I have on a couple of occasions linked to Matt Welch’s Reason piece on John McCain, which I consider well worth reading, particularly for those Republicans still (and beyond all rational explanation) enamored with the Arizona senator’s “Maverick” image — something I believe is but cynical media spin for what is essentially a progressive mindset that lurches toward conservatism whenever the mood strikes.
I bring this up again for two reasons — first, to note that Welch will be taking over Reason’s editorial reins from Nick Gillespie (congrats, Matt! Well deserved!); and second, to segue into Jacob Sullum’s “Citings” piece from the March 2008 print issue that, to those of us who (rightly) fear McCain’s blundering, Messianic embrace of both statism and his own perceived rectitude, provides further proof of just what kind of Constitutional disaster a McCain presidency would bring — creating a great big sloppy muddle of centrist progressives whose commitment to Constitutional principles will always and inevitably be subsumed by their own notion of what is “right” and “fair”, to the point where the Constitution, should it stand in the way of such self-satisfied statist or emotionalist piety, must necessarily be circumvented. For the greater good, you understand.
The world, as run by Joe Gandelman.
When “progressive” Democrats attempt to affect such circumventions, of course — most often through the courts — we on the “conservative” side generally point out that they are trying to legislate from the bench; when a “conservative” or Republican does the same thing, however, the liberal press likes to paint him as a “uniter” — a Maverick who is willing to buck party wisdom and reach across the aisle in the name of change.
Nevermind that that “change” might be Constitutionally dubious, or that party wisdom (god forfend!) might actually (and accurately) reflect years of crafting policy positions and defending ideological principles by way of a collective give and take among the most prominent thinkers representing a particular political and ideological worldview. Because in today’s political ethos, none of that is as important as the change itself — much in the same way that for many so-called liberals, dissent, in and of itself, is a virtue, the Congressional Medal of Honor for civic patriotism, irrespective of the sheer idiocy of the content of that dissent, or even its sincerity.
And so a desire to see government “cleaned up” — to see “special interests” banished — has become a rallying cry for “change,” even without any substantial proof that the “problem” being addressed is anything other than a convenient fiction offered up by those whose natural proclivity it is to buck the status quo.
Which, sadly, leads to things like this:
SpeechNow.org wants to criticize politicians who support restrictions on political speech. But first it has to get permission from the government.
Last fall the Federal Election Commission agreed to decide whether SpeechNow.org, an independent group that plans to run TV and radio ads opposing or supporting candidates for federal office based on their First Amendment positions, has to register as a “political committee.” In addition to the administrative burden that would entail, it wold limit the group’s ability to raise money, since each donor would be allowed to give no more than $5000 per year and would have to count the donation toward his two-year limit of $65000 for all political contributions.
SpeechNow.org argues that in its case such restrictions cannot be justified by the goals the U.S. Supreme Court has cited in upholding campaign finance rules: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, providing the public with information about candidates, and preventing corporations from using their “immense aggregations of wealth” to exercise a “corrosive and distorting” influence on politics.
Besides, that niche seems to have been filled nicely by George Soros front groups, anyway. So, you know, why oversaturate?
But I digress…
The group, which is represented by lawyers from the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics, is not a corporation (not even the non-profit sort) and is not affiliated with any party or candidates. Its bylaws ban donations from corporations or labor unions, donations to parties or candidates, and coordination of its activities with parties or campaigns
— unlike, say, CNN, cough —
Its ads would include disclaimers identifying the sponsor and noting that the spots are “not authorized by an candidate or candidate’s committee.” The group would publicly disclose its donors’ names and the amounts they give.
On their own, members of SpeechNow.org are free to spend as much money as they want on ads attacking politicians. They argue that the situation should be no different when they get together and pool their resources so their message can reach a wider audience. Otherwise, they say, their First Amendment right to freedom of speech would be abridged because they chose to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of association.
It’s the classic McCaintch-22.
Look for more of it in an appeals court near you, beginning January 2009!
Meantime, allow me to make the following suggestion to those whose entire political worldview is based around this amorphous (and purposely non-specific) desire for change: try crystal meth, or bang a tranny prostitute, or go pee-pee from an unfamiliar launching point. But please, please, don’t chose your president based on the promise of something different.
That’s what gave us Jimmy Carter. And we’re still living with that nightmare — even if a certain giant river bunny who took a presidential oar to the skull may not be.
There is something Queegy about the guy.
More Goldstein!! MORE!
I’m pretty sure the “rabbit done” lived.
As much as I hate to be a single issue voter, when it comes time to pull the lever in the General I will be doing so for the one least likely to betray the troops. Everything else is possible to change in the future, except another Vietnam type betrayal.
If it’s McCain, I will fortify myself with Booze first. If it’s Obama/Hillary, I may well take you up on the offer to try Meth.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=38804
Edwards throws in the towel. Proggs weep.
Well done, Jeff. I think those win-at-any-cost Republicans, and the why-can’t-we-all-get-along moderates are completely clueless about how much damage a McCain presidency can do. It’s potentially far worse than any Democrat in the office. With a Democrat there, the Republicans will put up at least token opposition to forays into socialism. With McCain there, they won’t.
Suck on it.
Seriously, if you feel the need commit suicide, PLEASE go right ahead.
[…] Goldstein, who gets the heart of the Constitutional disaster that a McCain presidency portends: “The McCain Mutiny.” (hat tip – HAheadlines) But I guess we’re all just suffering from “McCain Derangement […]
The rights of one man, standing alone, are just as valid as the same man standing in a crowd. But standing in a crowd does not negate those rights.
Is that Conny the Libarbarian.
Let’s wait until that ship has sailed first. From what I hear, Romney is still in the race. While I agree with Stephen Green that he looks like a giant penis (because he stands so upright and well… rigid), he is someone else besides McCain. There are plenty of primaries left and just a few months ago John McCain was begging for gas money for his bus. If he does get the nod, well just hold your nose and vote for him. After all 50% of what you want is better than 100% of what you don’t want.
So, what’s your choice, Jeff?
Mishu – I have to disagree. I say loose the Kraken. Seriously… fuck it. You want [insert euphamism for Socialism]? Fuck it! Here you go! I am tired of fighting for something “working Americans” just don’t care for any longer. Seriously. Here are the keys… you want to get drunk and drive like a turd? Have at it. You want to screw in your neighbors pool? Have at it. Go ahead, puke in the dryer! Someone else will clean it up. Seriously, have at it. the sooner we just give in to the desires of the New America crowd, the sooner I can quit my job and live on the dole. Bring on the Hildabeast!
Nope!We will never vote for McCain!let the Dems screw up the country.No difference between a Dem amnesty and a McCain and his crony Dr.Juan Hernandez amnesty.Good ole Juan is a Mexico first guy who used to work for Vicente Fox and believes illegal immigrants are the new pioneers in america at least that’s waht his book is titled and states.McCain’s gonna get clobbered in 08!
Hail Jeffie G.
how is ur health?
mishu Romney is unelectable.
I’ll probably go for a write-in candidate. I’m thinking maybe “The Good Parts from Hunter Thompson’s ashes” or some such.
And so you know, libarbarian, I think a vote for McCain IS suicide — just of the kind that’s longer and more drawn out. Like slow poisoning. Or maybe being drawn and quartered by stoned, giant tortoises.
Shit sandwich, or giant douche?
See there’s also events. Someone smart said that once. McCain is easily distracted by events cause they get so much media coverage. I think he might be a lot less formidable in any kind of game-changey way based on how wantony whorish he is. And also he very well could die cause he’s so old and crabby.
Look, we know now that primary voters always vote for the next guy in line. So Rudy & Mitt & Fred & Huck can all run again in 2012 and 2016 and they will be younger than McCain is now. Huckabee will still be younger in 2020. It´ll be great.
No, what scares me is the spectre of vice president Charlie Crist.
[…] not only because he has a liberal record and his hallmark legislation was 1) a blow to free speech (McCain-Feingold), 2) an attack on democracy and capitalism that enabled people like Hillary Clinton and Mr. Hsu to […]
36% McCain- get use to hearing it, so it wont be so raw in November.
On a side note:
If Romney would have campaigned in Florida on a platform of suspending the laws for people that owe back taxes, and moving them to the back of the IRS line, where they would at some later point get tested on the spanish language, and required to pay a $5000 fine (provided they were stupid enough to get caught not appling for one of several hundred exemptions) He would have won in a landslide because:
A) Florida is full of tax cheats.
B) Most Floridians speak enough spanish to pass a rudimentary government spanish language exam without any further study.
*****
There is your base… Good Luck.
Because of the Justices.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be drinking heavily.
Great to read you. I see we have zeroed in on the same phenomenon. Gandelman has perhaps the most misnamed blog in existence, which is saying a lot in a world that boasts ThinkProgress and AMERICAblog.
I see I have e-mail from you, but am unable to read it from my current location for some reason, so I’ll be in touch on that later.
Well, the truest conservative of the bunch actually withdrew last week so last night’s news out of Florida won’t cause me to rend my garments in grief today. I just can’t get on board with the whole “Goodbye Cruel World” dramarama of leaving the party and the election to souls less true than mine, etc. As St. Ronald once said, someone who agrees with me 80% of the time isn’t the enemy.
Here’s the thought experiment that wins me over every time I toy with it: I imagine the squids & zoomies in my life (that would be Navy and Air Force servicemen to any civilians unfamiliar with the lingo) having to salute the Commander-in-Chief Hillary Clinton… and I know I’ll find it REALLY easy to pull the lever for McCain.
(BTW, I can’t take credit for that image, it goes to Randall Hoven at the American Thinker – http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/hey_gop_cheer_up_chin_up.html)
Is it too early to start screaming about impeachment?
Can you impeach a guy who hasn’t even been nominated yet?
An Obama supporter phoned me last evening. He was a 64 yr. old man who spoke of “change”, “hope” and … “energy”.
Long story short?
He could not define his terms and the current Jihad is somehow the fault of Crusades past.
Idiocy knows no age.
I hate to say it, because McCain as nominee makes me want to hurl, but McCain is less likely to screw up national security than either Dem, and you absolutely cannot forget that during the next presidential term, we could replace a handful of Supremes.
The Dems will definitely stack the court with “living document” types; McCain might or might not.
Other than that, he’s just as bad as the Dems:
• Spend trillions to combat Global Warming? Check! (even as it snows in Baghdad and Jerusalem this year)
• Doesn’t know that cutting taxes stimulates the economy? Check!
• Open the borders and give instant amnesty? Check! (Viva Juan Hernandez!)
• Clamp down on free speech for our own good? Check!
• Considers the MSM his main constituency? Check!
• Hates the Republican Base and all it stands for? Check!
I’m in the Woodrow Wilson chapter in Liberal Fascism, and it’s remarkable how much McCain resembles him. Not totally, mind you, but more than any conservative should.
Like Jeff said:
“…McCain’s blundering, Messianic embrace of both statism and his own perceived rectitude, provides further proof of just what kind of Constitutional disaster a McCain presidency would bring  creating a great big sloppy muddle of centrist progressives whose commitment to Constitutional principles will always and inevitably be subsumed by their own notion of what is “right” and “fair”, to the point where the Constitution, should it stand in the way of such self-satisfied statist or emotionalist piety, must necessarily be circumvented. For the greater good, you understand.”
Sounds like Goldberg’s definition of a fascist to me.
Let’s look at the possibility of a McCain/Romney ticket (hey, George
the first and Reagan didn’t get along well, either). That old shit stain McCain croaks whilst in office: Romney takes the reins. Stranger things have happened….
JOHN MC CAIN … THE REPUBLICAN VERSION OF …HANOI JANE!
Oh. That should have been wantonly whorish. I think it would be cool and I would give money when in 2010 Republicans run for Congress pledging to “stand up to McCain.” That could be very healthy really. If McCain is still alive then anyway.
Kevin —
Substitute Thompson for Romney, and we’ll talk. It’s a damn shame that Ron Paul had to be the face of smaller government — and of a demonstrably foolish and dangerous foreign policy that is crowned by arrogantly asserted historical ignorance.
Next time we have a Ron Paul revolution, let it be headed by a guy who doesn’t hate him some Jews and Darkies, and who understands that shrinking the government doesn’t mean shrinking the powers of the CiC to conduct a war, even if we’ve long since given up officially declaring them.
“drawn and quartered by stoned, giant tortoises” has a nice ring to it. I’m going with that.
But, seriously: if it’s Clinton vs. McCain, do you really not care all that much?
I’ll be busy waffling between the occupant of the Oval Office being of paramount importance, and It Just Doesn’t Matter, until I hear back from you. And then maybe a little past that.
Can you write in Winston Churchill? I mean, he is a foreign national and all.
And dead, too. I keep forgetting that part.
Oh, look. The anti-McCainiacs are in full bloom.
I’m not a huge John McCain fan, but comments like this are despicable lies. Unless by Hanoi Jane, he’s alluding to McCain-Feingold in some hallucinogen-enhanced fashion.
“But, seriously: if it’s Clinton vs. McCain, do you really not care all that much?”
When you look behind the curtain, I just don’t see that much of a difference. The same money is backing them both.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004026.php
Slart —
Without psychologizing too much, I think that Hillary would remain just as strong on terror as McCain, even if she shades her public pronouncements differently. After all, we’re not hearing nearly so much about the quagmire in Iraq these days, and that ain’t because Tom Cruise made some scientology videos.
Hillary is shrewd, calculating, manipulative, and the consumate political animal. She’s a true progressive at heart, but first and foremost she’s a politician, and to her, I think, winning is everything. Which means she could be — and I emphasize COULD be — pragmatic in office. McCain is concerned with nothing so much as bucking convention — and often does so just to show how willing he is to do it.
That’s my sense, anyway. Add to that his statist strain and his overdetermined belief in his own righteousness, and you have a real danger.
For me, like others, the WoT is one of my top priorities. My suspicion is, Hillary wouldn’t deviate much from the current course. Rather, she’d simply reframe it to take ownership. Which leaves me with my primary concern: judges. And as with Pablo, this is the biggest stumbling block I have to voting my conscience, rather than holding my nose and pulling the lever for McCain.
In the end, though, having watched Bush try to sell Harriet as a conservative justice, and floating the idea that Gonzales could make a good pick — I’m almost to the point where I’d just as soon have my “political” justices nominated by Democrats.
Still time left to get Janice Rogers Brown onto the High Court, though. With the right set of circumstances. Sure would take a load off my mind.
I just love those ads which portray Shrillary as the soft spoken compassionate candidate of the people..Sigh…………
It’s just an actuarial thing. Not something I wish for, just to be clear. Presidents who stop breathing in office get remembered way better than they should. You just gotta figure all that suffering he suffered knocked some years of life expectancy off. Or maybe it’s not like that, I dunno really.
It sure is a pleasure to read this, Jeff.
I don’t sit out elections – too many people gave their lives to win the privilege for me. That said, I doubt that my ‘Think Harrison, (Bill, not Ben) Vote McCain’ strategy will be effective.
You haven’t been reading Gandelman lately I take it. He’s gone full on kook left. One of his co-bloggers actually told me the other day that Joe Lieberman isn’t a moderate, he’s a neocon.
“I imagine the squids & zoomies in my life (that would be Navy and Air Force servicemen to any civilians unfamiliar with the lingo) having to salute the Commander-in-Chief Hillary Clinton… and I know I’ll find it REALLY easy to pull the lever for McCain.”
Absolutely agreed. I’m convinced that promoting a Democratic presidency by not voting for McCain, no matter how repugnant one finds the act, is placing my jarhead son and his fellow marines in tangible jeopardy.
McCain is no friend to the military, his support of John Kerry and the Winter Soldier brigade of the Swifties is proof. He is a walking temper tantrum who, in my opinion, is mentally unstable. He can’t win without lying, distorting or lobbing personal attacks whether it is robo calls telling Cuban-Hispanics that Romney hearts Castro, or lying about Romney supporting abortion and gay marriage. And today he is saying Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, which is untrue. Romney did not inherit his fortune, he earned it. His father didn’t even have a college education and worked his way up in the auto industry to head American Motors and then turned to government service, where you don’t amass fortunes unless you are dirty, and Romney wasn’t. McCain, on the other hand, dumped an invalid wife to marry a younger and RICH one. Plus Mitt put $17 million into his own campaign, yet has still raised more money outside that initial investment than all the rest of the Republican candidates.
Romney will take most of the Rocky Mountain states and do well in those that split delegates. Afterall, McCain isn’t winning by a landslide anywhere. He’ll come into the Convention with a hefty number of delegates even if he doesn’t have as many as McCain and can be a player. It isn’t over by a long shot. Still depressing though.
“McCain is concerned with nothing so much as bucking convention  and often does so just to show how willing he is to do it.”
And wouldn’t it be quite the feather in McCain’s cap to appoint a liberal justice. He would probably call it macaroni.
“That’s what gave us Jimmy Carter. And we’re still living with that nightmare”
Agreed. And to my mind, Obama IS Jimmy Carter, except maybe farther to the left and lighter in heft. Do you really think McCain is a worse option than that? And I am asking in terms of the war on Islamic fundamentalism, which I consider the bottom line. Obama’s already on record saying he’d get our troops out of Iraq ASAP. We could (barely) afford Jimmy Carter in 1976 — can we afford him now?
McCain is no friend to the military, his support of John Kerry and the Winter Soldier brigade of the Swifties is proof.
This sentence should read:
McCain is no friend to the military, his support of John Kerry and the Winter Soldier brigade and his trashing of the Swifties is proof.
“Without psychologizing too much, I think that Hillary would remain just as strong on terror as McCain, even if she shades her public pronouncements differently. After all, we’re not hearing nearly so much about the quagmire in Iraq these days, and that ain’t because Tom Cruise made some scientology videos.
Hillary is shrewd, calculating, manipulative, and the consumate political animal. She’s a true progressive at heart, but first and foremost she’s a politician, and to her, I think, winning is everything. Which means she could be  and I emphasize COULD be  pragmatic in office. McCain is concerned with nothing so much as bucking convention  and often does so just to show how willing he is to do it.”
I agree with all that. It’s not Hillary I’m worried about.
Re: McCain
I can hardly wait for McCain to jump on the White House intercom come January 2009….
“This is the Captain speaking! Some misguided swabbies on this ship still think they can pull a fast one on me. Well, they’re very much mistaken. Since you’ve taken this course, the innocent will be punished with the guilty. There will be no liberty for any member of the White House staff for three months. I will not be made a fool of! Do you hear me? And I KNOW who took the frozen strawberries from the Oval Office icebox! I KNOW who made a duplicate key! You hear me? I’VE GOT YOUR NUMBER, YOU MUTINOUS BASTARDS!!!”
“Absolutely agreed. I’m convinced that promoting a Democratic presidency by not voting for McCain, no matter how repugnant one finds the act, is placing my jarhead son and his fellow marines in tangible jeopardy.”
Thanks for saying it so much better and more concisely than I.
I got the chance to ask McCain about his comments about the Swiftees on Monday. He said that his objection was to the first ad, which focused on Kerry’s combat record. He said he had no problems with the Swiftees’ and POWs for Truth’s later ads which focused on Kerry’s conduct after he came home. He felt the criticism of Kerry regarding his odious testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was absolutely legit and that he agreed with it. I went back and looked at the first ad, and sure enough it focused on the Purple Hearts and other medals. We know that the Swiftees had a good case, but I can see McCain’s point.
If Obama tried to bring home the troops immediately, and the result was a cry out from Iraq to please not desert them — complete with active soldiers protesting the decision — how well do you think that will play for the Champion of Change?
In one fell swoop, his first decision could destabilize a region slowly gaining stability, negate the sacrifices made by American soldiers, and give a vocal victory to jihadists and their supporters.
Think maybe his advisors could backtrack on this a bit once the same dupes who believed Pelosi and Reid put him into office?
Just thinking aloud here.
Mishu,
I held my nose and voted for Dole in “96 (and Dole was likeable) and I am not doing it again! I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!!! My principles, unlike McCain’s, aren’t for sale. As far as the “1/2 a loaf is better than no loaf” line of thinking is concerned, who says we’d get half a loaf with McCain? His whole campaign strategy has been “I was for The Surge and I am not Hillary”. I need more than that. I’ll trust in God and live with the President who broke the highest glass ceiling.
Yep. I would submit this as Article 1 in presenting my case that there will be, no matter who the R candidate is, a Democrat in the WH in a little less than a year from today. Yeah, Hillary turns off a striking number of people in this country across the entire poitical spectrum. But she wiil get the nom, alas. Barry, after seeing his inability to garner enough delegates, will accept Hill’s veep slot. This will mollify the independents enough to get her elected primarily because once the noms are made and The Maverick gets it from the R’s, the press will turn against him so fast the air vortices from the change in press coverage from “fawning” to “vicious” might even slow the Earth’s rotation for a few seconds.
Even in the unlikely event Barry gets the nod, the press will react precisely the same and it will be crothety, old “Maverick” vs. shiny, changey, new “Messiah.”
Too young to remember the Keating Five? No worries, the MSM will get you up to speed. Daily.
“Say it!” indeed.
I’m voting against Obama, so I’ll vote McCain if I have to.. and I’ll have to, I have no doubt.
Forgive an old Brit for going slightly off-topic, but aren’t you now in this position (facing a restricted field of candidates winnowed to exclude some obviously highly popular candidates (FRED!) by a tiny minority of states) because of a highly arcane and strange primary system?
Wouldn’t it be better for all voters to get a chance to vote for their prefered candidate – by running a single nationwide election, rather than this bizarre retail politics marathon, where the process itself seems to interfere in the outcome?
“Think maybe his advisors could backtrack on this a bit once the same dupes who believed Pelosi and Reid put him into office?”
I would hope so, but I’m leery of taking the chance with the stakes so high, particulary when either Hillary or McCain are much more likely to at least hold the line and maintain status quo.
Obama can’t bring the troops home immediately, unless he really does have supernatural powers. The only thing a new President can do immediately is start redefining immediate.
“I think that Hillary would remain just as strong on terror as McCain,”
only so long as it was expedient to her.
never doubt that bilary will throw the troops under a train inna heartbeat if they feel it will benefit them.
Sandy Berger is advisin bilary’s campaign as we speak….an likely will be nat’l sec advisor if she’s elected.
i actually think Obama wud be better for the mil than bilary. i expect he will listen to their recommendations without an eye to the main chance.
consider….if bilary gets in they will cling to power with a death grip…..they have been plannin a return to the white house for 8 years.
everything they do will be focused on gettin that second term.
“Wouldn’t it be better for all voters to get a chance to vote for their prefered candidate – by running a single nationwide election, rather than this bizarre retail politics marathon, where the process itself seems to interfere in the outcome?”
Probably. Unfortunately the big problem is a profoundly uneducated electorate, if the people were smart enough to realize how fucked we are, then the current system would work just fine.
Who here is willing to risk handing a strategic battlefield victory to Al Quaeda by sitting home and letting Hillary or Obama get the Presidency? To piss on the graves of the KIA and the sacrifice of the wounded? Our guys finally manage to pull out a win over there and some of you want to trash that with your vote. From this combat vet, fuck you very much.
I’d rather open a vein, but I’ll vote for McCain. If I have to.
Anybody that thinks that coddling terrorists is “supporting the troops” really needs to reevaluate things. Mac will close Gitmo and give the terrorists full rights. He will hobble the troops with ridiculous ROEs and ban any interogation that does not include scheduled tea-time. He will not listen to the Generals because he’s the “War Hero” here dammit!
Does he have his teeth I wonder. You figure the Vietnamese probably didn’t let him have a Sonicare or whatever. On NPR last night David Brooks was going down on McCain with an enthusiasm that he hardly ever shows about anything. I wanted to call in and just see if he needed a tissue, but I really wasn’t that concerned if I’m honest about it, and he would have probably been embarassed.
“If Obama tried to bring home the troops immediately, and the result was a cry out from Iraq to please not desert them  complete with active soldiers protesting the decision  how well do you think that will play for the Champion of Change?”
well said.
bilary is motivated by pure elemental ambition.
i get the sense Obama will at least try to do the right thing.
“i get the sense Obama will at least try to do the right thing.”
Like keep his campaign promise?
wow…..i lurvs happyfeet.
a wunnerful addition to this comment deme.
it depends on the defn. of ASAP, doesnt it?
if we have a mutual protection treaty with Iraq he wont be able to do much.
“Wouldn’t it be better for all voters to get a chance to vote for their prefered candidate..”
jefferson didnt think so.
nishizonoshinji I’m really glad you came back I should have said before. Also, just to say it just in case I missed it earlier, I think it’s important to say it’s ok and no one will judge you if you don’t want to give points to someone for not wanting to lose a war. We used to could take that for granted, well at least my Dad used to could. And I bet McCain and Hagel are super best friends.
“If Obama tried to bring home the troops immediately, and the result was a cry out from Iraq to please not desert them  complete with active soldiers protesting the decision  how well do you think that will play for the Champion of Change?â€Â
Rather well, since the press has to report said outcry and isn’t inclined to do so.
zmog!
kk..happyfeet…..have u considered that praps Mccain was inpointoffact teabagging david brooks as a result of his absolute pwnage of the republican nomination?
that wud be more in character.
;)
Can someone please explain to me how a man completely out of touch with the world for 6 years while held prisoner amassed some credentials that qualify him to be president? Seems to me he is suffering more from Stockholm syndrome, at least when it comes to terrorists, than some kind of super secret qualifications.
And if you are tired of having Bush called dumb even when his GPA was higher than his opponents, then get ready when they get around to McCain. Take a look at his academic record compared to Hillary, Obama or Romney’s, which is outstanding. He is dumb. His only weapon is lying or distorting, or personal attacks that include the lies and distortions. He’s a dumbass. Not just disloyal and self-centered.
McCain versus Hillary?
Not even close, no matter how it’s spun.
I’ll hold my nose and vote for the Senator from Arizona, cause I’ll be DAMNED if I’ll stay at home and by my inaction help the Senator from New York.
Has any Dem or GOP presidential nominee ever received less than a plurality in all the state primaries / caucuses and won the nomination?
Doesn’t such a nominee risk dismembering his party?
McCain — not a uniter!
‘If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.â€Â
“If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.†Robert Heinlien
Actually Brooks did have what you could tell he thought was an amusing little anecdote about how a few months ago McCain had dinner with the national press covering his campaign and … Brooks was the only one!!! So they had dinner together. Ha. Cute story. And I’d point out that it also makes Brooks look dazzlingly prescient.
56, B Moe,
I think you’ve hit it on the head. I’ve got a sawbuck that says even in the still-unlikely event that Obama were to waltz into the Oval Orifice, he’d quickly find a way to “adjust” his campaign promises (such as they are). He’s presumably smart enough to realize that if he screws the proverbial presidential pooch when it comes to foreign affairs, domestic policy–or both–then the “first black President” will likely be the last for a very, very long time to come.
What is more, 2010 ain’t that far off so (Saints Preserve Us!) if Obama presides over one or more domestic and foreign policy disasters, the Donks will be facing an wipeout of biblical proportions in the off-year elections. What goes around, comes around.
Let’s all pray we don’t come to the above scenario, but “facts is facts.” Hell if you think “BDS” is bad, just wait for the “ODS” (Obama Derangement Syndrome) that will rapidly surface in the Barackster’s own party after he gets his incoming briefings, realizes what he’s dealing with, and then glumly tells the Democrat base in that “clean and articulate” manner we’ve all come to know and love….
“Y’know all that stuff I said before the election? Fuhgeddabowdit.”
Are you a supporter of Israel? Then read this:
Via NRO and Atlas Shrugs:
“if we have a mutual protection treaty with Iraq he wont be able to do much.”
The Dems (with the help of NPR, etc) are putting on a full court press to prevent this from happening. The most Bush can do is make a mutual defense agreement — for something to be a treaty it has to be approved by a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
from the Senate website:
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
A write-in vote is still a vote, Scott Free. So my inclination to vote for Hunter Thompson’s better ashes frees me of Heinlienian scorn-by-proxy.
Plus, if my candidate somehow wins, everyone gets ludes!
Thank you, nishi, for the happiest comment on the thread. This will be Dubya’s legacy. Can he manage to not leave it to one knucklehead or another to destroy?
That, at least, would be reassuring.
The real problem here isn’t McCain, he is at least consistently McCain & we all know what we’ll probably get… more of the same. Most will probably blame Bush, but truthfully he has had his hands full just keeping the coalition & the war fronts managed (or mismanaged depending upon your perspective for the first few years) & has spent all of his political clout supporting the surge.
Nope, the real reason we are here today is solely the responsibility of the Republicans in both houses & their spending frenzy. It is their own mismanagement of their image, their lack of fiscal self control, their lack of faith to their purported beliefs that lost the majority & is tarnishing any acceptable candidate today.
Sure you can kick the sand & blame the media for not reporting the truth regarding Obama’s lack of experience or Hillary’s lack of experience, true beliefs (unheralded socialism) or questionable aka totally illegal, campaign financing, but the truth is that the reason we are in this mess is our own damn fault.
Do you honestly think non-politically inclined people are really going to trust this bunch again w/o being freshly reminded what a Clinton/ Carter-light Presidency looks like? What the hell do you think is fueling Obama’s victories? Maybe it has to do w/ the fact he isn’t Republican – or what is perceived to be Republican now-a-days – or a Clinton, hence the young vote.
Have we forgotten that politics is about image & perception… & not fact? Because the fact is we are running 3 candidates whose public image sucks. We have McCain – a war hero, Scrooge Mc Duck without the personality; Romney – a rich, overly straight laced, white guy, who I’d love as a neighbor or my banker, but not my Commander in Chief or Huckabee – an Evangelical, used car salesman.
The only comforting thought about 2008 is that most people flat out hate Hillary & our Congress members seem to be able to accomplish stuff when they are the minority & have to fight tooth & nail.
We don’t need another Reagan, for his efforts would be wasted on this bunch, we just need some politicians who’ll do their jobs!
Thank you Jeff for giving an eloquent voice to the muddle of misery that I feel about McCain!
My family could not believe how angry I was last night after the MSM announced the McCain victory. As absurd as it feels it would be better for Hillary to win than McCain. What a fucking disaster that maniac will be. I mean McCain.
“if we have a mutual protection treaty with Iraq he wont be able to do much.
Thank you, nishi, for the happiest comment on the thread. This will be Dubya’s legacy.”
That’s just it — it WONT be a treaty, unless Bush can get a 2/3 vote in a Democratic-controlled Senate.
There is something Queegy about the guy.
Best description of McCain, ever. I sense a Quote of the Day…
And yes, I’ll vote… a write in for Hunter. Look at the election so far, how many non-aligned delegates have been chosen so far? Almost 100? That says something about the election this year. Look for the lowest turnout in general election history this November.
docob,
No, it won’t be an actual treaty, but it doesn’t need to be, just as this isn’t an actual war. But he can enter a binding mutual cooperation agreement. The terminology is somewhat semantic.
I do find myself fantasizing about a Petraeus write in. Because of the suspension of disbelief.
Fox just showed a new ad that shows Hillary’s face thruout and lists all the liberal positions until the very end when it flashes and tells you that the ad is really talking about McCain. I need a link. Does anyone have it yet?
Pablo — my qualm is that a “binding mutual cooperation agreement” may be less tamper-proof than a treaty, and the NPR report I listened to the other day led me to believe that to be the case. IIRC, successive administrations historically tend to honor these agreements, but they aren’t as binding.
How ’bout a Romney/Petraeus ticket?
The real problem here isn’t McCain…
I think that’s as good an essay prompt as I’ve seen lately. McCain’s an opportunist and as much a creation of the media as he is a creature of it. It’s not like he thought up this whole McCain thing by himself.
… as binding as a treaty, that is.
I think the best we can hope for right now is McCain/Rudy, or maybe McCain/Steele.
I don’t think I could vote McCain/Huckabee, even vs. Obama.
The thing is anyone who ran with McCain would be tainted after. It’s not like getting cast opposite Tom Cruise where you can just shake it off and say it was a good paycheck. I hate the idea of giving someone permission to pretend he’s all jiggy with McCain and then letting that just slide later.
Jeff,
I’ve got almost as many reservations re: McCain as do you, but at the point where you’re not even going to give him props for bucking the trend re: leaning toward a precipitous Iraq pullout, then you’re writing at far below your usual level. The fact is that, prior to the success of the surge, the Democratic presidential candidates were competing with each other to see who could be most vocal opponent of the war and the Republicans (except for McCain) were just trying to avoid the subject. The need to avoid a cut and run scenario in Iraq is something that you yourself have spoken to very effectivly and here you won’t even give the time of day to a candidate who was willing to risk his whole campaign on this very point. Further, saying that you’ll write someone in is bullshit because write in = Hillary. And if you think that Hillary is going to show any greater Constitutional fealty than McCain than you’ve really lost it.
J. Brenner, was he really supporting the surge or was he just trying to stab Bush (and Rumsfield) in the back? I think it the latter.
Christopher, McCain as Captain Queeg isn’t exactly new.
The point of quotes is that they condense an idea or principle into an easily memorable and brief statement. For example the idea of something being the same no matter what you call it wasn’t exactly new when Shakespeare wrote “A rose is a rose.” It’s quotable because of how it says it.
I could understand dislike or apathy. It’s the vehemence I’m having trouble understanding.
McCain has disappointed me in several ways, as has Bush, as have most politicians. Rudy didn’t, but he’s out of the race.
Maybe I’m a pollyanna, but I’m really surprised by all of this anger from so many of you.
J Brenner–
Giving McCain credit for holding the same position as Christopher Hitchens or Joe Lieberman or Ron Silver or Gene Simmons or George Bush or me is one thing. Allowing him to parlay that position into the Republican nomination for President is another thing entirely.
Besides. People forget that McCain was calling for more troops in Afghanistan, as well — a huge ground force. That’s his answer to everything, and it makes him look muscular on foreign policy. But the devil is in the details: why send more troops if the result is to capture enemy combatants and then give them Geneva protections? To what end?
I am a strong proponent of the neocon strategy for combatting Islamic fanaticism. But I’m also committed to the Constitution — and I’m not convinced McCain is. And I simply won’t cast my vote for someone who I don’t believe will uphold the Constitution, even if it means that someone ELSE who may not uphold the Constitution comes to power. That’s on those who voted for him/her, not me.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think a Democratic President would dare mess with Iraq right now — all their prior condemnations to the contrary. Judges are the only saving grace for McCain. And given where he is on immigration, AGW, Gitmo, and “torture,” I’m not confident we’d see a conservative put up. More likely, it will be a conservative that Dems agree ahead of time that they can live with — more “compromise” and “reaching across the aisle” that in effect is nothing more than capitulation disguised as fence mending.
It’s not anger I don’t think. It’s disgust. Like vehement disgust. Cause he’s so dirty and stupid and media whorey and old in that way that you know he smells weird. It would be like the Republicans nominated Daniel Schorr except more pompous.
“And Romney didn’t dump an invalid wife in favor of a younger, rich one either.”
wow, this is Hillarious!
way to go, Sara. Vote for Clinton and Intact Marriages.
anyone who thinks Rumsfield was a friend of the troops…yikes.
I’ll buy that McCain shows signs of Goldwater overreach and should be defeated by a Democrat..but let’s not defend the failure of Rumsfield’s winning the war and then losing the peace in Iraq. That war has been lost and will always be a losing proposition for the USA. Stagflation and evisceration of the Economy are the results. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/29/feingold-iraq-is-eviscerating-our-economy/
Wow you sure make some broad assumptions with this dumb statement:
“And Romney didn’t dump an invalid wife in favor of a younger, rich one either.â€Â
wow, this is Hillarious!
way to go, Sara. Vote for Clinton and Intact Marriages.
anyone who thinks Rumsfield was a friend of the troops…yikes.
I’m comparing McCain and his charge that Romney is a legacy rich guy and not one who went out and earned his fortune. I was also debating whether McCain does anything that isn’t based in self-interest and said nothing about whether Rumsfield was right or wrong.
I wouldn’t vote for spite. My vote for notMcain will be in good faith.
“Here’s the thing. I don’t think a Democratic President would dare mess with Iraq right now  all their prior condemnations to the contrary.”
I hope you are right, as odds are still that we will see a Democrat elected this November. I think we’ll be better off with Hillary if that comes to pass. At least she’s a known quantity. Obama’s a cipher, and now’s not the time to cross our fingers and take a blind leap.
It’s not anger I don’t think. It’s disgust. Like vehement disgust. Cause he’s so dirty and stupid and media whorey and old in that way that you know he smells weird. It would be like the Republicans nominated Daniel Schorr except more pompous.
Well, like I said, I don’t understand it.
I fear we’re headed for another 8 years of hatred, and I see it coming from this side this time. And I don’t want it.
Hit the bong again, DD. Then go ask Iraqis if they think it’s been lost. Idiot.
What would help was some evidence that this incontinent old man can return the Republicans to the majority. For real coattails. I might could defer to that, since it would mean there was more than a power-hungy geezer at work here, but I don’t think he really cares about that. Probably hasn’t occurred to him.
Well it is official. Guiliani just endorsed McCain, with McCain now speaking. I think I’m going to go be sick.
J. Brenner, was he really supporting the surge or was he just trying to stab Bush (and Rumsfield) in the back? I think it the latter.
nah, Rumsfield? stabbed in the back….seems like McCain’s surge was the only smart thing going….apparently he advocated the ‘surge’ before anyone on the Bush Administration did. Not to support McCain or anything…. you seemed to take the younger wife thing real personal too.
this is a Republican fight. I see little difference between Romney or McCain as to personal rights, In fact, Romney’s seeming endorsement of waterboarding for example is downright creepy.
Yeah, datadave, ask the Iraqis if it is lost, ask the troops that McCain is supposed to support if they think Iraq is lost. Ask al-Qaeda if they think Iraq is lost, oh that’s right, Osama already said that Iraq was lost – to them.
Guiliani endorsed Bernard Kerik too. Greasy tool. Probably just figures he might as well place his bets with the MSM candidate and go back to his Miss America handwaving act, thanking his lucky stars for Osama bin Laden and laughing all the way to the bank.
If the people of this Republican Party were really concerned with what was best for the troops, I really doubt they would be trying to give us a nominee that so many people can’t abide, on the hope that we’d crawl over hot coals and broken glass to vote against Senator Cankle.
They’ve vastly overestimated the power of Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Phooey, DD, while McCain was windbagging, Petraeus was busy writing his plan over at the War College. It was that plan that was followed, McCain only talked it up because he knew it put the bayonet to Rumsfield.
What would help was some evidence that this incontinent old man can return the Republicans to the majority. For real coattails. I might could defer to that, since it would mean there was more than a power-hungy geezer at work here, but I don’t think he really cares about that. Probably hasn’t occurred to him.
If the Republicans had actually done a good job when they had the majority, I would find this to be a better bar to set for McCain.
OK. I see how it’s going to be.
let’s not defend the failure of Rumsfield’s winning the war and then losing the peace in Iraq. That war has been lost and will always be a losing proposition for the USA. Stagflation and evisceration of the Economy are the results.
I see datadave is back to rewriting history, except he is now not waiting for it to actually become history. He is just doing so as it happens. An interpretative fact set, if you will.
And mostly the Republicans that sucked hard were the ones in the Senate. That is not a Larry Craig joke.
If the Republicans had actually done a good job when they had the majority, I would find this to be a better bar to set for McCain.
Because the dems have done so much better, right?
I won’t vote for a figurehead.
I reckon staying home puts an undeniable socialist in the oval office – not just somebody so sure of his rightness on all things (like free speech, sovereignty, and the importance of keeping friends solvent with taxpayer money…) and business will take measures immediately and as effectively as they can to protect their assets.
Elect the Angry Guy… and people will continue to hope that it won’t be all that bad, and end up getting caught out.
Hate? MDS? No. Fuck no. This is POLICY. I want to vote for a Republican running on a Republican platform. That option does not exist if McCain is on the ticket. Playing soundbites over and over where McCain mentions Reagan and says the word “conservative” repeatedly is green screen technology for a panderer.
I’m not voting for the lesser of two evils. I’m not voting for an evil, period.
The national party could come out of this with some sort of benefit if they disavow McCain. But that won’t happen. So into the Seventies we meekly go, until the hurting gets bad enough we fix what is broken.
MayBee. I’m sorry. Just give me til after Super Tuesday. I’ll either fix myself or go back to spending more time on like other things.
“That’s what gave us Jimmy Carter. And we’re still living with that nightmare”
and Craigs C in the last post:
“I do not like McCain. I understand that a McCain presidency has a potential to be disastrous. But I have yet to see a convincing argument that a Clinton or Obama presidency wouldn’t be far more disastrous. ”
A nightmare we’re still living? Disaster? Reagan and Bush I had some policies I didn’t care for. But Nightmarish disaster? Oh, the humanity!
Let’s face it: all of these matchups are Kodos vs. Kang. Is living in the US really a nightmare because of Carter, Bush Clinton or Reagan? Unless you’re and out-out-of-touch with reality politico, no. This is actually the best humans have lived ever. Bush has done some of the most radical things of any post WWII pres as far as foreign policy and executive power go – but living a nightmare? Come on.
MayBee – I change my thoughts on voting for McCain, or not voting at all, nearly every day. In the end, he is not entitled to my vote just because I tend to be conservative. He has to earn it, and his history has not yet laid out a roadmap that I would be willing to follow. Maybe he will make some changes, MayBee.
So far, my decision actually tends to depend on who the Dems run. If Hill/Bill wins, there is not much difference between McCain and Hillary, and if we are going to go down that path, I would almost prefer a Dem to be at the wheel. But, if Barry is nominated, he could be such a catastrophically bad President, that I would likely vote for McCain, in protest.
Bush has done some of the most radical things of any post WWII pres as far as foreign policy and executive power go
Such as …. ?
rawr.
m’schelle is gonna vote for bilary.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/30/michelle-tells-glenn-beck-i-wont-vote-for-mccain-over-hillary/
…spending more time on like other things until I fix myself I mean. In the part of my head that went to college and stuff I know for sure that McCain is just a symptom of the media’s will to power thing. It’s just so sad is all.
Did Fred Barnes just say McCain will win Utah. What is he smoking?
nooooooooooooooooo
i like happyfeet zactly the way it is. run away maybee.
;)
There are a lot of people on here whose opinion I really respect, but this not voting for McCain = a vote for a Dem is patent BS, and beneath all of you. McCain is not entitled to even 1 person’s votes. Each and every one he has to earn from the electorate. To suggest that a not-vote is actually a vote is a tedious and juvenile argument best Left on the Left.
Michelle is a little excitable. I try to pitch my invective and stuff to hit just the right note where you don’t notice I never say I won’t vote for him. Wait. It kinda sounds like Michelle is doing the same thing really.
MayBee – I change my thoughts on voting for McCain, or not voting at all, nearly every day.
Not voting for McCain is fine with me. I understand not wanting to vote for someone, and I certainly understand that a candidate has to earn your vote. I feel the same way about Romney.
I just really don’t understand the depth of the dislike. He’s evil! Impeach!
It seems very Olbermann-esque to me. And I love you guys, so it bothers me.
I don’t think I could ever accept a Hillary person representing this country and be like thinking that that had somehow been for the best. I can’t make that make sense at all really.
I just really don’t understand the depth of the dislike. He’s evil! Impeach!
It seems very Olbermann-esque to me. And I love you guys, so it bothers me.
I do not think that I have reached that point with him. I am more like perpetually frustrated that he tends to put himself ahead of the issue, party, or President.
The panel on Brit’s show just made a point. They are saying that with Rudy campaigning next to McCain, the South will be more in play. So, will they go with Huck or will they go with someone they think can win such as Romney?
McCain only talked it up because he knew it put the bayonet to Rumsfield
okay. we’ll win the war in a fantasy. But when and how? What do you see as the future of Iraq? I am trying to figure how anyone, Dem or Repub can get out w/o some longterm costs to our already overextended budgets and military. Do you see a “peace dividend”tm anywhere in this victory scenario?
So far the Iraqi’s want to join with Iran it seems and jettison the US except for the govt of Iraq who’s corrupt ministers are buying Mercedes with the money derived from their position ala Chalabi et al.
Well, steve Bush has presided over one of the most tumultuous times in American history, so there is that. But, I agree that was a bit of hyperbole.
I have no idea what I’m gonna do. JRR Tolkien as a write-in, maybe?
I don’t think I could ever accept a Hillary person representing this country and be like thinking that that had somehow been for the best.
I can’t think of that for any of the candidates now running.
Let’s face it: all of these matchups are Kodos vs. Kang.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!
So far the Iraqi’s want to join with Iran it seems and jettison the US except for the govt of Iraq who’s corrupt ministers are buying Mercedes with the money derived from their position ala Chalabi et al.
Are you completely nuts?
And as to what is at stake, take a look at a damm map. The one thing I do agree with McCain about is a need for a large permanent base in Iraq. It is in our best interest. Also in the Iraqi interest, but mostly it is in our best strategic interest.
The Anbar Awakening had nothing to do with the central Iraqi government, neither did Diyala or Falujah. Where are you getting this stuff, DD?
So will McCain get booed at CPAC? Or are conservatives to polite for their own good?
What, do you suffer from McKang Derangement Syndrome!!?
The one thing I do agree with McCain about is a need for a large permanent base in Iraq. It is in our best interest. Also in the Iraqi interest, but mostly it is in our best strategic interest.
oh, good. You pay for it. I want my money back.
Armbar awakening….some sort of mma*
mixed martial arts?
i think relying on a bunch of small mulahs and mujahideen types as allies with a future?….oh, I better wait for my social security check. They’ll get it before I will.
#120 Steve, those are called expressions. You should check into them.
McCain’s vp choice is really way way a lot more important than it actually is. Mostly cause that’s the only thing between now and November you can actually believe.
And JD, maybe you could explain to me how “Republicans not voting will only help elect a Democrat” is a tedious and juvenile argument.
You’re voting Democrat, and expect a social security check at the end of the day, DataDave?
Heh. Now that’s a gas.
You’d be better off suing for a job at Hooter’s, then getting on Teddy K’s good side. I hear he tips pretty well if you flash him a nipple.
I will proudly vote for Sen. John McCain for President if he wins the Republican nomination, ditto for Gov. Mitt Romney.
Both, as men, as politicains, are decent enough in judgement to lead this country.
I can’t say the same for Billary Clinton. They aren’t decent humans. The Billary is a medusa of pure self-serving ambition.
For me, end of debate.
Also, my understanding has been that if McCain is nominated Bloomberg stays out. That says all you need to know about McCain really.
thor, I don’t get why you can’t save that til he actually gets the nomination. It just seems gratuitously firm-jawed and stalwart at this point.
The Billary is a medusa of pure self-serving ambition.
What is the male of “medusa” because that is exactly how I see John McCain.
It’s a tedious and juvenile argument, Craig, because it puts an obligation on Republicans to vote for whomever it is the GOP nominates. It puts party over principle.
There are most certainly times to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. But again, if one believes McCain to be the worst of two evils (in the long term), then NOT voting actually helps McCain. Because if those folks who believe that way, even though they frequently vote Republican, pulled the lever, it might not be for McCain. Which is a vote for someone else, rather than an abstention.
Going by my calculus, at least.
@ Sara, vis-a-vis your comment #70:
Wild guess: no-one you love ever elected to place his(her) life on the line for love of the United States of America.
So far the Iraqi’s want to join with Iran it seems and jettison the US
Well, I DID tell DD to hit the bong again and I see he took my advice.
“Are you completely nuts?”
Sara, completely. The nuttiest of all the nuts that have embedded themselves here at PW in the past 2 years, imo. Think Alphie, but takes himself seriously. Yikes.
McCain take Utah?
If he does, start shipping sweaters to hell, ‘cuz they’ll need ’em.
MayBee, I think some of the anger over McCain has to do with the fact that we’ve been on this awful roller-coaster the past few months, first with RINO Huckster taking Iowa, then with the actually conservative candidates dropping out (Thompson, Hunter), then with RINO McCain’s unexpected surge, then with Rudy tanking in Florida.
None of us knows where these votes for such obvious RINOs are coming from. Heck, none of us knows anyone who voted for
Nixonthem, so it feels like a two-by-four to the back of the head. Not hard enough to knock you cold, but hard enough to piss you off really bad.Things are spinning out of control, like we’re heading toward the falls and the only boats available have no motor to power us out of the current. It’s much easier to rail against McCain than against millions of fellow Republicans, who don’t read the blogs or listen to talk radio, so they’re not on the same page as we are at all.
But maybe when word gets out about Juan Hernandez, people will take a second look.
Putting party before pincipal is a lot like working in marketing really. I’m kind of ok with that, cause there’s a whole lot of this being America thing that just isn’t my responsibility at the end of the day. The whole poker on tv thing. And the idea that I would ever order anything called a “wet burrito.” Gack.
That was me misspelling principle right there just in case you missed that.
There is a saying: loyalty above everything except honor. Ask yourself if you think McCain has been either been loyal or honorable? Republicans are not going to touch McCain’s POW years, but to think the dems won’t is foolish. Just as they managed to find Vets to speak for Kerry, they will find those who will have some negative things to say about McCain’s honor. Will it be fair, no it won’t, but it will happen. It is the only strength he has right now with Repubs, so to think the dems won’t attack on that front is hopelessly naive. There are enough anecdotal stories about McCain for them to do the damage. Just look at some of the junk in this thread about losing in Iraq.
And the conventional wisdom has always been that a nonvote is a vote for the opposition, not exactly a uninformed opinion.
OT, but it did make me smile after all of this gloom. I walk into our play room with 2 ounces of a golden elixer called Balvenie Doublewood in my right hand and my beautiful 2 year old looks up at me with gigantic sparkling dark brown eyes and asks, “Is that you scotch, daddy?”. Oh well, it made my night.
But again, if one believes McCain to be the worst of two evils (in the long term), then NOT voting actually helps McCain. Because if those folks who believe that way, even though they frequently vote Republican, pulled the lever, it might not be for McCain. Which is a vote for someone else, rather than an abstention.
My calculus says something different. If you stay home from a general election, you don’t cancel out a Dem vote, and no one gets the message that you abstained in protest. If you pull the lever for a different Repub, you still don’t cancel out the Dem vote, and the Repub candidate doesn’t get the message that he’s not wanted, because a win is a win is a win, and who cares about the protest votes.
I protest voted for Perot, as did many fellow Repubs, and we got Clinton in a plurality. The time to protest vote against your own party is right now, during the primaries, not in the general.
Wild guess: no-one you love ever elected to place his(her) life on the line for love of the United States of America.
You’d be wrong. My husband did 2 in-country tours in Vietnam. One at the same time and place as Kerry, the Mekong Delta, and served a total of 26 years. My brother-in-law is on the Wall listed as MIA. A pilot shot down like McCain, seen alive on the ground, never came home.
I am all for breasts, Jeff, but I am just putting forth a liberal argument about why are our public monies going for imperial overreach with huge bases half way around the world? This war could be reaching budgets comparable to WW2’s and has already surpassed the VietNam war’s budget in estimated costs. Where’s the profit? Anyway, I can see a future for the US as mercenaries for the world. Black water is a growing company I hear. We sell Security, USA. Pay us and we’ll take care of you, Saudis, Singaporians, Vietnamese, Columbians, etc. Meanwhile our peacetime productive “factories” incl. movie companies etc. are going overseas…leaving McMilitary, USA, as the World’s Security Operation. If you hoped for Low taxes? you bet! I am getting maybe more concerned about McCain the more I hear of his militaristic background as per the article you linked and from other readings. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111202008_pf.html
wapo article said WW2 was 4.9 trillion $… Vietnam was 600 billion ! Bush’s war 2 to 3 trillion estimated. Now, lets go get Iran next!
McCain’s McMilitary as maincourse, Hooters is just a dessert.
thx for a well designed site.
datadave will become a compelling voice on McCain’s behalf in the coming months, looks like.
sorry to hear that, Sara, Your picture on other page shows you too young to be of Nam generation.
still I admire McCain at least for not promoting the debunked idea that Vietnam is still keeping prisoners in some place as some have suggested ala Rambo movies. Black Flags scare me. sort of hell’s angelish
MayBee:
This guy over at Roger’s place articulates it as well as anyone.
We hate McCain because he first hated us.
‘STRAIGHT TALK’ EXPRESS TAKES SCENIC ROUTE TO TRUTH I can’t believe I’m going to recommend an Ann Coulter column, but she sums up McCain well.
Good genes, I guess DD. I’m a grandmother and mother of 2 kids that are probably older than most posting here.
happy…yeah. It’s going to really suck seeing both parties striving to be ‘centrist’ and moderate. It’d be in the Democrat’s interest to bait McCain into saying some whacky Teddy Roosevelt sort of stuff. Like lets go get Hugo Chavez or something?
I don’t understand your logic, Jeff. If you vote for someone else, that someone else is either the Dem nominee or a third-party candidate who isn’t going to win. In both cases, you’re helping the Dems. We’ll just have to disagree about whether McCain or a Dem would do the most damage in the long term.
Sara, probably a lot of these folks are older than they seem..but I’ll admit I could have been a Grandparent but am sort of delayed. Still have a teenager instead. Been not working much so too much time here is getting me fat. it’s entertainment but they have some interesting links and writing here and the open discussion and invective is fun.
They just love me here! they haven’t called me data-delayed yet. The nomination isn’t sewn up yet.
gotta get some exercise…
And the conventional wisdom has always been that a nonvote is a vote for the opposition, not exactly a uninformed opinion.
Conventional wisdom thought Kerry was electable.
CraigC – My point is that the R candidate is not entitled to my vote, your vote, Jeff’s vote, DD’s vote. Period. The candidate has to earn the vote.
A vote cast for a candidate is the only thing that is a vote for that candidate. Someone who chose not to vote did not add to someone else’s votes. In the end, it is only a vote if it adds to your vote count. Hence, not voting is a vote for nobody. Saying that it is a vote for Hillary is juvenile. If you candidate has earned your vote, why would you give it to him?
Doesn’t really matter. We are in store for 8 years of BarryObamaland.
See, the Bill/Hillary thing is a medusa because the Bill/Hillary thing has two heads, Bill’s and Hill’s.
John McCain is male, but he doesn’t have two heads, that’s why he’s not a male medusa, moreover medusa is gender appropriate for both male and female medusas. So there.
They just love me here!
Kind of like how Corky gets standing ovations with his traveling singing group.
John McCain is male, but he doesn’t have two heads I think he prolly does have 2 heads, given that fine piece of offspring he produced. Just sayin’
CraigC – My point is that the R candidate is not entitled to my vote, your vote, Jeff’s vote, DD’s vote. Period. The candidate has to earn the vote.
In the General, we’ll all have to make a decision, but as far as I’m concerned, in the Primary, Romney has earned my vote.
The right or wrong of any actions is defined by how much money something costs! You can tell how ethical and just any policy is by how cheap it is, just ask the architects of the war on poverty or welfare! Cheap = good, morally speaking.
Tmj,
I concur with your argument but I believe that suggesting a focus on downticket elections should be made as a corollary. If you don’t vote for, work for and give to candidates down to the lowest level then from whence shall tomorrow’s leaders arise? I’ve never left the top of the ticket blank before but even should I decide to do so in this election I shall not sit at home on election day. If there’s no one I can support for a Federal seat then I’ll find someone at the state level and failing that I’ll find a Republican dogcatcher who understands and will uphold the Constitution.
But I won’t sit at home and nurse a grudge because the Reps have nominated an idiot at the top and I don’t believe that you will either. I apologize if I have inferred something that you did not intend to imply.
We’re getting a better debate than I expected out of CNN.
JD, that’s a semantical argument. I didn’t say that a vote for nobody is a vote for Hillary. But it certainly isn’t a vote against her, is it? Or more properly, one that cancels out someone else’s vote for her. You cannot logically make the argument that sitting out doesn’t help the Dem candidate. As for using “he hasn’t earned my vote” as a reason to help the other side, I’ll leave it to someone else to decide whether or not that’s juvenile. I’ll just say that sometimes grownups have to do things they don’t like.
Now, eat your peas!!
I was borned to vote against Hillary. This is my destiny. Even if I must sully myself to do it.
[…] Jeff Goldstein lights into someone, you know it’s goign to be right on point. His hiding of John McCain and his less than firm grasp on the Constitution is a must-read. When “progressive†Democrats attempt to affect such circumventions, of course […]
rawr…wudnt u think summon named thor wud have SOME BASE KNOWLEDGE OF MYTHOLOGY???
medusa didnt have two heads! she had snake hair an a basilisk stare.
janus had two faces.
“I was borned to vote against Hillary. This is my destiny. Even if I must sully myself to do it.”
ditto me
I don’t like John McCain. Among other things, I will always believe he fat-fingered a weapons release and got some of my friends killed.
But I’ve said it before — the list of people I would not vote for in opposition to Hillary! and all who sail in her is very short, and John McCain is not on it.
Obama… is a hard question. If he gets the nomination, the thing to look for is the Happyfeet Rule: who’s his running mate? Because the one-word description of Barack Obama is “incompetent”. He would take office in a total vacuum of genuine planning, and the people he knows who he might appoint to Secretarial rank are just as void of genuine accomplishment. He has no background, no organization, and no “bench”. It’s as close as we’ve come recently to choosing a President by randomly selecting somebody off the street. The last few Presidents have used their VPs as genuine assistants; John Nance Garner’s “bucket of warm spit” has fermented and come to life. If Obama’s Veep were somebody competent he might get somewhere.
Back to McCain — the best discussion I’ve seen recently is Beldar’s, which I recommend to you. I will not vote for the scumbag in the Texas Primary. I will almost certainly vote for him next November, if he gets the nod, but I may need an oxygen mask to get that close to the ballot.
Regards,
Ric
From the comments it is clear that there are no good choices; we are singularly screwed no matter what happens. Personally, McCain scares the hell out of me, Hillary and Obama are/will be as bad or worse. But frankly folks, none of you/us really have any fucking idea how this will shake out, do we? So it is just a crap shoot. Roll the dice. Whatever the party/country decides could be less disastrous or more disastrous. The one thing that is clear is that there is no conceivable good result. At this stage I have no idea how to vote. I can make a reasonable case for a half dozen scenarios. Fortunately, I retire in a couple of months, have sold the old homestead, and have a nice ex-pat retirement planned. Just make sure the old SS check gets to the bank; that’s really all I ask at this point. But rest assured I will check back in and watch you all gnash your teeth.
If the Repubs nominated Sen. Larry Craig, who scrossed party lines and chose Rep. Barney Frank as his VP running mate, I’d merely only slighty hesitate before voting Repub over the Billary Medusa.
Rick Ballard –
“…I believe that suggesting a focus on downticket elections should be made as a corollary.”
Absolutely on target. I’m going to vote in November. They’ll make me leave my “I for one am happy to greet our new progressive masters” t-shirt in the truck. But there will be local elections and issues to address and I’ll be there for them.
I am investigating working for the likely challenger to Chris Cannon’s seat.
There are some troubling signs coming out of the Utah State House, too. Too much big brother, too much sCHIP, too much “we can’t deport all of them”…. And I live in “conservative” Utah. Meh.
Four years of Nurse Ratched may be a horror show, but it just might be better than the drip-drip-drip slow suicide.
With a GOP Congress (a slim chance, but still…) we might luck out with 4 years of federal legislative gridlock.
Oh I’ll vote for someone other than Senator Clinton… it just won’t be for McCain.
I like Ric’s idea a lot. It’s positive and constructive. It’s the sort of thinking that already landed Hagel on his ass, really. I think downticket candidates should be asked to sign a pledge that they can humor John McCain sometimes but mostly they promise not to take him particularly seriously cause they know he’s a wanker.
One strategy is to vote republican for all the congressional slots, hoping to maintain enough anti-liberal presence to stave off immediate and irreversible socialism, but to not vote for any presidential candidate. Of course with electronic voting, this discrepancy will probably never be noticeable.
Of course with electronic voting, this discrepancy will probably never be noticeable.
If they have 100,000 total votes and only 50,000 total for all pres. candidates combined, the statisticians will notice and Michael Barone will tell you about it.
191:
Theory 1-Conspiracy flag should have been set to “on” for that post, or
Theory-2 What 50,000 vote discrepancy?
Is there a graphic artist in the house?
I think the ancient cartoon convention of putting a clothespin on the nose in order to deal with disagreeable conditions is still alive enough to be useful. What we need is a cute cartoon character (a bunny, perhaps) with a clothespin on its nose and the caption
VOTE McCAIN — We’ll Lend You a Clothespin
Regards,
Ric
Look at any report from a State Secy of State with the vote totals. You will see the total Republican votes cast, the total of Dem. votes cast. Then they break it down for the number of votes cast for each candidate, pres., down ticket, and any ballot measures. If you compare the total votes cast against the total candidate votes and there is a large discrepancy, the staticians will notice, because that will indicate people voted for down ticket candidates and issue in greater total number than the same voter numbers for just the candidates. Believe me, they have formulas for all this stuff. I used to work for a man who made his living dissecting voter totals, it was a terrible job from my perspective because my job was maintaining his database. Typing numbers all day long sucks.
That result wasn’t so bad then wasn’t it? He lost. It’s not like he won and did something really horrible. I really don’t think McCain is as bad as George Ryan.
I really don’t think McCain is as bad as…
leprosy?
Barry O’Kennedy?
Electric nipple clamps?
Lorena Bobbitt?
Paul Krugman, Robert Reicssssssssshhhhhh, clowns, dwarfs, elves, and midgets?
I was sitting and playing a game, when it suddenly occurred to me that the reason this whole election is disturbing me so is because this is the first time I have actively supported one candidate and so adamantly will not support another from my own party. I can’t remember a time when I paid so much attention to primaries.
I don’t know.
Seems to me that there’s way too much ship jumping going on.
The only reason I can see to have this kind of discussion in such earnestness now is if your state is one of those f$&%ing “winner take all” deals. In which case you have to apply some strategery to how you vote.
If not, then why would anyone not vote for thier first choice in the primary ulnless that guy just ins’t on the ballot anymore.
It’s all about the delegates. Give your guy as much clout walking into the Convention, and especially into the platform committee, as you can. I guarantee the Paul Bearers are doing exactly this.
I want to vote for Fred in the general. That’s not going to happen. But his name will be on the ballot in Texas for the primary. If my one vote can make the difference between 11 and 12 delegates for Fred, I’m going to make that effort because he can still influence events if he’s given the ammunition.
That said. The only guy running for President as a Republican that I simply will not vote for is Ron Paul. I’ll vote for Hillary first if only on the chance that she’d renege on her promise to pull out of Iraq. Paul? I think I can trust him to do, or try to do, exactly what he says he will.
If you vote for someone who has withdrawn from the race, will any delegate count this generates be counted at all? The man has withdrawn, how can he still earn delegates? I’m asking, I don’t really know.
In the Republican convention pledged delgates have to stick with their candidates for a certain number of ballots (3 I think, but I’d need to look it up) unless the candidate releases them. Often even once delegates are free, a significant portion of them will stick until released or the candidate gives some other instruction, like throwing behind someone else. And here’s where, in a brokered convention, it gets fun–someone who was way behind or even someone who didn’t run at all could get enough minority support to out do the guy who won most of the primaries–you can’t get the nomination without 50%+1 delegates.
I understand about pledged delegates of those who don’t have more than 50%, but you aren’t talking about delegates earned while he was still a candidate, you are talking about delegates only a candidate can earn and he isn’t a candidate, so how can he still accumulate delegates or have any say over them? That doesn’t make sense, nor does it seem fair.
#
Comment by Betsy on 1/30 @ 6:27 pm #
#151
“@ Sara, vis-a-vis your comment #70:
Wild guess: no-one you love ever elected to place his(her) life on the line for love of the United States of America.”
Could you have been more wrong Betsy? And yet, like McCain, you seem to be sticking to your guns on this inaccurate representation to show your iron will in the face of factual contradiction.
Mac it up, sister!
As someone pointed out up-thread and many others around the blogosphere have observed, we simply have no happy choice in this presidential election. I don’t know who I’ll be voting for, but I do know I’ll be holding my nose when I do it.
Right now the most likely candidates would appear to be Clinton/McCain and if that happens I’m really torn. If we must head down the road to liberal hell, it might be better to have Hillary skipping and swinging the basket. This on the theory that either one would be a disaster as president and their party will share the blame and take a hit. The last time we had a Clinton in the Whitehouse the backlash was magnificient. If only those Republicans swept into office in 1994 had kept even half their promises..
The downside to a HillBilly rerun would be the WOT, though there I think that events will drive the man (or woman), not the other way ’round. Even Obama can’t want to be sitting behind the big desk when Iran nukes Israel or Osama bin Hidin’ lights one off at 1 Wall Street. And god help the mullah who pisses in Hillary’s punch bowl. That evil bitch would probably slag the entire Middle East.
So.. The situation is complicated, but it’s entirely possible that voting a Democrat into the Whitehouse this year could be the best thing to happen to the Republicans. It’s happened before and maybe, just maybe, they’d keep their fiscal conservative promises this time [yeah, I’m a dreamer].
Interesting times we live in.
Sara, those delegates are pledged unless the candidate has already released them; they remain his whether he continues to campaign or not.
This is not one of your better arguments, Sara. In fact, it wouldn’t even count as one of datadave’s better arguments.
Harsh, I know, but there it is. McCain’s six-year imprisonment happened thirty-five years ago. I imagine he’s had plenty of time to catch up.
Also, psychoanalysis-at-a-distance is not very endearing. Anyone else remember all of the lefty bloggers who were attempting the same on George W. Bush?
When McCain so clearly misrepresents Romney’s position on PRIVATE consulting with the leadership of Iraq on milestones and timetables, does it mean that he supports no metrics for progress? No management by objectives in regards to our military? “I’m john McCain and we’ll get out when I god damn say we’ll get out god dammit!!”
Because that’s what it looks like when he digs in even deeper on that blatant lie.
Can someone please explain to me how a man completely out of touch with the world for 6 years while held prisoner amassed some credentials that qualify him to be president? Seems to me he is suffering more from Stockholm syndrome, at least when it comes to terrorists, than some kind of super secret qualifications.
Actually, Slarti, I think this kind of vilification is symptomatic of the last 8 years, and represents everything that is wrong with politics.
Yeah, I’d say that comment by Sara might be an example of bona fide MDS.
Jeff writes,
“Giving McCain credit for holding the same position as Christopher Hitchens or Joe Lieberman or Ron Silver or Gene Simmons or George Bush or me is one thing. Allowing him to parlay that position into the Republican nomination for President is another thing entirely.
Besides. People forget that McCain was calling for more troops in Afghanistan, as well  a huge ground force. That’s his answer to everything, and it makes him look muscular on foreign policy. But the devil is in the details: why send more troops if the result is to capture enemy combatants and then give them Geneva protections? To what end?
I am a strong proponent of the neocon strategy for combatting Islamic fanaticism. But I’m also committed to the Constitution  and I’m not convinced McCain is. And I simply won’t cast my vote for someone who I don’t believe will uphold the Constitution, even if it means that someone ELSE who may not uphold the Constitution comes to power. That’s on those who voted for him/her, not me.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think a Democratic President would dare mess with Iraq right now  all their prior condemnations to the contrary. Judges are the only saving grace for McCain. And given where he is on immigration, AGW, Gitmo, and “torture,†I’m not confident we’d see a conservative put up. More likely, it will be a conservative that Dems agree ahead of time that they can live with  more “compromise†and “reaching across the aisle†that in effect is nothing more than capitulation disguised as fence mending.”
For starters, your opening analogy is a poor one in that you, Hitch and Gene Simmons have no chance whatsoever of becoming president, McCain does. It’s a position he obviously wants very badly (to the point that he’s willing to push an old, damaged body harder than it should be pushed), yet he was still willing to risk this to be right on Iraq, while other dithered, postured, preened and ducked the question. And he’s been right on this matter for year – see his speech on Bush’s behalf at the 2004 convention (one of the few things that made it worth watching). Sure, his whole maverick shtick can get irritating, but when it really mattered he was willing to set it aside and to place his credibility on the line to get Bush reelected – and I’m not convinced he really enjoyed going out on a limb for Bush like that. This is a matter that you yourself have addressed in a number of impassioned and eloquent posts, yet, when faced with a candidate that agrees with you on this crucial point, you treat it like it’s no big thing and persist in seeing the glass as empty rather than 1/3 full.
Next, you can either be ambivalent about the prospect of a Hillary presidency, or you can be a strong proponent of combating Islamic fanaticism, not both. Hillary will make every decision with respect to the war on terror with one finger raised to test the political wind (and while wistfully humming Peter, Paul and Mary and Joan Baez). We can have a commander in chief whose personal history of willingness to undergo actual sacrifice on matters of duty and honor should scare the bejezus out of any potential adversary, or we can have one who regards matters of war and conflict to be just another political calculation – all the while, deep in the back of her mind, wanting to put these macho military dolts in their place.
You wanna talk judges? Damn right he’s going to have to consult with the dems on this matter, because they’re going to control the Senate and he won’t have a choice. Do you think Hillary is going to feel similarly constrained with respect to the judges she appoints? This is another one of those issues that really matters and you’re willing to leave the field to a candidate whose only consultations on judges will be with groups like the ACLU and NOW – and those might be some of the saner voices she listens to.
To sum things up, if you want to live in the land of the pure, then move there, but your new neighbor is named Andrew Sullivan (sorry Jeff, but this is an intervention). You and Andrew can have interesting theological discussion about the difficulties and challenges that face you as you simultaneously advocate a tough U.S. position against terror and oppose candidates who would take the fight to the enemy. Maybe you two can address other vital issues of the day, like the whole angles on the head of a pin question.
Looks like retiring as an LTC sometime in 2009 is looking better and better. Man, I am glad I am going to be in Iraq during all this #$%&…
Agree with the post, but at the end of the day, if it’s McCain v. either Clinton or Obama, and every prospect of returning Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, maybe even a filibuster-proof Senate, what do you do?
Lay in a good supply of evil black rifles, high-capacity magazines, and ammo before the inauguration…
With pistol grips and flash suppressors, because that makes them lots more evil.
This is my first Republican primary. I think the Democrats, where I was before ’01, are enjoying theirs more this time.
I hope it isn’t always going to be this way, because I’m not loving it.
Here’s something to consider. Senator Clinton in the white house would be bad enough but imagine this scenario: Obama wins the nomination… and suggests her for the Supreme Court. Your term never runs out in the court, til you die.
MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!
“Here’s something to consider. Senator Clinton in the white house would be bad enough but imagine this scenario: Obama wins the nomination… and suggests her for the Supreme Court.”
But can you honestly rule out McCain doing something that fucked up?
BECAUSE OF THE MAVERICKINESS!
“MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!”
nah slart, this be bettah.
GET TO THE CHOPPAAAAAAAAA!!!
I was listening to parts of the Democrats debate tonight nishi, and a wee bit of the Alan Colmes show and it seemed like everyone was going after Mitt. Seems odd if McCain is the one with the best chance of beating them like you think. Also, have any of you ever listened to Colmes radio show? What a nasty little prick he is when he gets the mic all to himself!
Oops, that was me.
Still having bad dreams about Jimmy Carter? The guy who launched an inadequately prepared attack on Iran? The guy who got involved in mideast peace negotiations? The guy with his voluntary conservation measures?
I wonder if he’s some kind of symbol in your subconscious.
[…] people like our esteemed host will reverse the analogy: I think a vote for McCain IS suicide  just of the kind that’s longer […]
[…] our esteeemed host’s past plugs for Matt Welch’s Reason piece on John McCain, I note that Welch discusses the issues surrounding […]
What is a good conservative to do… I think this says it pretty well: http://www.reluctantvoter.com
[…] no overarching principles motivating him. It is probably best seen as an example of what our host Jeff Goldstein has called “essentially a progressive mindset that lurches toward conservatism whenever the […]
[…] * […]
“…and you can TRUST me, because I’m ALWAYS right and I NEVER lie!”
— Firesign Theatre
Beat out by comment spam. Whatta world, whatta world…
[…] “the bad guys,” and pitting patriotism against profit. It is one big reason why Jeff G has described McCain’s “Maverick” image as “cynical media spin for what is […]
[…] future, is further proof that those of us who saw McCain for what he was (and were willing to say so during the primaries) — a progressive whose policy positions oftentimes ran conservative, but […]