruined Midnight Oil for me. What am I going to do with these four CDs now?
I do like them, although they’ve managed to turn one of the best song intros of their genre into a rather bland, even cringing, tune. River Runs Red.
That was really cool. Great story.
I have them mixed in with early sinead.
Take the red pill.
Well blow me down.
I disagree with Mr. Obama’s politics. I think his platitudinous, koom-byah foreign policy proposals from the stump to be almost childish. As in reaching for, and falling short. His domestic proposals are blazingly 1975. I judge his resume for high executive responsibility to be sorely wanting and his voting record to be a window on a political hack. And if I had one solid reason for opposing him at a gut level, it would be his church.
But he does have one thing I can point to that differentiates him from Hillary!: He’s not a crook. As far as anybody knows. Well, as “not a crook” as anyone whose political pedigree is rooted in Illinois can be, at least.
His party… makes the contemporary Republicans look like Pitt the Elder. I mean, they arrive at the Capitol in one pink MiniCooper and just keep spilling out over each other. But they are the elected majority of the (knock on wood) greatest nation on the planet.
Maybe an Obama presidency is the price to drive a stake through the heart of the Clinton era?
Now there’s the kind of win-win attitude I like to see!~
Whence came the squiggly thing?
Oh.
Wait a minute.
You’re going to potentially make it worse.
Alabama allocates delegates proprtionately, unless one candidate gets more than 51%.
Potentailly you give all of Alabama’s delegates to McCain. Best case, McCain gets one more and Thompson one less delegate.
If your candiadte is on the ballot, vote for your candidate. Working against a candidate only makes sense in a “first past the post” primary.
This kind of ship jumping is why the Primary System is broken and why thre haven’t been any brokerd conventions in recent memory–than and too many winner take all states.
Stick to your guns, no matter who your candidate is.
This particular lawyer, who you obviously don’t know at all, is also a Soldier. That makes the difference.
Perhaps you’ll take a long walk off a short pier. You aren’t qualified to shine the Major’s boots much less pass judgment. There’s been nothing in this conversation to indicate any of the circumstances that would have to go into such a decision–it’s your biases that are showing, not his.
So until you can show your certification as a registered mind reader, I’d suggest that this is where you get off.
It may be too late.
I just checked the polls. Alabama had Thompson out front last month at 22%. One month later he’s at 9%. Why? Because, undoubtedly, people are changing their minds based on the results in other states. Madness.
Nope. Tracking down and exterminating Brachiating Hippie herds in the wilds of Berkeley, that’s the ticket. Get you out in the open air, do ya some good.
SDN, et al., complaining that “my guy didn’t win so I will take up arms against the United States Government” = I will shoot you, should I need to do so. I suspect I have more dead enemies of the US Constitution (read HIG, et al) on my ledger than you, but I really don’t like to think about that too much. And I shan’t talk about it without great need.
And yes, lawyers actually read the Constitution – at least when I went to law school, back in the day, they did. And not to subvert it – I spent 5 years as an Assistant State’s Attorney putting those who would infringe on the life, liberty and property of other into the IDOC or the Kane County Jail…the 23 years I have spent upholding, as a military servicemember, it against all enemies foreign and domestic have made me twitchy about domestic Freeman/milita types as well as jihadis and the like.
So let us just go out and try to get a decent President elected and leave the armed rebellions out of it for now, eh?
Oh, thanks RTO – good to know a good NCO is watching out for me while I am whiling away the days here at Fort Riley getting ready to deploy.
As I said previously – I have already cast my vote for Thompson. I can hope, yes?
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are at war. It is not just the war in Iraq. It is a global war that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and the overall war on terror. This fact must be central to our thinking in this election cycle. Concern over who will best promote the conservative agenda must be secondary to concern over winning the war. For this reason, we must support John McCain for President. No other candidate is a qualified as he is to lead this nation while we are at war.
Granted, McCain is not a true conservative. But then who is in this field? Romney and Giulliani are chameleons. Huckabee and Thompson are unelectable in the general election. And Ron Paul is insane. So there is very little chance of electing a true conservative anyway. We better all vote for the man who is best qualified to lead us during wartime. And that man is John McCain.
So set aside your outrage at McCain’s slights against the conservative movement and remember that we are at war. And give your votes and support to John McCain.
HT
Because… you say so?
Yeah John McCain on the war: close Guantanamo Bay, don’t hurt the terrorists’ feelings, and rubber stamp anything congress sends him while stamping on the US Constitution. Who can’t like that kind of commander in chief?
Meanwhile we’re at war at home, against leftist corrosion of our culture, economy, and nation, none of which McCain has a problem with. And you want him in office… why, exactly?
Enough. No more RINOs because the opponents are allegedly worse. No more votes for the GOP to yank the football out of the way again. They are unworthy of power. Let em sit this next presidency out if they throw another RINO in our path, maybe they’ll learn.
I’ll never vote for McCain, or Giuliani, or Huckabee.
Never.
McCain is unelectable in the general election.
Mike C – 312 was a spot-on observation. Any failure is a failure of not going far enough.
Hank – You almost had a point, until you held out Huckabee as a conservative. If he is conservative, then Bill Clinton tells the truth, habitually. Which leads me to believe that you do not understand the party at all. In many ways, with the exception of Paul and Huckabee, there is very little difference between the Republicans. Also, given McCain’s propensity to abandon the party for media adored maverick status, why should we bank on him? See taxes, immigration, “torture”, AGW, campaign finance?
HT? – No.
So set aside your outrage at McCain’s slights against the conservative movement
I (and, I’ve gathered, many others here, including our host) care a lot more about McCain’s slights against the Constitution of the United States than about the “conservative movement”.
America first, partisan politics second.
I’m not going to vote for a guy who shits on the First Amendment. Not now. Not ever. No matter what his war record might be.
Sorry about that.
TmjUtah,
It’s relevant because of this:
Except Larry McCarthy wasn’t on the village green when he said “If it’s war you want, it’s war you’ll have. But you will not confiscate my property and strip me of my Constitutional rights.” He was in his own home.
Thing is, they weren’t responding to anything. McCarthy was and had been home alone, all weekend. They were trying to serve and enforce an order (which, btw, cannot be enforced until it is served) which had been issued with no due process whatsoever, not even notice of a hearing, that confiscated his property, banished him from his own children and effectively made him homeless. All without so much as an opportunity for rebuttal. And approximately 2 hours after the order was signed, Larry McCarthy, who had been sitting home minding his own business at the time, was shot dead by the state for failing to willfully submit. For standing on the green.
Yes, and that debate would feature the right to due process and the presumption of innocence and the creation of classes of Americans that are above and beneath the law.
Has anyone read this recently (at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24560):
from “Whose Primaries are They?” by Jed Babbin
* “Just whose primary elections have we been following so closely? If you think they were Republican affairs, think again. Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina all allow crossover voters — independents and Democrats — to vote in the Republican primaries.”
…
“The Republican Party has allowed its opponents to capture the primary process. If Republicans are going to choose a nominee they can rally around, they have to compel the candidates to take stands on the issues that matter to them most. Unless a candidate does that, he can’t possibly win in November.”
“Republicans lost the 2006 election by compiling a record that pleased only Democrats and avoiding taking hard positions on what matters most to their base. Republicans will lose the 2008 election if they don’t choose a candidate who is a solid conservative and campaigns on conservative issues and principles.”
“It’s probably too late to reclaim the television debates from the liberal media. But it’s not too late to reject the Republican contenders that would most please the Democrats. But if we, as conservatives, speak out as actively and forcefully in the primaries as we did last summer on the illegal immigration issue, Republicans could still choose a winner.” *
“I will not, will not, vote for John McCain.” – – Whats a matter? Still mad about the $billions he let Chuck Keating steal from the taxpayers in the 70’s and 80’s!?
Heck whats a few billion?
VOTER SUPPRESSION! UNFAIR!!!1!
Oh come on Pablo, you know you have nothing to fear from the law if you haven’t broken the law. It’s in all the kneejerkcon handbooks.
McGruff. Tough on Crime.
Pablo –
My understanding was that he was aware of the pending order, and that the police had been warned that he was aware. McCarthy did know there were police outside and had to know what they were there for. If he didn’t know… well, I don’t generally plan on taking one of my long guns out to see what uniformed police are doing in my culdesac.
There’s nothing good about what happened there. Not for the dead man, for the cops, or for the family left behind. Please don’t think I’m at all “cool with that”, and I will apologize for a poor choice of words on my part that creates the perception of me being glib…. and the situation whereby a federal law enacted to protect abused spouses has been exploited as a weapon in ugly divorces is, I still say, fodder for other debates. We are probably on the same page where the federal domestic abuse law is concerned, starting precisely on the same grounds you brought up – lack of due process.
I reckon we’re in the same trench. Just maybe have differing views of how to get across the ground in front of us.
Good luck to us both.
TmjUtah, my point was simply to demonstrate what taking an armed stand will get you these days, and also to note that one of our POTUS frontrunners is blissfully unaware of the Constitutional abuses taking place in his jurisdiction.
BTW, it is not a federal law, but MGL 209A. That said, there’s plenty of federal money via VAWA driving this sort of thing.
It’s I-Have-A-Dream day, so please.
You MUST vote Republican no matter who gets the nod. I think it will be Romney, but if it ends up McCain or even Rudy we have to VOTE. We can’t give up… not voting would be a sure way to let Liberals ruin the country.
DON’T GIVE UP! VOTE!
“TmjUtah, my point was simply to demonstrate what taking an armed stand will get you these days, and also to note that one of our POTUS frontrunners is blissfully unaware of the Constitutional abuses taking place in his jurisdiction.”
There was a supreme court case recently that discussed what was a reasonable seizure in terms of what could be done by the cops to the other person. Check out how it came out.
And don’t argue with cops for ours and then walk out and raise your gun. You’ll get shot before they do. and the courts will call it constitutionally reasonable. Even if you’re white.
andy –
Is there’s some switch setting that makes it impossible for you to generate a rational comment?
You came THAT close….
Tmj, actard’s obviously expressing appropriate anxiety with assaults (no pun) on The Other. The Victim of suicide by cop here was an aging Hispanic female welfare dependent hopped up on Prozac and spouting native American newageisms at the top of her tobacco-impaired lungs on public property while brandishing a KMart shopping cart.
There’s a law, you know.
You wanna cite that, actus? Does it involve warrants or criminal charges? Because this case doesn’t.
Or, as in this case, the DA will simply call it a good shoot and take care of the exoneration right up front.
TmjUtah,
BTW, I was posting from my phone earlier and trying to keep it brief, but here’s a bit more.
The cops informed him. they called him and told him they were coming to take his guns and throw him out of his house. His response was apparently along the lines of “Over my dead body, or yours.” Thing is, knowledge of the order does not equate to service of the order, and an order isn’t valid until it’s been served. The correct sequence of events, according to the law, was for the cops to make a reasonable attempt to serve it and failing that, to return to the judge to have alternate means of service authorized, such as tacking it to the door of the house. As it stood, the order was NOT in effect.
Instead, they decided they weren’t taking this guy’s shit, and he was dead approximately 2 hours and 10 minutes after the order was signed. He was killed by a guy perched in his backyard with a gun trained on him, exactly the same action that supposedly justifies McCarthy’s death, as long as you overlook the fact that they were on his property without a warrant, trying to serve an order that’s unconstitutional on its face.
Pablo –
I still don’t see where we are on different sides here. I do not presume to defend the actions of the police, or the dead man. I agree with your opinion on the constitutionality of the law in question, and share your outrage over the way the police managed the sequence of events.
If it does come down to “let it start here” I see no good outcome. Just one that has to be faced.
So is the deal that you have trouble chewing?
Perfect, meet The Good.
Perfect: No! I refuse. The Good is my enemy!
“Does it involve warrants or criminal charges? Because this case doesn’t.”
Scott v. Harris. It involves use of force. Not deadly. But it should generally introduce you to the concepts involved. and how some ‘strict constructionists’ play out there. I don’t see why warrants and criminal charges matter that much.
“Or, as in this case, the DA will simply call it a good shoot and take care of the exoneration right up front”
Exactly. Because of what the courts will also say. They dont like people pulling guns on cops. White or black, you’re not really entitled to a stand off.
“The correct sequence of events, according to the law, was for the cops to make a reasonable attempt to serve it and failing that, to return to the judge to have alternate means of service authorized, such as tacking it to the door of the house. As it stood, the order was NOT in effect.”
So they were going to serve him with the order. And then standoff ensued. Order or not, “over my dead body or yours” is going to mean “ok, yours.” Constitutionally.
“trying to serve an order that’s unconstitutional on its face.”
Get a lawyer. Not a gun.
I had that once out of nowhere but it went away is all.
This from actard, formerly of “over my dead body or yours†is going to mean “ok, yours.†fame.
Hire a lawyer just to stay alive. Because of the law.
I’m sure I’ll never call the law an ass again.
Probable cause will suffice, legally…constitutionally. But McCarthy wasn’t running from a valid traffic stop, just resisting service in the comfort of his own home. He had broken no law whatsoever. Unless you know of some law that requires you to meekly accept service. Cite it if you do.
I don’t give a flying fuck what they, or you, like. people don’t like cops pulling guns on them, and they have no special right to do so.
And they hadn’t accomplished that, which sets a different process in motion. You’re trying to be a lawyer, aren’t you actard?
Not if you stay the fuck offa my lawn, which you have no right to remain on. Unless you think a badge places you above both the law and the Constitution, in which case, I’d snipe your ass from a window. I’m not down with that Butch Cassidy shit.
TmjUtah,
We’re not. This is simply another example of government run amok and it has the added attraction of a POTUS frontrunner who had it happen on his watch, and he’s shocked…shocked, I say! that far less notable cases involving the same issues even occur in the state he ran for 4 years. I could go on about Kelo instead, but with all the talk about armed resistance, this one sort of bubbled to the top.
Long story short, this is just one more case that people ought to understand, and most people don’t. It really easy, on the face of it, to say McCarthy got what he asked for, but what he got was murdered by intruders. That they were from the government ought to make us take note.
I’ve taken no offense and I get where you’re coming from. I’m just taking the opportunity to tell the story because it’s tragic, frightening and cautionary. Peace.
McCain v Thompson is not the good v the perfect. It’s a crappy, mangy, rabid hound that has bitten you eight times versus the good.
No, they have no right to do anything other than to serve the order and enforce it once served. If you think otherwise, feel free to cite the authority you find here that allows for such actions. Otherwise, please stop pretending that you know what you’re talking about. The order is not in effect until it is served, period. The order authorizes authorities to do absolutely nothing, it only orders the subject to do things and allows for him to be arrested/prosecuted if he violates it.
And speaking of Scott v. Harris, did you read the fucking thing?
God help us all if you ever pass the bar.
“So set aside your outrage at McCain’s slights against the conservative movement and remember that we are at war. And give your votes and support to John McCain.”
uh …. no. No further discussion required.
Major John (and RTO), obviously I don’t know you – this was my first visit to this blog. I was unaware you were active military. No disrespect was meant to you personally, sir. My apologies if it was taken as such. God speed on your deployment. Return home safe.
“Not if you stay the fuck offa my lawn, which you have no right to remain on. Unless you think a badge places you above both the law and the Constitution, in which case, I’d snipe your ass from a window. I’m not down with that Butch Cassidy shit.”
Then you better be a better shot than I am, pal. Personally – I doubt it. A lot.
Come onto my space with a gun, an attitude and no legal authority and you’re liable to find out. Not only do I know how to shoot, I know how to keep cover. Unca Sam taught me.
And if you’re going to come, don’t bring andy/actus. Trust me on that one.
If staying alive and free is your goal, I’d recommend not having a mob. Whether deranged private militia or insane public law enforcement agency, mobs suck don’t they actard?
The obvious point is that armed standoffs are fucking illegal unless they are legal. Or consider, if your peabrain can so much as attempt this angle (because perspective is what you so convincingly, universally lack) that staying alive is precisely legal and called for when illegalities come knocking.
Ergo, a gang of peace officers, acting without benefit of legal authorization — per the fucking Constitution and not some obscure after-the-fact precedent you cannot find anyway — are as arguably illegal as a gang of not-peace officers, acting without benefit of legal authorization, per the fucking Constitution and not some obscure after-the-fact precedent you cannot find anyway.
That you miss this in lieu of “wave a gun around, get shot” as if that’s the sum and substance of your knowledge of and respect for The Law is, as Pablo rightly observes, staggeringly chilling for a law-yer.
Yes, wave a gun around, get shot. I believe the man presumed this, that adding to the very point. Your powers of observation are as impressive as your powers of deductive reasoning are not.
Adding insult to injury, is actard. Simply unbelievable. In other words, in absence of a crime, and in absence of legal right, cops may confiscate what the Constitution prevents them confiscating. On private property.
We get that you can cite chapter and verse about outcomes. That you haven’t the brain god gave mud about legally how such outcomes must be prevented is stunning.
“I don’t see why warrants and criminal charges matter that much.”
Unless you are looking at international phone records, you mean. I see now why you generally mumble incoherently andy, it only makes us suspect you are a dishonest little shitweasel.
Especially when changing folk’s locks and stripping them of their arms. Probably not much when altering thermostat settings, neither…
After all, if you’re from the government, it should be OK, right? Unless the president is a Republican, in which case every iota of Jose Padilla and Co’s rights ought to be absolutely respected.
BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Fuck you, actus.
“No, they have no right to do anything other than to serve the order and enforce it once served.”
So if he’s not home his wife can turn over the guns, and change the locks.
“And speaking of Scott v. Harris, did you read the fucking thing?”
Yes. I just pointed so you got an idea of the jurisprudence in the area, and how some strict constructionists fall on it. So, for example, you’ll find that the cops shot him once they found him to be a threat: ie, drew a gun on them. Think the court order is invalid? Get a lawyer. Not a gun.
“The obvious point is that armed standoffs are fucking illegal unless they are legal.”
If its illegal, get a lawyer. Not a gun. You’ll get shot otherwise, constitutionally too.
“Unless you are looking at international phone records, you mean.”
Or the reasonableness of shooting a guy that drew a gun on you.
“After all, if you’re from the government, it should be OK, right? ”
Get a lawyer. Not a gun. Apparently this sentiment flips people out. Probably because they lose in court.
Get a lawyer. Not a gun. I don’t get that. You need both.
“Get a lawyer. Not a gun. I don’t get that. You need both.”
And money.
as in this
Hmm,
href=”http://www.davemcnally.com/lyrics/WarrenZevon/LawyersGunsandMoney.asp” rel=”nofollow”>this
I give up. :-)
Zooming right past the innuendo/falshood/asshat-assumption/wishful non-thought/willful ignorance/WTF?!/but-they’re-out-standing-on-the-lawn, I find actard has just stuck its rhetorical hoof in its ear again.
Leading horses, utterly, perfectly, flawlessly defined for the kids in the front row. With bells on and chrome glistening.
Of course, there’s some people who just got their own ideas of what the constitution says. Must be nice people to settle down with.
Can’t say I ever cared much for law-yers. actard.
“Of course, there’s some people who just got their own ideas of what the constitution says.”
And then there are those of us who can read the fucking language.
“And then there are those of us who can read the fucking language.”
Hey, ride that pony all the way to the strict constructionists on the court!
So you’re saying that it would be perfectly reasonable for McCarthy to shoot the people who surrounded his house with guns drawn? It would certainly be Constitutional, though not necessarily a great idea.
BTW, that “get a lawyer” thing only works when you’ve got all that due processy stuff like a hearing, notice and an opportunity to be represented. Guns work right fucking now.
“So you’re saying that it would be perfectly reasonable for McCarthy to shoot the people who surrounded his house with guns drawn?”
Thats not how the constitution thinks of reasonable seizures. You’re w
“BTW, that “get a lawyer†thing only works when you’ve got all that due processy stuff like a hearing, notice and an opportunity to be represented”
Thats where you go to get your toys back and find out that in fact you do lose.
“Guns work right fucking now.”
Evidence points to it not working. Open your eyes.
The Constitution? Who could possibly give a shit? What do the Courts think of seizures, period?! I.e., what do your peers think of taking your stuff either before or after you’re dead. Because that’s precisely where you’re standing right now, you blithering idiot.
[…] Jeff Goldstein to the list: I will not, will not, vote for John McCain.Oh, and he won’t vote for Mike Huckabee, either, […]
[…] on the face of it, seems to be referring to our esteemed host, Jeff Goldstein: I will not, will not, vote for John […]
You’d better have another read of the 4th Amendment, counselor.
Did Larry McCarthy get killed by a lawyer, actus? No, it was a bullet fired from a gun. I’d tell you to remove the beam from your own eye, but it’s probably the only thing keeping your head from collapsing.
Why don’t you just go and vote for Hillary? This is one of the dumbest columns I’ve seen (short of those penned by Maureen Dowd) in a long time.
The dumping on McCain, in particular, seems to me to be entirely counterproductive. Just because McCain crosses the aisle every once in a while does not make him the anti-conservative. It makes him someone who could actually prevent 8 years of Hillarygate. Go ahead – don’t vote – or vote for Huckabee. That’s like being a Democrat and voting for Ralph Nader.
Let’s see – McCain has a plan to win in Iraq, he recognizes that Islamofacism is our biggest current national threat, he believes in the 2nd Amendment, he doesn’t believe in raising taxes (generally) – but he doesn’t lie to us about the AMT like our current President does. And, unlike Huckabee, Romney and Thompson – chicken hawks all – he has actually served our country in uniform – and, unlike Romney’s 5 sons or Bush’s two daughters, McCain’s two youngest sons are now in uniform – one at Annapolis and one with the Marines in Iraq. That’s called putting your money (and your family values) where your mouth is.
And one more thing – McCain doesn’t need an aging movie star (Chuck Norris, not Thompson) to show how tough he is.
Hey SPB # 337 – Why don’t you actually read the First Amendment (and maybe just a little bit of the over 200 years of case law that supports it and is the law of this land)? Then, maybe, your ill-informed comments about John McCain won’t be ill-informed, just crackpot. There is a long history regarding the balance of regulating free speech in this country; you may not like McCain-Feingold, and it may not work to serve the purpose of preventing only those with large pocketbooks from running for office, but Ron Paul is a crystal-clear example that free speech of crackpots has not been abridged by that Act. You might also want to read some of the original Constitution, and not just the amendments, regarding the judiciary and separation of powers, etc. I know it might tax your brain to read more than a few amendments to the Constitution, but then, maybe, you won’t yell “Fire” in a crowded, non-burning theater or post slander to the internet.
Well, then, Harcourt. We wouldn’t want to be “counterproductive.” Mustn’t do anything to hurt the “team.”
Thing is, you’re not dealing with partisan junkies here. If you believe my commitment not to vote for McCain is the same as a vote for Hillary, you’re every bit the hack as the Democrat politicos you purport to despise.
I don’t care about party. I care about principles. And John McCain is a progressive and a statist whose progressivism and statism sometime lead him to take “conservative” positions.
But as I’m a classical liberal, I don’t much care for progressivism. Or statism. I care about individualism. And McCain has shown that to him, individualism is secondary to a well-run state. As judged by him.
Luckily, we’re still at the point where we can vote for who we please. Or not vote, if we so choose. Although even that privilege is on its way to the dustbin of history, thanks to shortsighted partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle.
you’re every bit the hack as the Democrat politicos you purport to despise.
I got a bit of the Moby whiff as well. Something about R’s calling other R’s chickenhawks.
Jeff – Abstaining from voting and letting someone who is more “progressive” and “statist” win is the same as casting your vote for that person. Of course you can vote or not vote or vote for someone who will never win the general election, but that doesn’t mean your vote or non-vote has no consequence. I do believe that, if McCain is the Republican nominee, your decision to not vote for him IS a vote for Hillary. Simple old-school math. Nothing “hackish” about it. If it is all about you, and not at all about what works best for the country, then I see your point about individualism (personal, not political), but don’t get how you aren’t more partisan than anyone else, especially when you won’t compromise under any circumstance.
Also, your characterization of McCain is a caricature. He is not your perfect libertarian, true enough. But you are not going to get someone elected with a strict individualist philosophy. How can you even tell what Fred Thompson would really do when faced with the realities of governing as an executive; he certainly wasn’t a strict non-statist individualist as a Senator. He certainly cares about “party”.
“I don’t care about party. I care about principles.” That is the classic mantra of “Me-me-me-me-me” Naderism. That’s fine and I respect your principles. But don’t use this site to complain about Hillary when she wins. You gave someone your proxy to pull the lever for her.
JD – I’m calling them “chickenhawks” because I’m sick about R’s calling other R’s “statist” and “progressive” and “left-wing” and other names that only serve to further the goals of the D’s. After all, Jeff G. has basically trashed the entire Republican lineup other than Thompson – only the beknigted Thompson could be true to his political theology and has the guts to make it happen – with the “chickenhawk” comment, I am merely pointing out that at least McCain stands behind his convictions – when push comes to shove, he doesn’t back away from his responsibilities or make others do what he wouldn’t do himself. It’s nice to pretend that Thompson was in this race for anything other than added publicity and another few zeros on the end of his next paycheck, but, he’s getting too old for acting so he didn’t have anything better to do than get a few months of free auditioning for his next role. What about you JD, do you think Jeff G. would serve a higher purpose by not voting for McCain if he were the nominee? Is that your intention as well?
I’m sick about supposed conservatives acting statist, progressive and leftish, furthering the goals of the Donks and doing so in Republican clothing. That is the problem, not calling it what it is.
Abstaining from voting and letting someone who is more “progressive†and “statist†win is the same as casting your vote for that person
BBBZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT. Wrong answer. You can assert it all you want, but it will not make it so. A vote must be earned by a candidate. If neither candidate earns that vote, that is the fault of the candidate, not the voter. Choosing to cast a vote for none of the candidates is most certainly not the same as a vote for a candidate. That is the kind of thinking that allows the Republicans to continue to run people whose views vary only in degree to their Democratic opposition.
So, you think that acting like a Dem is going to win over people to your way of thinking, Harcourt? Good luck with that.
Yes, it serves a purpose in not voting for McCain. He said, to paraphrase, to hell with the 1st Amendment, my bill will help clean up the perception of money in elections. This alone should disqualify him. Couple that with his various and numerous forays into his “Maverick” status, where on his best days, he was a RINO (taxes, torture, immigration, Gang of 14) and it is not hard to understand why Sen. McCain has failed to EARN some people’s votes.
And make no mistake about it. He has to earn someone’s vote. Just because someone once voted for President Bush, or considers themselves to be a Republican, in no way means that he is entitled to their vote. He is only entitled to have the opportunity to earn the vote.
The BS about it being a vote for Hillary is simply that, BS, and warrants no further discussion.
Karl – Those links for CNN and Politico have really racheted up idiot levels around here.
[…] Hip Pain on allow me to interject Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:47 am | Trackback Share […]
JD- I guess if you say it is BS it must be BS. You can back out of the political process by not voting – but given that we don’t have a parliamentary system or a real third party – your abstention, by simple math, is a vote for the one you dislike the most (except, of course, if your state is decidedly red or blue – and then it doesn’t really matter and your stance doesn’t affect anything). If you dislike both candidates equally, then don’t complain when the rest of the electorate comes up with an answer for you.
As for your disqualifications of McCain:
1. First Amendment – You can say that McCain is dispensing with all free speech rights, but that would be incorrect. No one is being censored by the McCain-Feingold Act. To say that the history of the First Amendment has been one of absolute freedom from restriction, even in the Founder’s time, is simply false. There are all sorts of boundaries.
2. Torture – I presume you are talking about waterboarding, because the United States Constitution (as well as various US laws and treaties) does not permit torture – in fact it explicity prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment”. Furthermore, the US has never officially admitted that it uses waterboarding and the most reliable reports indicate that it has only been used minimally, only prior to 2003 and that the CIA head asked for executive permission to prohibit its use. A key reason is that torture is generally thought by the intelligence community as producing inaccurate intelligence, if any at all. McCain, who has been tortured (and has revealed the Green Bay Packers opening formation under such torture) should have some credibility in this area. He certainly shouldn’t be branded as a traitor for saying that the practice doesn’t work and that we shouldn’t emulate the Cambodians, the Spanish Inquisitors or the Nazis.
3. Taxes – McCain is not FOR tax increases and he favors tax decreases. However, he also abhors a deficit (like most conservatives used to). His brouhaha about taxes is that he was unwilling to willy-nilly push for a tax cut when spending increases weren’t also being cut as part of the same bill. It is a fundamental conservative notion that spending increases, even if unfunded, are taxes. They are simply deferred taxes bearing a higher rate of interest that we pass on to our children. You can crucify him for being “maverick” on this issue, but you should also equally crucify those who have allowed our federal budget (not including war spending) to increase by multiples over the last 7 years over that of the increases during the Clinton and Carter years!
4. Immigration – Perhaps you think you can deal with immigration issues in a better way than that proposed by McCain. But, short of massive expulsions, which will not happen for a whole host of reasons – including that (a) they are not humane and (b) that our economy has become accustomed to cheap illegal labor – his proposal actually tries to deal with the existing issue and curtail further exacerabation of the issue. Until the 14th Amendment, there was, in fact, no Constitutional definition of citizenship, and even the 14th Amendment’s definition does not say what “naturalization”means, but it does provide due process protection for “liberty” etc. to all “persons” not just “citizens”. You may dislike McCain’s solution, but other than the Minute Men Vigilantes, who do you think does a better job on this issue – Romney? Romney has been employing illegal immigrants!! Giuliani? He gave them vast protection when he was mayor of New York.
5. The Gang of 14 – I suppose you want indefinite civil war amongst the different wings of American society. Well, we live in a representative democracy with a multitude of opinions. Extremism in the defense of liberty is certainly no vice; but extremism just to be extremist will simply result in more costly operation of government and dissolution of our national character into a multitude of mutual hatred societies. The fact that McCain can broach practical compromise with those across the aisle, rather than try to crush his opposition, is a valued technique in both the corporate and the political world.
So, JD, it is one thing to cling strongly to your articles of faith and bow out of politics if those in power don’t agree with you on every article, but as someone who deals with complex negotiations on a regular basis, I would rather have someone as President who is experienced in getting deals done that have benefit for all, rather than banking on someone who craters every deal that he is involved with because he doesn’t get every single point he is bargaining for. You end up a penniless socialist in the latter scenario.
[…] have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of […]