As reported in this morning’s New York Times:
Asked to name a conservative model, [John McCain] skipped over the suggestions of three names typically associated with the conservative movement  Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern-day conservative movement who occupied the Senate seat Mr. McCain holds today  to settle on Theodore Roosevelt.
Mr. McCain has long admired Roosevelt, and in the interview he identified with him as a fellow reformer and environmentalist and also touched on his assertive foreign policy. The choice might to some extent be an indication of how Mr. McCain would like to position himself now that he has moved from the primary to the general election.
Adam Nagorney and Michael Cooper allow McCain to indulge in the fiction that Theodore Roosevelt is a conservative model, when he was in fact the nominee of the Progressive Party in 1912. As such, TR was right in the milieu decribed in Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.  Indeed, National Review noted it a decade earlier:
[H]e was a progressive open to the latest scientific thinking and quick to imbibe the racial theories popularized at the turn of the century. At Harvard and Columbia, the young Teddy studied social Darwinism and the impact of race on the development of social organization. Perhaps social Lamarckianism would be a better term: Roosevelt came to believe that peoples could acquire characteristics through civilizing influences and then transmit them to the next generation.
He learned from professors like John Burgess that the Teutonic race was at the cutting edge of societal evolution, and believed that superior races had a responsibility to civilize the barbaric races, foster social efficiency at home, and guard against their own descent into weakness and decadence. That’s why TR promoted the vigorous virtues: “All the great masterful races have been fighting races, and the minute that a race loses the hard fighting virtues it has lost its proud right to stand as the equal to the best.” He also opposed birth control for Americans (“No race has any chance to win a great place unless it consists of good breeders”) and advocated tough immigration restrictions on the “alien races” he considered dangerous.
The purpose of foreign policy, then, is to inculcate these virtues and expand the reach of advanced civilizations. Roosevelt began strategizing about the world with Henry Cabot Lodge and A. T. Mahan, the theorist of naval power, when he was assistant secretary of the Navy in 1897, and he put their theories into practice as President from 1901 to 1909.
***
“If we refrain from doing our part of the world’s work,” he wrote, other races won’t and “we will have shown ourselves to be weaklings.” Roosevelt’s evolutionary perspective had implications for his domestic policy that conservatives should find even less palatable. For TR, the rise of administrative government was necessary in order to develop social efficiency. While it is “perfectly true that the laissez-faire doctrine of the old school of political economists is receiving less and less favor,” Roosevelt noted, “if we look at events historically, we see that every race, as it has grown to civilized greatness, has used the power of the State more and more.”
Thomas Sowell dissected TR’s trust-busting in 2006:
The anti-trust laws which Theodore Roosevelt so fiercely applied did not protect consumers from high prices. They protected high-cost producers from being driven out of business by lower cost producers. That has largely remained true in the many years since TR was president.
Goldberg’s book gives a fairly famous example:
Since the dawn of the Progressive Era, reformers have constructed an army of straw men, conjured a maelstrom of myths, to justify blurring the lines between business and government. According to civics textbooks, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers unleashed populist rage against the cruel excesses of the meatpacking industry, and as a result Teddy Roosevelt and his fellow Progressives boldly reined in an industry run amok. The same story repeats itself for the accomplishments of other muckrakers, including the pro-Mussolini icons Ida Tarbell and Lincoln Steffens. This narrative lives on as generations of journalism students dream of exposing corporate malfeasance and prompting government-imposed “reform.â€Â
The problem is that it’s totally untrue, a fact Sinclair freely acknowledged.“The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers’ request,†Sinclair wrote in 1906. “It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.†The historian Gabriel Kolko concurs: “The reality of the matter, of course, is that the big packers were warm friends of regulation, especially when it primarily affected their innumerable small competitors.†A spokesman for “Big Meat†(as we might call it today) told Congress, “We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection, also to the adoption of the sanitary regulations that will insure the very best possible conditions.†The meatpacking conglomerates knew that federal inspection would become a marketing tool for their products and, eventually, a minimum standard. Small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb the costs more easily but would be able to claim their products were superior to uncertified meats.
This story plays itself out again and again during the Progressive Era. The infamous steel industryâ€â€heirs to the nineteenth-century robber baronsâ€â€embraced government intervention on a massive scale. The familiar fairy tale is that the government stepped in to control predatory monopolies. The truth is almost exactly the opposite. The big steel firms were terrified that free competition would undermine their predatory monopolies, so they asked the government to intervene and the government happily obliged. U.S. Steel, which was the product of 138 merged steel firms, was stunned to seeits profits decline in the face of stiff competition. In response, the chairman of U.S. Steel, Judge Elbert Gary, convened a meeting of leading steel companies at the Waldorf-Astoria in 1907 with the aim of forming a “gentlemen’s agreement†to fix prices. Representatives of Teddy Roosevelt’s Justice Department attended the meetings. Nonetheless, the agreements didn’t work, as some firms couldn’t be trusted not to undersell others. “Having failed in the realm of economics,†Kolko observes, “the efforts of the United States Steel group were to be shifted to politics.†By 1909 the steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie was writing in the New York Times in favor of “Government control†of the steel industry. In June 1911 Judge Gary told Congress, “I believe we must come to enforced publicity [socialization] and government control . . . even as to prices.†The Democrats  still clinging to classical liberal notionsâ€â€rejected the proposal as “semi-socialistic.”
And Goldberg had this to write about McCain:
John McCain perfectly symbolizes the Catch-22 of modern liberalism. McCain despises the corrupting effect of ‘big money’ in politics, but he is also a major advocate of increase government regulation of business. Apparently, he cannot see that the more government regulates business, the more business will take an interest in regulating government. Instead, he has concluded that he should try to regulate political speech, which is like decrying the size of the garbage dump and deciding the best thing to do is regulate the flies.
Instead, McCain is all too willing to traffic in progressive rhetoric about “obscene profits,” Wall Street greed, calling the pharmaceutical companies that treat and cure disease “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 essentially a progressive mindset that lurches toward conservatism whenever the mood strikes.” It is why the non-statist is stuck trying to decide whether to vote for McCain is the lesser of two evils or to gamble that a couple of years of Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress chatting up dictators, raising taxes, and pushing socialized medicine brings the GOP back to its principles and electoral success.
(h/t Memeoradum.)
A beauty of a post, Karl.
Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite Roosevelt, though. Of the two, if both were alive today, TR would find himself more comfortable in the Conservative camp.
It’s not so safe for John McCain to pick such a historical figure as a model; given the sea changes in world politics after 100 years. Lots of specific things TR wrote or said at the time, when viewed through today’s ‘politically corrected’ lenses, could come under sharp attack. But if McCain had pointed to Ronaldus Magnus as model, he would’ve been laughed off the stage.
Goldberg was not, however, trying to paint a cartoonish portrait of Roosevelt, as you have here, by carefully picking a few stances and ignoring others. Frankly, I’m a bit sick of pseudo-intellectual attempts to paint McCain as some sort of stealth liberal, at least unless they begin addressing the data, and the data are the votes.
Of all of the Senators, only two voted less frequently with Reid than McCain, and quite a few of those “true conservative heroes” voted significantly more frequently with Reid. That’s over 162 votes. When you sufferers of MSD want to start trying to explain the record, you may deserve being taken seriously.
Maybe conservative just doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
MSD? Like LSD but one louder?
TR is sometimes held up, for better or worse, as a shining light of the Progressive Era. Let us remember, though, that “progressive” did not have the same meaning a century ago that it does now (cf. “liberal”). Roosevelt was, in contemporary political parlance, something between a neocon and a populist. Modern progressives would shun him in horror as a psychopathic brute.
– Pointing out that todays crop of GOP Senators are spineless chameleons, more than willing to emulate their Progressive compadres to get elected by a fed up electorate, is hardly an excuse for McCain.
– When the disloyal opposition likes your parties candidate better than your own base does, there just might be a legitimate reason. You think?
Certainly, the GOP has lost definition of ‘Conservatism’.
As a single-issue voter, I’m prolly going with Barr this time around.
psychopathic brute
Isn’t that what the Republicans of the time thought he was? (An exaggeration, I know)
It is why the non-statist is stuck trying to decide whether to vote for McCain is the lesser of two evils
Ain’t that the truth.
I really rather doubt that there are very many people, in the United States or elsewhere, who have any clear idea of what the policies and issues a century ago were. Hell, I barely recognize the policies and issues of a quarter century ago in modern discussions of them, and I was there at the time. What people “know” about TR is that he was both popular and confident, and that he based his policies on a concept of the United States that was strong and morally good and advanced American interests on that basis. This is no bad thing for a modern conservative to recall.
rightwingprof, the problem with counting votes is that the Senate doesn’t do enough for quantity to achieve the status of quality. A lot of us here, myself emphatically included, are extremely upset with McCain over the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech in the political sphere, and even more with his cooperation with Democrats to obstruct judicial appointments — the Democrats have effectively declared that no judge can be confirmed unless he or she demonstrates allegiance to the Progressive ideal of jurisprudence, and McCain’s acquiescence to that cancels out a lot of votes against Reid on trivial matters. It takes ten attaboys to cancel an awshit.
Regards,
Ric
– The sucking sounds emanating from this years elections would make you think every alley artist on Santa Monica blvd decided to make a fast buck at once. Clothes pin manufacturers should do a land office business this year.
Plus, you’ll note that rightwingprof failed to attach a timeframe to his claim. Which is telling, given that its a talking point at his site. The source is the Club for Growth, where someone looked at 162 roll call votes in 2008 — when McCain is seeking the nomination. It is hardly the only measure of Maverick’s record, particularly when McCain missed a ton of them to campaign (I don’t blame him for that, necessarily; merely noting how bad the sample is).
I remember reading that the book When Trumpets Call by Patricia O’Toole was a favorite of George Bush’s. It is about Teddy Roosevelt. It seems he is not aware of the fact that the man was a liberal. That might be because he was not. He was a reformer. Back in those days corruption in both government and commerce were rife. Roosevelt was the man who fired half of the police officers in NYT and when they said he could not do that he said he would fire them all if he could find enough honest men to take their places. And he had good reason, the cops were fighting street battles for turf.
Then of course there were the robber barons who refused to ship farmers’ grain so that they could force them into foreclosure and pick up the land for taxes. Hence the Teamsters. There were the people who ran the mills and used child labor for profit. They dumped so many toxins into some water ways in states like Mass that it was known to eat the fabric of a man’s trousers if he stepped into the water.That was the times, so before we cherry pick some stuff from the past and try to paint Teddy Roosevelt as some kind of liberal maybe we need to think about the times in their true context.
What the hell, should we be saying “Vote Republican, bring back the Robber Barons!”
McCain got the nomination because rank and file Republicans 1} want to win and think he has the best chance of doing that and 2} want a change from strong conservative to center right. The idea that people would try to paint Teddy Roosevelt as some kind of leftie just to have something else to bitch about where John McCain is concerned is crazy. It really is. Neither of them deserve that.
that should be half the police officers in NYC. same difference.
And besides, they put the man on Mount Rushmore for a reason. It seems the people of that time considered him to be a man they could respect.
Terrye,
The fact that George Bush may be ignorant of TR’s political ideology, doesn’t mean Bush is correct. Nor that people of the time stuck him on Mt. Rushmore; that’s the fallacy of mass appeal (I could go all Godwin here, but won’t). Indeed, on this point, the onlyreason I didn’t really lay into Maverick about this is that I presume McCain is actualy ignorant of TR’s underlying ideology. Of course, that’s pretty widespread, and why Goldberg wrote his book — most everyone is ignorant of the ideological roots of Progressives at the turn of the 20th century. It’s an ignorance that has unfortunate repercussions even today.
PS: Please note TR’s stance on immigration, quoted above. Think Maverick sees that as a model?
calling the pharmaceutical companies that treat and cure disease “the bad guys.”
Which is even more ridiculous when you consider that it is the onerous nature of the FDA regime that effectively drives up the price of medicines while simultaneously acting to restrict competition.
Karl:
I am talking about context. For instance, would immigration hardliners today want to be compared to the Know Nothings? Or the people who tried to keep out Jews and Catholics? That would not be fair. But those people believed they were safeguarding American culture.
And I don’t really care about Goldberg’s opinion on this subject. The idea that we are going to look back on that time and use Roosevelt’s attitudes on certain subjects to make judgments on the man is no more fair than saying Jefferson was just some slave owning aristocrat and is only on Mt. Rushmore because of mass appeal.
“Some fo the worst enemies of capitalism are successful capitalists.”
-Jerrry Pournelle (not an exact quote. YMMV)
And you know something? I work in health care and I think McCain has a point about drug importation. We support free trade for all sorts of things. But when it comes to meds, by God we refuse to even consider opening that market. That does not mean the pharma companies are evil for heavens sake. It is not fair to say anyone who is concerned about the price of meds thinks drug companies are evil.
“For instance, would immigration hardliners today want to be compared to the Know Nothings?”
An “immigration hardliner” today is someone who believes in legal immigration.
N.O.
I did not say otherwise. The point is that the Know Nothings would have said the same thing. It is only in retrospect that we see them in a different light. Times change. That is my point.
I thought this was an interesting quote from Teddy Roosevelt:
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Great post, Karl, but in his defense, he refused to shoot a bear cub chained to a tree because it wouldn’t have been sporting. So, bully for him.
Terrye,
You may work in healthcare, but you probably don’t work in economics. Drug re-importation assumes that Canada is willing to resell some substantial part of its cheap drug supply to the US. But I assume you are aware that Canada is in no position to do so. It is a faux-populist position of the sort progressives are known. Which is why people’s ignorance about the philosophical roots of the movement remains more relevant today than Jefferson’s slave ownership. For the reasons you mention, I do not condemn TR for all of his positions the way that the Left cheaply imposes today’s standards on Jefferson et al. But if someone today adhered to 18th century views on racial superiority, I would condemn them. People who do do not look at the extent to which the premises of early 20th century progressivism still define 21st century discourse cede way too much ideological real estate in their political arguments.
Terrye
If I understand correctly, foreign governments “negotiate” prices with drug companies for any importation into their countries. Foreign governments control their drug markets. Then you have Americans who want to reimport these below market price drugs BACK into the US. So, “opening up the drug markets” really means American pharm companies competing against themselves with foreign governments profitting at our expense.
Yeah, that’s going to help bring new drugs to market.
An “immigration hardliner†today is someone who believes in legal immigration.
On this issue McCain is the polar opposite of TR…McCain is the Illegal one.
Oh and what is up with the McCain invoking certain religious institutions whenever McCain uses God to support Illegal activity? Would God not see this as like… sinful?
I mean, take for example Thou shall not steal. And the church people respond ‘yeah but we’re all God’s children so it’s okay to steal.’
Terrye,
Another thing about the quote you just posted. I can agree with it entirely, yet still question TR’s underlying ideology, in the same way that people can look at indicidual positions of the Know Nothings.
That you don’t care about Goldberg’s opinion is of course your business. But if you choose to make yourself ignorant of the points he is making about the way 20th century progressivism has influenced — and continues to influence — today’s politics, don’t expect me to credit much of what you have to say in a debate about the topic.
The left bemoans Obama; the right vilifies McCain.
Why do we EVER listen to campaign promises from people trained to lie about their actual intent?
Look at the public record. Leopards don’t change their spots.
“So, “opening up the drug markets†really means American pharm companies competing against themselves with foreign governments profitting at our expense.
Yeah, that’s going to help bring new drugs to market.”
So worth repeating. Particularly if one really cares about saving lives.
As a single-issue voter, I’m prolly going with Barr this time around.
I think if it becomes clear that Obama is unquestionably headed for victory, we all need to do this. We have to send a signal to the GOP that leftie-lite is not what we want from the party, and that we want the principles of individualism and liberty to be its core plank.
Howdy, Terrye! –
“2} want a change from strong conservative to center right.”
Uh… we haven’t had conservative governance in the executive since Reagan left office. And the congressional Republicans branded well with the Contract with America but have failed, and horribly, under Bush II (who is no shakes of a conservative) to pick up the standard of conservatism.
Speaking as a former Republican here, I want a conservative. Not some intellectual lightweight statist running on Mavericky toughness, costumed by media in a Straight Talk corset and promoted by partisan Republicans as some sort of moderate.
If “moderate” is restricting free speech, open borders, and surrendering the Supreme Court, I’ll just keep on stocking fresh water and long term food storage.
I am resigned to voting for McCain. Was. Maybe. Obama, and the Democrats, are horrifying across the board. BUT maybe its a better decision to put them in the saddle now so the lines will be drawn sharp and clear and now, than to allow a McCain presidency that will drift vice charge toward the same catastrophe, just a few years down the road.
I keep vacillating on this. The Heller decision actually brings encouragement to pass McCain by; the justices most likely to leave in the next four years are libs. The chances McCain will expend any effort in seeing conservatives seated is squat. So again, suck up four years in purgatory and hope for better choices in 2012…
I think that the candidates (there are still three before us, make no mistake) are all going to look like bad jokes against the backdrop of conditions that will exist in this country in November.
I could still sit out. And I know I’m not alone.
– Terrye, for me its an entirely different kettle of fish. It would not surprise me in the least if McCain did not know squat about TR’s politics. If I had to guess I would think he probably just likes him because he was at one and the same time a “country gentleman in the old sense of the word, and a reformer, given to going against the political winds much as McCain does, a fellow maverick if you will. Superficicial> Maybe, but then I don’t expect “scholarship” out of any of todays pols.
– When, to a man, the denezens of Capital hill get up with a straight face abd declare that opening American oil reserves, 3 times that of the ME, will have no effect on “futures” prices for 10 years, I know we’re dealing with people that understand the stock market to the extent they know its located somewhere in NY city.
– These are people that are supposed to lead us. We get the government we deserve.
Look at the public record. Leopards don’t change their spots.
O!’s has very few spots…and those that he has are radical Left and a few were gotten dishonestly.
Jonas
when O! is coronated and the, with a Dem congress, puts more Ruth Ginsbergs in all fed judgeships, reinstitutes the “Fairness Doctrine” and extends it to the internet, decimates the US military starting with its command, nationalizes medicine and oil, further puts feds incharge of education and makes preschool mandatory and strangles private and home schooling..
Just how is the message of individualism and responsibility supposed to get out?
“Just how is the message of individualism and responsibility supposed to get out?”
Perhaps we need Publicly Financed Campaigns.
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/telecom-donations
– And they all live in little boxes, and they’re all made out of ticky tacky, and they all look just the same.
– The death of individuality. No need to work hard, you’re not going anywhere, because excellence is frowned on, and rewards for hard work are “unfair”. A suicide pact for society, but not to worry, the gov. will pay for your funeral.
Darleen: Your (nightmare) scenario poses an unrelated question. I’m talking about sending a signal to the GOP. My point was that IF it becomes clear Obama is going to win — i.e., that voting McCain is a lost cause — then we do what we can to make sure the Republican Party gets the message.
We thus, ideally, wind up with one of America’s two big parties standing opposed to all the Obama insanity you just outlined.
Jonas
You are assuming that the GOP has not gotten the message. Do you honestly believe they are happy campers right now?
– Jonas, you assume anyone in Washington is listening. For the past 8 years theres no evidence of that.
$40B in profits in one quarter is obscene. However, it does not mean
1) we should have a windfall profits tax
2) we should refrain from calling obscene profits obscene.
TmJUtah:
I am an old broad. I can remember people saying that Reagan was not a real conservative. In fact they made a point of the fact that he was a former Democrat who was Governor of California and as such had made numerous deals with liberals.
His amnesty bill {and that is what it was}, his tax increases on social security, and his lack of fiscal conservatism on some levels created problems for him among the people he referred to as radical conservatives. He said they would rather starve than take half a loaf. In some ways he was right.
I understand that people want someone who is more conservative than McCain. His rating is about 82%. Obama’s conservative rating is about 9%. It would seem to me that anyone who sat this election out on the grounds of conservative vs progressive is pissing in the wind here. Maybe they would prefer a rating of 100% vs 1%, but I just don’t see that happening. If you want a strong conservative to win the nomination and the general election then you need to garner more support among the public. They are the voters. Just complaining won’t change anything.
Personally I think Reagan would be appalled at conservatives sitting home and letting Obama win.
BBH
It’s not the people in Washington that made McCain the nominee. Indeed, the same MSM that is in the tank for O! played a significant role in promoting McCain while trashing the other primary candidates.
I seem to recall (and maybe somebody can look this up) that McCain’s rating prior to this election run-up wasn’t all that good.
Even so, I disagree with rightwingprof for reasons I’ve stated repeatedly, and not only with regards to McCain: namely, that it matters how one reaches a position, even if the position happens to be the one with which I agree. And that is because, in the longterm, the how will affect more outcomes, and if the how is corrupted ideologically, the product is likely to suffer, too.
This was the basis of my problem with Harriet Miers, for example. And with Justice O’Connor.
Rightwingprof may wish to call Sowell, Goldberg, Matt Welch, National Review editors, and myself all “pseudo-intellectual” for having studied the mechanisms of progressivism to the point where we can readily identify it when we see it, but that won’t keep us from seeing it and, if we are true to our classical liberal roots, from recoiling at it.
TerryE–
Reagan was not a real conservative. He was a classical liberal. Nowadays, classical liberals have been labeled “conservatives,” and progressives and left liberals call themselves “liberal.” The markers have shifted, but the ideologies are the same. Reagan is the uber conservative today because he is the uber classical liberal — and classical liberalism is what this country was founded on.
Roy
$40b means nothing standing alone – except its a large number. Whoopee.
What was the profit rate?
Jonas, you assume anyone in Washington is listening. For the past 8 years theres no evidence of that.
For most of the past eight years, the GOPers in Washington didn’t HAVE to listen. They were in power — and still are, to some extent, with their president in the White House.
I think it’s conventional wisdom that with an Obama victory — meaning Democratic domination of the executive and legislative branches — the Republicans will be soul-searching, scrambling, rejiggering, pick-your-synonym for “figuring out what the fuck went wrong and how to fix it.” A strong showing by an ex-GOPer turned Libertarian (Barr) would help them do that the right way.
I’m not suggesting Republicans abandon ship now and go Barr. At this moment I still think holding noses (your own, please) and voting McCain is the way to go. I’m just saying that if it’s clear in early November that McCain is toast, we resign ourselves to doing what we can to get the future started properly.
– It took an absolute “flood” of angry phone calls and emails that threatened to overwhelm and literally shut down McCains office facilities for him to “hear” that we didn’t want amnesty, we wanted border control.
– Such is the tin ears of Caapital hill these days. Its all skewed polling, metro-Liberal drive-by media Op-Ed pieces posing as “news”. and whatever fadish “narrative” has their total attention.
– Characterizing their ignorance with “Out of touch with the majority of the electorate” would be kind.
Big Bang Hunter:
See this is what irritates me. You do not like McCain so you just assume that he does not “know squat about TR’s policies”. You no like, you trash.
The point is there will be an election in November. There will be two candidates. One of them will almost certainly be Barack Obama and the other one will be John McCain. If McCain’s detractors had put half the time and energy into supporting some other viable conservative Republican candidate that they have into complaining about the one they have..things might be different doncha think?
Here’s my point in a sentence: The lesson I’d want the GOP to take from an Obama victory is not “Oh, we weren’t Obama enough,” but rather, “Oh, we weren’t Bob Barr enough.”
Roy,
If you’ll follow the “obscene” link, you’ll see Maverick saying that Big Oil should “share” its profits with consumers.
Also, I suspect your $40Billion figure actually refers to Exxon/Mobil’s annual profit in 2007, in which case you should also note that they paid over $100Billion in taxes. Industry-wide, oil and gas companies had a decidedly non-obscene profit margin of 8.3%.
Electing John McCain the self-identified “Republican” is one story. Electing John McCain the self-identified and widely recognized “Conservative” is another story. “Compassionate Conservativism” has already done enough damage to tie us in knots for a decade, if not break the mold entirely. Posts like these are vital to making to the distinction.
Unfortunately, like Bush is suddenly a “strong conservative,” so too McCain will become so if he were to win. Even though at this point the Republican Party is more or less the Democratic Party 40 years ago.
Terrye —
McCain has noted that he thinks individualism should take a backseat to service to one’s country. Think about that. Compare it to classical liberal ideals. Then compare it to some of the ideologies of the 20s and 30s.
Be afraid.
Terrye
IIRC those conservatives who ragged on Reagan were in CA … .where the CA GOP has the historical position of standing in a circle and firing.
CA is no longer a viable democracy. Our legislative districts have been so gerrymandered that they are all perpetually “safe seats” (I cannot recall the last time any district seat has changed parties, regardless of term limitations). Since the governor is popularly elected, we’ve fielded a few Republicans but they all have to deal with a Socialist dominated state legislature … which means we experience budget gridlock every June … as predictable as three digit temps in the summer in Death Valley.
“Even though at this point the Republican Party is more or less the Democratic Party 40 years ago.”
That being generous.
BBH:
Yeah, and right now where are you on the immigration policy debate? About to allow a liberal Democrat to take over the White House with a super majority in the Congress. When Bill Clinton was being impeached so many people were angry about that they shut down the phones in the Senate. But those Republicans did not care because the tens of thousands of outraged people calling were not going to vote for them anyway.
And the same will be true if conservatives allow the Democrats to take over the government without any restraint or check. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama don’t care how many phone calls you make.
And the Bush administration which took no end of grief about this from people has done more to secure the border, stop catch and release, increase deportations and in general deal with the problem than any administration in history.
Here’s the deconstruction of McCain’s 82.3% lifetime ACU rating.
Also (again), Terrye is going on and on about policies, without addressing the ideology behind them. As the future is unknowable, some consider the latter to be important. And as a not-young guy, I could talk abourt Reagan’s record all day. But the fact that he supported an amnesty bill in 1986 only underscores that someone who wants basicaslly the same thing again didn’t learn from experience.
Darleen:
Not all of them were in California. I am 57 years old and I can remember Ronald Reagan the man. I am not trashing him in any way, I am just saying that since his death some people seem to feel the need to turn him into something he was not. It is not fair to him and it is not fair to any conservative today who has to live up to this ideal that was not even real.
The 80’s were also the times of high interest rates, recession and the Farm Crisis. Iran/Contra and all that.My only point is that Ronald Reagan was a strong Republican, but he was human and he was not above compromise if he felt it moved the ball forward.
If McCain’s detractors had put half the time and energy into supporting some other viable conservative Republican candidate that they have into complaining about the one they have
I was a Romney supporter. But when your candidate has the MSM and others constantly asking him about magic underwear and doing “you know, he’s Mormon!” sotto voce, then it distracts from serious vetting.
– Terrye –
– I did not state McCain does not know, I said I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he doesn’t. Slight difference.
– And when did wanting to examins a pols record and likely future performance sudden;y become “trashing”.
– I must have missed that memo.
– thats the sort of thing I’d expect from the Obama side of things since their candidate has little or no experience to examine, save community organizer, basically a “bag” man for the precinct bosses, and a little over a year as a junior Senator.
– In his case he’ll no doubt skate on that since theres not a lot to examine.
Karl:
Ideology??? What is the ideology of letting Obama win?
“And the Bush administration which took no end of grief about this from people has done more to secure the border, stop catch and release, increase deportations and in general deal with the problem than any administration in history.”
Yep, they sure set their sights on enforcing the law.
Of course, none here s arguing that Obama would be better on policy. Rather, Jeff G is making the argument that a couple years of Obama and a Dem Congress would produce a backlash that would be better in the long run than letting McCain give ideological cover to a lot of progressive nonsense. For the record, I’m still on the fence on that gamble. But the fact that Terrye is clearly on the other side of that argument does not make Jeff’s position illegitimate.
Darleen:
Actually I was leaning toward Romney myself. But he did not win. So I will respect the will of the voters and support McCain. I will not try to undermine him. That is what Democrats are for.
– Bush is not running this time, or so I’ve heard.
Ooh, I hadn’t seen Terrye’s last comment, which suggests a lack of knowledge of what ideology is, other than the ideology of power. Which would explain backing McCain.
– “In his case he’ll no doubt skate on that since theres not a lot to examine.”
You should tell Karl.
Take it from me, despite recent political expediencies,
he’s a Progressive, not a Regressive.
Terrye
I’m 54 and Reagan was always my idol. He had to deal with a hostile Washington and yes, he was pragmatic, especially with the huge mess Jhimmi Carter left. People forget that the prime interest rate was 21%. (that is not a typo, people)
Reagan was LOATHED by the press, media, Hollywood and every correct thinking Democrat. I remember that quite well, so when Reagan finally passed I don’t know what annoyed me more… the usual pissers on his grave (dKos and co) or the faux tears shed at his death by people who personally trashed him while he was alive (not criticised his policies, TRASHED him as a human being).
Terrye –
A pleasure to disagree with you, ma’am.
Yep, Reagan’s amnesty was well intentioned and obviously a failure and a mistake – a judgment which any observer was capable of making by, say, 1990. Here it is 2008 and the presumptive flag carrier of the Republican party is all over repeating it.
I forgot to mention AGW.
Once it becomes the published policy of the United States Government that humans are the proximal cause of … just damn, call it “bad weather”, since the “global warming” buzz word is or may not be “climate change”, we’ll see the field operatives of the EPA suddenly empowered at a level that would make our ATF/DEA guys, not to mention any of Stalin’s commissars, green with envy.
Our regulatory regime is about to turn on us, ma’am. Building another Frankenstein’s monster motivated by bad science, eco activist political ambition, and entrenched political elite money making scammers (that’s you, Mr. Gore) on top of the failure of our Fannies, our banks, and our markets is something we should step up and prevent right now.
We can’t do it by voting for any candidate on the horizon. Or against. They are all committed to cap and trade, which is another way of saying nation wide economic depression.
I was thinking today: All this talk about Obama and McCain being two sides of the same coin, of Democrats and Republicans being the same parties with different names, of voters picking candidates on surface traits such as personality and rhetoric… You know, ideally, it should be that way. There shouldn’t be much room for difference, because in a properly limited government there wouldn’t be much leeway for officeholders to wiggle in any direction and distinguish themselves.
They’re just not supposed to be the same like this. These similarities are all of the wrong sort — indeed, are the exact opposite of what they should be.
It’s frustrating.
Karl:
Really, a backlash? Like the one after FDR that lead to a repeal of the New Deal? Oh, yeah that did not happen did it? Instead we got a whole bunch of new programs that are still there, decades later getting bigger and bigger and not even Ronald Reagan could change that.
McCain did not support the last bloated farm bill. He is not a supporter of earmarks, or expanding government. And even when he talks about global warming he uses a market approach unlike Obama whose policy is far more draconian.
If a really strong conservative had gotten the nomination I would have voted for him if he was running against Obama. I would not sit back and tear him apart and state that no, that is not good enough for me. I will just sit back and everyone will be sorry and see the errors of their ways. Eventually.
– Terrye –
– No Conservative, and most classical Liberals or Independents want to “undermine” McCain.
– There are two problems.
1) Theres not all that much evidence he’d make a good pres. even if you ignore his politics. I can think of any number of people that have better creds than he does for the office.
B) – It would be a whole lot easier for moderate voters if he was fundamentally a Conservative that leaned to the left on occasion. Instead hes a RINO that leans to the right on occasion, and only then when when people scream at him enough.
– Get the picture?
– Its Door number 1 with the tiger, or door number 2 with a changling thats mostly a tiger.
Not likely. You haven’t earned any credibility at all.
I grew up during the era in which the GOP stood as the “not as statist as the Democrats” party. They were the minority in Congress for decades on that platform.
I may still vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils, but I’m not going to pretend he’s something he’s not. As someone recently alluded to upthread, a lot of people thought GWB’s “compassionate conservativism” was just marketing. It wasn’t, and it is one of the main reasons why he enjoys abysmal approval ratings today.
Tim:
So when Reagan did something ideologically impure, it was a mistake, but with everyone else it is something different?
I think a lot of the stuff on global warming is wrong. In 20 years when NYC is not under water a lot of other people might think the same thing. Right now however, most people do think it is real. That does not mean they want the UN coming up with some carbon tax or anything, but if you tell them it is all a hoax most of them will not agree. Just the other day I got a lecture on global warming from a 6 year old. That ship has sailed.
But McCain does support drilling off shore and more Republicans are beginning to make an issue of this as well. The Democrats on the other hand are standing firm on no drilling. That makes me lean Republican. But then I am not as pure as some others.
Karl
I think it is a legitimate position to contemplate letting O! win in order to “shakeup” the GOP. I’m just very pessimistic that it would happen the way we would like. Part of the problem I see is that O! and company would move quickly to block any return to power of the GOP by strangling conservative/libertarian movements in the cradle. What has been one of the most effective moblizers of people who do not have access to the editorial boards of newspapers or media news shows? Radio. Do you think it will survive beyond the first year of O!’s presidency? O! certainly remembers what happened to Congressional elections two years out from Clinton’s first election. He won’t let that happen again.
I’d rather McCain in the office and smack him hard like we did with the amnesty bill than have O! shutting down talk radio, the Fox network and coming after non-leftists on the internet.
Peeve. It’s deeply, purely anti-evolutionary. “Whatever, man” is evolutionary; “we have to do something” is not (except at a level of abstraction we have to pretend isn’t real in order to remain sane). But forget that.
The evil of Roosevelt I, the centrality of his role in unmaking the U.S. that the best among the Founders envisioned, is greatly underestimated by conservatives. Roosevelt II was only doing his mop-up work.
And I’ve made the McCain-Roosevelt comparison he before, not knowing that McCain was an admitted acolyte. Kind of him to oblige me.
1) Non-statists don’t vote. State-agnostics do, sometimes; they’re libertarians, mostly. Libertarians aren’t non-statists; they’re Sunday statists. There are approximately seventeen non-statists on Earth. Hi.
2) Nope.
This very post shows why McCain is (probably) the marginally greater of two evils in this election, not the lesser. I’m more personally disgusted by Obama, because he’s more like me (really, that’s why), but he’s less of a progressive than McCain is.
Yes, maybe the GOP has adopted a progressive-style vulgar-Marxist (though it’s not even vulgar) idea of “capitalism” to oppose for populist-rhetorical purposes, because(?) that’s the idea of capitalism we all learn in school. That adoption may have been a good electoral strategy, once, if that’s what it was, but if so, it was bad for the Party’s mind. Eventually, no matter what you think you’re thinking, you act like you talk — and this particular kind of talk was designed to conceal the operations of the “capitalism” it decries. (See Goldberg, Sowell above, entire corpus of non-Keynesian “Western” economics elsewhere, and, especially, Marx!) And maybe that can be fixed, somehow, wilderness years, whatever. Doubt it.
That’s not McCain’s problem — not his problem. He’s pure.
Have you ever wondered why it’s only McCain’s military-related rhetoric that really strikes you right, Republicans — that seems most dissonant, to you, with his otherwise across-the-board, if sometimes “moderate,” liberalism? He’s not inconsistent. Neither are you, necessarily. He just doesn’t think like you. His reasons, if that’s what they are, are not yours. They’re not exactly Roosevelt’s either, but…well, yes, they are, exactly.
Obama’s not the only one in this race whose heritage is being ignored, lied about, and memory-holed for electorate-duping purposes. A candidate’s history — his real history, where he comes from, who he really is under the lies and flag pins and lies about flag pins — doesn’t only explain the un-self-examined vileness of Democrats, you know.
This is way too long. Look it up.
re
So when Reagan did something ideologically impure, it was a mistake, but with everyone else it is something different?
I can’t speak for Tim. But the argument that could be made is: Yes, a first-time decision with a bad result can be deemed a “mistake.” Those results now having become clear, we are now free to describe subsequent decisions in different ways.
Karl:
You are missing my point. If conservatives want to take total control of the Republican party and have a veto over all political decisions then they have to be able to win elections. The Republican party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. Strong conservatives are not a majority, no more than strong liberals are. That is why Obama is pissing off the left right now, he is moving center. Even though he is ahead in the polls he apparently thinks he needs to go to the middle to win.
One thing about Reagan, he did not speak ill of other Republicans. He did not try to tell people what to think about issues like gay marriage and all that. We did not even hear about all that back then. And when the Marines were killed in Lebanon, he did not go after Hezbellah. When he talked to the Soviets there were people who thought he was out of his mind. But he was right on that and if he had it to do again, I bet he would go after Hezbellah. But these men are politicians and they are captives to the political issues of the day.
Really, if we wanted to get into the history of things, we could examine whether the New Deal remained intact largely because of the fecklessness of the GOP over that entire period. Was Ike a right-winger? Nixon, who brought us the EPA, affirmative action, etc, etc? Gerald Ford? The GOP let Goldwater through in the year they figured they would get killed based on lingering mourning for JFK.
Terrye’s argument raising the New Deal only works if one presumes that electing Obama would make him the liberal Reagan, ushering in a sea change in US politics that lasts decades. However, as I have written here repeatedly, these 16-year cycle of “change” presidents — JFK, Carter, Clinton, are generally ineffectual. Unless one assumes that Obama is assassinated like JFK and engenders massive sympathy, there is little in modern history to suggest that Obama is a game-changer.
That being said, there is certainly an argument to be made for not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But it’s just silly to assert that there is no counter-argument, and that everyone is obliged to vote for McCain because he would be marginally better than Obama in the short-term.
Jonas:
Reagan made a point of putting amnesty in there, and it was real amnesty, not some after they pay a fine and taxes and if they have roots in the community and if they are not violent criminals or whatever, it was straight up amnesty. As far as that is concerned, one could argue that just looking the other way is defacto amnesty. The point is Reagan did not have an ideological aversion to the concept, like he did with some other issues. Reagan was not the kind of man who built walls, he tore them down. Different times.
Terrye,
I’m not missing your point at all. Your argument is about power. Having it above all else. It’s not without merit, but it’s not a tautology, either.
And Reagan never spoke ill of other Republicans? The guy who challenged incumbent Gerald Ford? Do you really want me to look up some of what he said of his rivals in 1980, even as he invoked the so-called 11th amendment? For a self-described old broad, your memory is selective.
Gotta run, but Jonas at 77 gave the same answer I would have. Have a great Sunday!
amendment = commandment.
Karl:
The New Deal remained intact because the public supported it and wanted it. They still do. Just try to get rid of social security. It had nothing to do with being feckless. The GOP did fight a lot of it and did turn back some of it, but that is not what the people wanted. And so they lost.
And you know what? If some conservative like Romney had won and other Republicans had said they would sit out and let Obama win no doubt the Romney people would cry foul. Romney himself would not do that. But when the shoe is on the other foot, and some other GOP nominee wins, well then it is different.
psycho,
I get your point (obvs) but I think you give Mac too much credit for being aware of what TR was really about. If he really understood TR, he would be taking the position Terrye quoted about assimilation, when Mccain has a long record as a multi-culturalist. Mac is going down the track, but I doubt he understands how he got there or where it’s going.
Karl:
No, my point is not about power. My point is about doing what you can to get as much as you can for your side. In other words I am not into zero sum.
Allowing some man who sat in Wright’s church and listened to that hate mongering racist rant and rave about God Damn America for years become the President of the United States without even trying to stop it…. while at the same time you complain about a lack of purity on the part of John McCain strikes me as utterly unserious. I am sorry, but it does.
Karl:
I doubt that McCain sees himself as a multiculturalist. You might, but I doubt that he does. McCain cared enough about America to tolerate years of torture and imprisonment without betraying his country, I think he feels that being an American is a privilege.
Terrye,
Mccain is your guy. You’ve made it abundantly clear. However, aside from “he’s not as bad as Obama” — another point we mostly agree upon — there’s not a great deal to recommend him. I don’t know if you were being serious or sarcastic when you wrote “conservative like Romney” but I did enjoy it anyway.
As for people supporting SS, again, no disagreement there. And the times were such that it probably would have been even less politically popular to argue against it then that it is today. But inasmuch as the GOP went along the path of least resistance throughout the period, it makes doing anything now all the more difficult. Which is (afaict) why some would prefer to gamble on a backlash now, rather than do what the GOP has typically done — the safe, unchallenging, clinging to power that is partially responsible for the party’s crappy position today.
I really don’t care how he sees himself. I care about his position on things like bilingual education and illegal immigration — positions that really have nothing to do with his military record, which I greatly respect and have defended here repeatedly. That’s my polite way of saying that playing the “POW card” isn’t going to earn you any points with me.
Fact is, any way you slice it, McCain has totally unacceptable stances on a dozen IMPORTANT ISSUES to ME, in which he is as bad as Obama and the Dim Party – IF NOT LITERALLY WORSE, and when I count him to be worse, it is usually because of a major triumph for him in his portfolio (which they don’t have the match for), for a Dim Socialist item of the agenda – such as McCain Feingold THOMPSON; or McCain Kennedy Shamnesty which he fully intends to sign in January 2009; his demands that GITMO be closed; and that terrorists get a civilian trial to ACLU standards with Habeaus Corpus to our top classified intelligence, which the current Supreme Court is giving him; two major military contracts shipped overseas to Socialist European nations for American military vehicles and equipment and ordinance and innovation, so America will have tools it needs to fight those companies’ political allies; and that America needs to be taught to QUIT TORTURING (excuse me!); then Environmentalism; and his own warped version of being “anti-abortion”, protecting Roe V Wade, embryonic stem cell development of Cancer, no Amendment to the Constitution for Abortion dissuasion, or for Marriage PROTECTION for that matter…
Those Conservative Judges he promised – have to be Liberal Socialist enough to enforce his own portfolio, i.e. McCain Feingold Thompson and Shamnesty – THAT ain’t “Conservative”.
I ain’t impressed!
Then there is this fact, I cannot think of a single solitary issue of politics, of importance, that I agree with him on, because if he agrees with me, say about the war on Terror in Iraq, he is still going to handle it in a Democrat Party manner, rather than a Ronald Reagan manner – and by Democrat, I sure do not mean John F. Kennedy. It would be Toady Chappaquiddick and John F’ing Kerry Democrat.
Some of you said, until we do this or that, or acknowledge this other, we don’t have your respect for our views.
aw, how sad. I’m sure I should cry.
Too bad, I will not vote for Punk McNasty, under ANY circumstances.
I live in Texas, born and raised, and at that, too close to the Mexico Border, and from here, Juan McNasty McVain, being sided by Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, looks just like Santa Anna to me, for all practical purposes.
So those of you who think you can emotionally blackmail Conservatives into voting for him – first off, you have NEVER made the case that he is “The Lesser” – second off – I ain’t crying over “losing your respect of me” – since you ain’t showing enough respect for the Constitution, first, why should I care what YOU think of ME.
#86: Terrye,
Go to the search box in the left sidebar and type in “Wright.” I think you’ll find few people who have written more comprehensively on the subject. It really does not change the fact that to some, the lesser of two evils still isn’t good.
As I have noted repeatedly, I haven’t made a final decision on that. But I will say that McCain’s cheerleaders do provide some counter-weight to the Cult of Obama in their offensiveness.
Judging from the reax of people like Rose, I would suggest that McCainiacs would be better off depending on Obama’s awfulness to convince people to hold their noses and vote for Mac of their own accord, rather than try to sell the guy as something he’s not which only offends them and makes them prefer to sit on their hands.
Racists
In the long run, it doesn’t matter who gets elected as long as the collusion between the media and the Democratic party (especially in the area of judicial activism) continues to pull the country to a more Progressive/Socialist position. New government entitlement programs and regulations are presented as being good by definition and the fact that the problems they are supposed to address are not fixed is presented to the public as an indicator that the programs are not big enough or the regulations are not tough enough. The reason the immigration policies of even a quarter century ago seem to be impossible to go back to is because the media, and hence the public, has bought in to the anecdotal sob-story mentality combined with the seeming hopelessness of trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration. As long as the Progressives control the definitions used in public discourse, they can define progress as whatever they like.
At the moment, I am resigned to holding my nose and voting for McCain almost solely on the basis of foreign policy. His ideology may be flawed, but even a RINO gives us marginally more time for use to find a way to change direction of the larger tide of American political discourse, which may at this point be impossible.
Karl:
I can do all the searches you want concerning Wright, but if you just look the other way and let Obama what does that say?
And as for power, what some conservatives seem to be saying is that they want power, over the nominating process and the agenda. They do not care how the rank and file Republicans voted, unless and until they get the kind of nominee they want, they will sit it out.
– And Terrye, while a may not share some of Roses rather heated anger concerning McCain, her facts are facts, like them or not, and if you expect to find the same sort of non-critical fawning over here as you will at Los, its an expectation that will go wanting.
– The Dems are the out-of-power party. they wouldn’t care if Obama walked out on stage and took a dump. they’d vote for him amd watch it cheering.
– I like to think one of the reasons I’m a Classic Liberal that leans to Conservative is that we actually think. I don’t see that as a minus, and as far as undermining, I don’t see that either. I would guess a good many people will follow their instincts and vote for Mac, even given they don’t really like him all that much, as you saym the lessor of.
– As far as his war record, he could have come away from that experience “cowed” as much as anything else. Who knows. I do not, but at the same time its immaterial when you are being considered for the most important office in the world.
– Me, I’m in his age group, so I have a right to comment on his public image, the way he comports himself. It drives me nutzs to watch him play onn the injured old man image. You don’t need to shuffle around the stage hanging onto the microphone like you’ll fall down if you let go. You can suffer a small amount of discomfort and stand up straight and assured. I do it every day, with problems every bit as difficult as his, maybe moreso. <aybe thats unfair, but there you are. A mans comportment of himself says a lot about his thinking. Superficial, well again maybe, but its the sum total of what a person presents themselves as that we the voters have to decide with, and thats all we have.
– Maybe I would feel a bit less churlish if we the electorate actually choose our candidates instead of the caucus system designed to ensure the party bosses would be the deciders.
I see psycho and I are in virtual agreement. Hi!
Rose:
McNasty heh? That is respectful.war hero, war shmero. I get it.
You know something? McCain is not responsible for the fact that our southern border has been open for 140 years. Back in 2000 and 2004, that was not even an issue. When Newt Gingrich was on Capitol Hill promoting his Contract with America, he did not make securing the border part of that Contract.
I grew up in Oklahoma. I can remember being a kid and just driving into Mexico. There were border towns in Texas that were crossed borders. I am not saying this is not a problem, it is. But it has been a problem for a long long time and no one, not the locals or the states or the feds, took it seriously enough. And Obama sure as hell won’t. He has made that plain enough. In fact, he might make you learn Spanish.
“As long as the Progressives control the definitions used in public discourse, they can define progress as whatever they like.”
Between the media, schools, and universities, it is not surprising we’re on the ropes. A couple dozen million immigrants from countries with no tradition of limited government doesn’t help, either.
Karl:
I was not playing the POW card. I was talking about his strength of character. After all being a president should require strength of character. My point is that McCain may not think that his policies are reflective of a multicultural mindset. Not everyone sees these things exactly the same.
“McNasty heh? That is respectful.war hero, war shmero. I get it.”
Smedley Butler, George Mcgovern, John McCain – I’ll let you figure out what they all have in common.
Yep – we had an amnesty in the eighties, tied to future enforcement. I was too young to have an opinion one way or another then, but in hindsight I can say with certainty that I wouldn’t have opposed it – because on paper it made quite a bit of sense.
The largesse was granted and the enforcement… was never even pretended to be addressed.
So, granting that amnesty was a mistake, having absolutely nothing to do with the illegals but instead putting up an object lesson where our government declined to carry through on the deal, and set us up for the immigration disaster we have today.
Fool me once, etc.
Now stand for legal immigration. Just be ready for that burn of the “racist” brand.
BTW, I’m just thinkin’ here, as a country girl, that it appears that most Americans don’t really know anymore exactly what a Maverick really is.
Most of you are prolly only slightly familiar with an antique Western TV show with James Garner by that name, where he plays an unconventional (what they got to calling ) an “anti-hero”, which is a hero, sometimes, but is always unconventional, and therefore “unacceptable” to the hoity toities of the upper crust blue bloods – in other words, he ain’t quite figured out which is the correct fork to use, next.
And that has become somewhat of the connotation of a Maverick.
But “Maverick” is an unbranded calf – unbranded because in the annual round-up before fencing, of EVERYONE’S cattle into one herd, which is then doctored, separated, and branded, calves follow their mothers who were already branded, so when the mother cow is separated from the main herd to the rancher who owns that branded mother, her unbranded calves are clearly seen by all to be the property of the mother’s owner.
A maverick is unbranded because he has NO MOTHER (no upbringing).
So then they pile all the Mavericks in one little wad and take their best group gander at the lot of them (obviously if only one or two men have that breed, tht tells the group a lot about where the calf goes), and figure what they all together think is a fair way to distribute them to the several herds whose owners did the most work in the round-up.
Aside from the roundup, in those days, it was common for some to make a habit of finding “Mavericks” and branding them, quietly, themselves, to begin a new herd, or to increase an existing one, and because of the breeding cycle, this was a small window of opportunity.
However, I don’t think McCain even qualifies as an unbranded and motherless calf who is without proper upbringing.
But that is closer than the idea of his being a James Garner character from Hollywood.
His idea of “Maverick” seems to be to give the impression that he is standing in the midst of a herd of thoroughbreds or registered cattle, and try to pretend he is the best of the lot, so outstanding that a mere glance at the herd is enough for anyone to spot him and pick him out – he surmises, as the best of the lot.
I surmise as – the only skunk or donkey, or rhinoceros, or weasel, or egg-sucking rattlesnake, or something of the sort – in the whole herd. Whereas, if he went to the pasture to which he rightly belongs, the Democrat Party, where his best friends already are, Hanoi John, Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy, John Edwards, etc, nobody would notice him in a million years, be cause he isn’t even a superlative example of what he REALLY is.
He’d just be another Chris Dodd, over there!
The scent of the Rose is distinctly mobyish.
By what standards? Is it simply the number of zeroes?
The name “maverick” came (so I’ve read) from the fact one Texas rancher by that name never bothered to brand his cattle. As a result he gained a reputation, perhaps unearned, of claiming all unbranded cattle as his. “There’s one of Maverick’s,” a cowboy would say jokingly upon seeing a cow bearing no brand.
Over time it became a word rather than a name.
Sounds about right.
TmjUtah:
Tom Tancredo lost the primary, because most Republicans did not even agree with his approach to this issue. And of course, I do not consider you a racist. I never said that.
But I don’t consider a guest worker program to be amnesty. I don’t think that letting some guy who has been here for 40 years gain legal status of some kind is always a bad thing, but it has to be the exception and not the rule. I am not talking about opening the border and giving everyone amnesty. That was never my position.
Someone said I was a McCainiac or something like that. Not true, but I do respect the man and I respect the fact that he won the nomination. No small feat. I had wanted Rudy, but he went away, then I thought about Fred!, but he did not care. I leaned toward Romney, but he lost. The fact that I want to see McCain win over Obama, does not make me a maniac of any kind.
Rose:
Paulbot?
Comment by Terrye on 7/13 @ 11:18 am #
Big Bang Hunter:
“See this is what irritates me. You do not like McCain so you just assume that he does not “know squat about TR’s policiesâ€Â. You no like, you trash.”
**************
Personally, I don’t care what McVain thinks of or knows about TR’s philosophies or anything else. TR is dead.
What I care about is what McVain is actually doing in Washington DC.
And what he is doing is ticking off his accomplishments from the old Joseph Stalin Agenda for the Destruction of the USA from the inside, published in the Congressional record on January 10, 1963. You know, the current Dim Party Platform.
You know the one, it includes stuff like “Use court decisions to attack American institutions…”, and “Gain control of Party platforms, and of School Newspapers, and Radio Stations, … and use them as venues for propaganda…”, “Cause the American people to perceive the American Constitution as old-fashioned and out of step with modern needs…”.
“McCain Feingold Thompson” is bad enough without being a stepping stone for the Democrat efforts to re-establish the “Fairness Doctrine”. And don’t try to pretend that was an accidental and unintended by-product of an “honest” effort to reform campaigning!
McCain Kennedy Shamnesty puts the old English Tea Stamp Act to absolute shame.
There is nothing humanitarian about it!
Do people in your neighborhood approach you and say to you, “We see you bought this very expensive thing for your child, now we figure you owe each child in the entire neighborhood one, too, so the rest of the kids won’t feel bad when they see your kid with one, and they don’t have one JUST LIKE IT, TOO!”
Gee, I bet NOT!
No vote for the RINO McVain.
Comment by McGehee on 7/13 @ 1:06 pm #
You are absolutely correct!
At any right, the truth about the word and name tells more about McVain than the fantasy he is trying to create in the minds of voters.
Just like when Hanoi John named his boat Scaramouche.
Comment by Jonas on 7/13 @ 11:35 am #
Jonas, you are right!
Comment by Terrye on 7/13 @ 1:18 pm #
Rose:
Paulbot?
Can’t disagree with McCain without being a – UGH! – disgusting PAULBOT?
No, and I am not out spamming, been registered here a long time, but busy, and I linked to this story from BrietBart News.
McVain is my pet Peeve – same as Hanoi John was in 2004, and Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy has been most of his life!
I don’t like Socialism. By any name or stripe. RINO is the most disgusting stripe, it is the essential enabler of the DIMS. Like the family member who enables a drug addict/alcoholic, by helping them find the Vanilla Extract and rubbing alcohol.
I agree with Joseph Stalin about their impact in American society – he wanted cell groups to make sure Socialism in America stayed LEGAL – for a reason. That item was on his agenda to DESTROY America from the inside.
I think a body politic dedicated to SURVIVAL should have to right to outlaw ANYTHING they feel makes them TOO vulnerable.
And I don’t feel there is any room for further debate about the Government philosophy of the “former” USSR.
Baracky and McCain are both worthy gentlemen what can inspire a neato backlash I think. Because they’re contemptible people. But McCain isn’t seeking to repudiate the same things. Like the part where we liberated people from tyranny. McCain is just an old turtle that wants to bask in the sun before he dies and then we have to say nice things. He’s in no danger of defining us as a nation I don’t think. Baracky is all about the redefining, and he has the media on his side. That’s just fucking scary.
Living in Illinois, it means nothing as a practical matter. It allows me to be honest with myself and others about the actual choices. What it also says is that I can be critical of both and let people make up their own minds, without pretending that McCain is something that he is not.
Actually, I think they would say that the exit poll data shows that McCain got the nomination not on the votes of rank-and-file Republicans, but on the votes of of moderate and iberal Republicans, some Independents and some Democrats that if he wants to try to win the general election with that coalition, he is free to do so, just as RINOs were free to whine and threaten to sit out elections as they have since 1980, when the GOP actually started winning by being conservative. McCain might win with his coalition; he’s pretty close now. If he loses with that coalition, perhaps a valuable lesson will be learned, i.e., run two prograessives, and the electorate will go with the more authentic progressive.
That you would have gone with Rudy or Romney before McCain is indicative of where you’re at ideologically. Not everyone is where you are, and they have the same freedom of choice you do. The GOP (and the Dems) do not have a claim on anyone’s vote. Votes are earned, not owed.
Also, no sale on the multi-culti point. I may find some aspects of McCain’s character to be admirable, but if he thinks being for bilingual education and mainstreaming illegal immigrants isn’t multi-culturalism at work, he would be deluding himself, which would not be admirable. BTW, I don’t think he thinks that; I think he has made a very hard-headed (or cynical) calculation that we are going to have a large influx of Hispanics and wants to pander to them. Again, not particularly admirable to me, but better than self-delusion.
Also the “guest worker” approach is what Europe does, and their multi-cultural problems are worse than ours, because it does not encourage assimilation.
Just how do they intend to administrate “guest workers” when they are demonstrably incapable of processing legal applicants for visas now?
Back to “fool me once” again, ma’am, and for the same reasons.
This is a pretty worthwhile read on the subject of illegal immigration, if you have the time.
Apparently, Rose is photographed in 1-bit grayscale. Kind of like a modern-day Ayn Rand wannabe.
You’re either 100% in agreement with her idea of right, or you’re dead-set on establishing a new set of Gulags. John McCain, therefore, is the moral equivalent of Stalin.
It’s almost like someone made a cartoon, and then gave it the ability to compose blog comments.
P.S. –
Don’t know if Rose is Moby or not. If I succumb to the moment, McCain can absolutely inspire me to … literary excess, too. Just saying.
And happyfeet at #115 – too true, sir. Too fargin’ true.
Also though how can y’all take McCain that serious really. It’s like those people what spend $20 on personalized bookmarks. He’s just McCain. He was a big deal in the Senate cause he was a mavericky princox and the media liked him. That won’t fly very long in the White House. He would have to command respect.
Or, to put it another way:
On the issues where I think McCain is right, and on aspects of his character, I have so written here. Where Obama comes off as a rapacious Leftist con man who spent 20 years in Hate Church, I have said so repeatedly and been smeared as a racist for doing so.
But when McCain cites TR as his conservative model, I will point out that it is symptomatic of why McCain has problems with conservatives. Because I don’t buy into the whole “we must not criticize the leader” philosophy.
He would have to command respect… of the people he spent years and years prancing around being morally superior to is what I meant. I don’t see Congress being super-impressed with his new letterhead.
Comment by Terrye on 7/13 @ 1:12 pm #
But you act like you can BELIEVE the politicians when they tell you it is “fair” to crack the door slightly.
I live in Texas. We’ve already seen that cracked door become a wide open floodgate where Border Patrolmen are put in the Federal Penitentiary for IMPEDING THE PROGRESS of an illegal alien coyote across the border to his destination, even when he walked up to the BP and asked to be arrested, so he’d have a comfy AMERICAN PRISON for a winter home.
I’ve reached the point where I don’t give a flying leap what anyone’s INTENTIONS were, or how kindly they felt about themselves and their intentions ~~~ when as an adult, they ENABLED the bad guys to swamp boat out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean w ith no land in sight. – so to speak.
Frankly, my dear.
I was worthless until you validated me.
Psst, McGehee –
Find out if that gets you a break on Cinnabon, as well as parking, m’K?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 7/13 @ 1:52 pm #
I offer NO gulags, but I won’t compromise with Socialists, either. I don’t owe them a bloody thing. They didn’t give us this nation, they didn’t give this world a na tion like us, and they didn’t give this nation one single good thing or one single victory. And I don’t like a bloody thing I’ve ever seen them do.
Particularly when they claim to “fair and just”.
No gulags, that is a Socialists gambit. Just separate nations – different pastures, please.
I’ve read a couple of Ayn Rand quotations, but not her “stuff”, But back in 1965, when if she was around, I never heard of her, my teacher told me in glowing terms that I wrote like Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I’d heard his name in English classes for years, and was so flattered, until two years later, we had to read “The Scarlet Letter”, no movie version, and no Cliff notes. I had trouble with each paragraph.
I am no longer flattered, I can see what my teacher meant, and they do try so hard to encourage little children – it must have been a mixed blessing for her to have a student who wasn’t still writing, “Run Spot Run.” But then again, I realize I can make most anyone LONG for the “Run Spot run” authors. Insulting my writing style doesn’t hurt my feelings. I am a real person.
I’ve had billions of tons of complaints. I’ve tried, but it is just the way it comes out.
Rose or a close variation is all I’ve ever used, like Spice Rose, or Ombre Rose. There are a few other Roses, but they aren’t me. I aren’t they.
I am what you see. And the Founding Fathers are my genuine favorite heroes, along with Davy Crockett, whose statue I grew up playing on, who died quite literally for me, I was born and raised under the shadow of the Alamo – and John Wayne, and the like.
That means that people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and a lot of other modern day egotistical idiots cannot be my current heroes, regardless of how they preen themselves.
I really don’t care either for what your opinion of my writing content is – I am just telling you how a lot of people who will NOT vote for McCain do feel about it, but in my own words.
Of course, they’d never say it the way I do. But then, most of them aren’t going to tell you anything, they don’t even care if you mistakenly think they don’t care enough about it to bother with.
They care.
Some of you guys, the closest you will ever know to how THEY think is if you find an old, like 1930’s or 1940’s movie that has one of those characters in it, who casually answers a question with about one word, then sits there calmly the entire time you do something that is opposite what they told you, with no explanation. WHATSOEVER.
Then when you are through making an absolute idiot of yourself and have ruined everything, they just casually say, “Toldja so.” Quiet-like. Then get up and casually walk off. If the other character is intelligent AT ALL, they go after the guy and make him give the rest of the details and tell them how to do it right.
That is what these “NON-VOTERS” are really like.
They care – and plenty. But you already ignored them and nominated an idiot like McVain, telling yourself, over and over and over, “ELECTABILITY”, while these guys were telling you, “Not so.”
Well… Now you are doing what you said then, telling them they HAVE TO ANYWAY.
And they are still just NOT! But they ain’t wasting THEIR time repeating themselves like a 2 yr old who asks you 50 million times in a row why the sky is blue.
‘Cause you ain’t listening anyway.
Some of you said why some Conservatives didn’t get nominated for the GOP. but you said, ’cause this or that the candidate stood for.
Wrong. ALL the front Primaries were OPEN. Ten Candidates or better, and ONLY ONE that DEMOCRATS were EVER going to vote for.
That is called “FRONT-LOADING” – like Loaded Dice.
McVain gets 20-35% DEMOCRAT VOTES along with whatever % GOP votes, of each of the OPEN Primaries, by the time the FIRST so-called “closed” but still OPEN Primary was reached, there were no viable candidates left, thanks to McCain and his Draft Teammates. He was doing as well as both Dim candidates with Dim Voters.
Stacked Deck. Loaded Dice. Dirty.
These “non-voters” have nothing to say to you – because you don’t care.
I speak out – that is still what I do best, even if everyone thinks my writing and speaking styles are irritating as the dickens.
And when it goes down bad, you cannot stand before God and say NOBODY told you.
I gave you encyclopedias’ full of more information than you ever wanted to have.
I.e., a Texan tells you about SHAMNESTY – and you are all “Oh, this must be Paulbot, or Troll-doll among us.
NOT ONE WORD about SHAMNESTY and LIBERTY, and SOVEREIGNTY from you!
But when you stand before God, He will go, “So you think I’m supposed to believe you really didn’t know what would happen when you pushed that button… hehehehehehe”
THAT is my assignment.
Comment by MlR on 7/13 @ 12:54 pm #
“McNasty heh? That is respectful.war hero, war shmero. I get it.â€Â
Smedley Butler, George Mcgovern, John McCain – I’ll let you figure out what they all have in common.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
There was a MAINSTREAM interview of Mc Nasty, in which the lady interviewer had discovered in McVain’s HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS that his LISTED NICK NAMES were Punk and McNasty, and she gave him a chance to explain. He referenced his lack of motivation to earn high grades and his lack of respect for authority, which doesn’t explain fellow students nicknaming him these words. Frankly.
I didn’t name him THOSE names, they are nicknames he has accepted and gone by.
He didn’t portray himself as disturbed in the least about this probing into his past reputation.
Comment by McGehee on 7/13 @ 3:29 pm #
You are absolutely correct!
I was worthless until you validated me.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I had no intention of insulting you. I’ll try to remember to step very widely around you in the future. I do beg your pardon.
Tmj, I’ve been told if I collect enough of them I can trade them to a panhandler on Peachtree Street (or is it Peachtree Avenue? Peachtree Boulevard?) for a quick pull on his bottle of Thunderbird.
But only if he doesn’t look at them too closely.
That was a lot of words.
Anyway, you will not find many people here who are thrilled with McCain, and I doubt many here voted for him in the primaries (by the time the primaries hit my state it was all over already). I don’t want to speak out of turn, but I think most of us were much more interested in other candidates. Some of us have decided that they won’t vote for either presidential candidate, others (like me) have not decided yet what to do.
However, we also get plenty of people dropping in out of the blue and posting stuff that sounds a little “off,” as it were, and until we get to know them, they will get categorized. Plus, the best work around here, writing that may get you attention, is stuff that sounds like someone’s personal ideas rather than some organizations official talking points.
Take it as you will.
organizations -> organizations’
SHUUUUNNN THE NON_BELIEVERS!!!eleventyone11!!
– Erm….now where were we?….Hhhmmmm….whats this that McGehee slipped under my door?
“Approbation and approval chit #13437”
….Wonder if enough of these would get me some thunderbird?
Indeed. Furthermore, it helps to lurk a while, read what is said, and get a sense of the tone and tenor of the community. PW is kind of unusual compared to most other sites, and it can be easy for the unwary to get off on the wrong foot.
BBH, you probably have more of those than I do. I’m a bit thirsty, could I borrow a suitcase-full? I’ll pay you back…
Um…
Eventually…
– Especially if an uneven number of right feet wash ashore. Tends to get you watched closely for awhile.
– Actually I have a basement full, so help yourself, but I’m not making any guarantees. The last bag lady I tried to pass them off on for a few hits on her Annie Green Springs ripple thought I was a traffic cop, and crashed her shopping cart into a newstand at the corner….how did I know she was Russian?
Did she have both of her feet?
That’s nice. It’d be even nicer if you’d responded to what I’d said, rather than what you’d imagined I’d said.
I recall a couple of decades ago when Sinead O’Connor was asked what she thought of U2; she said something like “too bombastic”. I had no idea what she meant, at the time, just as you’re unlikely to understand that I feel the same way about your comments. A little over the top, methinks. Just because the Conservative Ideals are not met does not mean that the Red Menace is on the rampage. And all slopes, they are not frictionless.
As Doug Adams used to say: Don’t Panic!
The name “maverick†came (so I’ve read) from the fact one Texas rancher by that name…..
Nice try McGehee, but everyone knows that a Maverick is the sweet ride you use for prom because the back seat is most likely already stained up pretty bad.
I deny that and denounce you, alpuccino! Mainly because for me it was a ’71 Vega.
The rest, you’re pretty much on target.
Damn you.
Umm Rose, #’s 126-128…
Would you please stop yelling, I’m getting a head ache.
Thanks in advance.
Wow. I had a 1978 Pontiac Bonneville. And that was back in 1979; the backseat was pristine. And velour.
Do you know how hard it is to unstain velour?
I actually would have preferred the car that my sister wound up getting, which was a 1973 Buick Skylark. Nice, innocuous-looking 350-powered car. And vinyl seats.
I had a biology teacher explain what leprosy was by using an analogy involving a Vega.
Spot on.
So, which TR would McCain look to emulate: the one who was President or the one afterwards who would analyze his own Presidency and change his views on more than a few things he had done? It is fascinating that the first move to an international body was *not* the League of Nations, but a proposal put forward by TR while POTUS. He would later drastically alter his views on that, but not before the idea had become inculcated in the Progressivist movement and even be vilified during WWI before being picked up again right after it. Have to love the constancy of the Progressives on that.
The famous immigration speech was in Kansas City in 1918, far after his stay as President. As President he did nothing in that realm.
He would see the Philippine-American war to its first COIN cycle and then leave that for others to finish, and that also changed his views on the efficacy of war and would put him in the position of having to call for it while US shipping was being sunk in the years before 1917 by the Germans. He understood there to be a high cost and *still* called for war as far back as 1915.
You cannot sum up TR’s positions when he would look in his autobiography at the way his views had changed over time and why they had done so. The more classical liberal TR is the one after being President and out of office, the Progressive TR the one before that. It is troubling that Sen. McCain points to TR, and then does not sort out nor differentiate the various views the man had durng his life, often diametrically opposed in nature. TR would examine that and tell it from his persepctive… a level of depth and thoughtfulness I see lacking in both candidates today, or indeed in the political elite today.
WTF was your biology teacher doing in the backseat of my car!?
[…] are two progressives competing for the presidency — a faux progressive and a real one. I was grimly entertained by this quote on Teddy Roosevelt: “[H]e was a progressive open to […]
[…] gives his take on John McCain’s love for Teddy Roosevelt. Although I have previously noted TR’s progressivism, Beran argues that TR was neither conservative nor progressive: [I]f Roosevelt was not a […]