Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Let’s get something straight about McCain
Posted by: Billy Hollis on Friday, February 01, 2008

Jonah Goldberg joins the ranks of the "McCain's not that bad" apologists with this posting at The Corner.

What I find interesting thing about that post is what it doesn't say: nowhere in it is campaign finance reform mentioned.

 
This is THE main reason I cannot vote for the man. Heck, I almost shied away from Fred merely because he voted for it. McCain was the ringleader, the prime mover, the guy without whom it would not have happened.

The fact that McCain feels justified in subverting the Bill of Rights to arbitrarily decide what citizens may say and do makes him unqualified to be the president of these United States.

I don't care that his intentions are good, any more than I care that the intentions of the typical liberal advocating universal health care may be good.

I don't care that he thinks it will result in "clean government". That's a delusion; as long as large amounts of money flow through the government and are subject to the political process, then people who want to get their hands on that money will search for and find ways of influencing where that money goes.

So he's basically apathetic about the Bill of Rights and deluded about the potentialities of government regulations.

Now, so are various Democrats. But let me explain this difference clearly, once and for all, to those, including some of our commenters, who just can't seem to understand why our feelings about McCain translate into our willingness to see a Democrat win the presidency instead of him.

With various Democrats, there would be opposition to their anti-freedom impulses, one hopes sometimes fervent opposition. It might not always be effective. They might get some of what they want. But those who believe in freedom would feel free to oppose a Democratic president with any means at their disposal.

But McCain would have no effective opposition for any plans he came up with in four years to subvert the freedom of the American people. The members of his own party would not risk their own positions within the party by doing so, just as the current Republicans caved on Medicare Rx and federalization of education, and almost caved on the immigration bill until a tsunami of popular opposition came along. The Democrats would merely carp that he wasn't going far enough and vote for it anyway, while laughing behind his back at how they're getting pretty much exactly what they want.

Yes, I know a Democrat would be further left than McCain. But I have no idea what the liberal press will convince McCain to do over a term as president. Universal health care? If he thinks it will get him in the history books, he'll do it. Expansion of McCain-Feingold? After the kind of campaign that I expect this year, I'm expecting a whole new round of "correcting the oversights in the earlier laws", which once you put it through the translator comes out "putting in more restrictions on what you peons are allowed to say about your dedicated, saintly public servant officeholders".

If a Democrat proposes such initiatives, there will be opposition. If McCain proposes them, there will likely be little or none. That's what makes him so dangerous. We don't trust him to protect our freedom, and if he decides to infringe it, unlike the Democrats, he's almost certain to get away with it.

Yes, I know Romney is not that conservative. I'm worried about him too. But at least he feels the need to stake out some pro-freedom positions, and there's at least a chance he'll follow through on them. And he's not the one who subverted the Constitution and appears completely willing to do so again based on recent pronouncements.

No matter what happens, the odds are not good that I'll see an administration that will do very much I'd like them to do. But I'll a take a slim chance over no chance at all. And I cannot and will not support a man who has made it clear that he's prepared to throw away the social compact on which this nation is based merely to satisfy his own quest to purge his corrupt past.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
In response to your contention that McCain is unqualified to be president, I think you might want to reframe the matter: there will be no qualified candidate running for president this year, by either experience or principles.

So, who will be the least unqualified to hold the job?

Coulter came out last night and said that it would be Hillary who is least unqualified.

To which I would say that, having dealt with both types, I prefer an erratic unprincipled personality to someone who is clinically insane. If it comes down to McCain and his permanent case of prickly heat vs. the butch authoritarian statist who went to her grand jury appearance in a grand Valkyrie cape, I think Coulter and everyone else on the right will have second thoughts about their disdain for McCain.

To my advantage I went through the "under no circumstances will I vote for McCain" experience a year ago. Now that I’m looking right at the alternative...
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I would take Condi over at least 3 of the candidates now running.

 
Written By: reitred military
URL: http://
The fact that McCain feels justified in subverting the Bill of Rights to arbitrarily decide what citizens may say and do makes him unqualified to be the president of these United States.
Just so’s interested parties can hear it for themselves, here’s that "clean government" vs. First Amendment rights video again. The comment starts around the middle of the clip.

Yes, this was just one comment nearly two years ago, but it’s a doozie. And McCain doesn’t seem to have tried to explain, correct or spin it in any way. Or if he did, that information isn’t very handy now. A web search on McCain and First Amendment brings up all sorts of outraged reactions and not much else. Search "First Amendment" on McCain’s campaign web site and you get nothing.

Goldberg et al. are going to have a hard time selling this guy for many reasons. As an erstwhile avid voter planning to just sit this one out, I think it’s all going to be funny as hell, right up to election day and beyond.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Well, let’s try to link that clip again.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Note to blog owner:
this post might carry a little more punch if one of the ads on the page was not one on behalf of John McCain.

And are you really willing to relive all the sleaze of the Clinton years?
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
this post might carry a little more punch if one of the ads on the page was not one on behalf of John McCain.
As you might have guessed, the ads are displayed based on key words and this blog has no control over them.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net
"And are you really willing to relive all the sleaze of the Clinton years? "

Better the sleaze of the Clintons rather than the betrayal, heartbreak and the spitting upon by McCain. At least then the democrats can suffer, make excuses and live with it rather than the conservatives.


 
Written By: reitred military
URL: http://
As far as I am concerned, until McCain starts using some of that famous straight talk and gives up the names of all the politicians he claims were corrupted by campaign advertising dollars, he is just another blowhard political hack whose overriding motivation is reelection at any cost (as long as somebody else pays the cost, of course).
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
gives up the names of all the politicians he claims were corrupted by campaign advertising dollars

As a matter of intellectual curiousity—are you implying by that statement that there are politicians who are not corrupted by advertising dollars? [I agree with your sentiments regarding McCain. The straight talk is mostly the result of MSM latching onto a Republican who is more of a Democrat than the others.]
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
I would add that McCain’s constant declarations that members of Congress have been corrupted reminds me of McCarthy’s constant declarations that he had a list of 400 Communists in the State department. The correct response to all such claims is ’put up or shut up’.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Voting for McCain is just like the dems voting for Kerry in 2004. They didnt want Bush and McCain is counting on people holding their noses and voting for him so Hillary wont be in there. I will gladly choose option 3. None of the above. No vote for McCain and no vote for Hillary. No money to the GOP if he gets the nomination.
 
Written By: reitred military
URL: http://
gives up the names of all the politicians he claims were corrupted by campaign advertising dollars
http://www.house.gov

http://www.senate.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov

Any questions?
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
." No money to the GOP if he gets the nomination"

That is a threat they might heed.
I used to answer all communications from the GOP with the statement that they could have my money or my vote, but not both. Their choice. They still ask me for money, probably on the theory that I will vote for them anyway, as the lesser of evils. Now they will probably get neither.


"Any questions? "

I see. Your list has how many names?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I disagree with your assessment that he would have no opposition.

I felt that way two years ago when I saw Bush doing things that I didn’t like. But in the last two years I’ve seen conservative republicans rise up and put the brakes on their own fairly conservative president, in the face of major support on the democrat side.

And at least McCain won’t be in the senate pushing things along.

I’m not on the "McCain is just alright with me" bandwagon, but I’m also not on the "Hillary would be better than McCain" train either.

 
Written By: Charles
URL: http://twoconservatives.blogspot.com
timactual -
. . . reminds me of McCarthy’s constant declarations that he had a list of 400 Communists in the State department. The correct response to all such claims is ’put up or shut up’.
He did. It’s called the Venona Project.

.
 
Written By: coolpapa
URL: http://
I doubt too many people are single issue candidates on campaign finance reform. Is it true what one commentator wrote that Fred Thompson also co-sponsored that?

Oh, coolpapa, McCarthy never outed a single communist, he simply lied and made stuff up, and died a drunken loser, something very justified. There were communist spies, McCarthy never helped get any of them, he just was part of an hysteria that ruined lives of those who weren’t spies.

BTW, having read how certain so many of you were that it would be Guiliani or Romney, how long you’ve been following this, how certain so many were that McCain is dead, I’m getting a kind of Schadenfreude pleasure at watching the reaction to McCain’s rise to get the nomination — it’s putting a smile on my face.

Of course, McCain isn’t anywhere near as bad as some of you think, you’re reacting emotionally on a couple of issues, and buying into a discourse (the term you guys seem to use here is ’meme’) about McCain that has no substance, relying on a few gotcha quotes and a couple of issues. Romney’s positions have been far more to the left, but he switched them for the Presidential run, and you think that’s just fine. I mean, it’s really bizarre to read these reactions...but fun.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
coolpapa—the Venona list numbered 349, many of whom can’t actually be positively identified, and at least some of whom probably were not Soviet agents; it was published years later. Besides which, I don’t see any indication that McCarthy had any access to Venona documents. So timactual’s question remains: if he had a little list, where did he get it from, and why didn’t he release it?
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
I disagree with your assessment that he would have no opposition.

I felt that way two years ago when I saw Bush doing things that I didn’t like. But in the last two years I’ve seen conservative republicans rise up and put the brakes on their own fairly conservative president, in the face of major support on the democrat side.
Your scenerio only works if most Democrats are opposing McCain, not supporting him. They won’t when he’s doing something they like.

The difference here is that those same Republican will defect to join the Democrats to support McCain.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
All the lovey dovey talk about Thompson around here, and despising McCain, and mostly it seems to be about McCain-Feingold.

You’d think that you all were not aware that name for the bill at one point was McCain-Feingold-Thompson.

I guess love is blind.

 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
So Billy, is that an endorsement for Romney?
 
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
What I find interesting thing about that post is what it doesn’t say: nowhere in it is campaign finance reform mentioned.

That’s because it’s not an exhaustive analysis of various candidates stances on the issues.

The fact that McCain feels justified in subverting the Bill of Rights to arbitrarily decide what citizens may say and do makes him unqualified to be the president of these United States.

Oh, nonsense. Everyone agrees that the premise of the law is to reduce corruption in government. Neither you nor I think it is likely to work, but we can’t say that McCain is "arbitrarily" deciding what citizens (or residents) may say. There is a solid premise there, reducing corruption, even if it is an incorrect and unjustified premise.

But let me explain this difference clearly, once and for all, to those, including some of our commenters, who just can’t seem to understand why our feelings about McCain translate into our willingness to see a Democrat win the presidency instead of him.

What I can’t understand is that you haven’t noticed that every time we have a Democrat as POTUS he screws the country up. And don’t give me that crap about how the Republicans will be free to oppose him. The Republican revolution of ’94 lasted about a year before falling apart. For God’s sake, we were so desperate a DJ led the conservative movement.

The Democrats would merely carp that he wasn’t going far enough and vote for it anyway, while laughing behind his back at how they’re getting pretty much exactly what they want.

And if any of this were even remotely true, the Dems would be laughing right now since all these terrible things happened or almost happened under Bush. Instead they are utterly incoherent with rage.
 
Written By: Ben
URL: http://
pleasure at watching the reaction to McCain’s rise to get the nomination — it’s putting a smile on my face
We’re watching a classic Erb The Weasel move.

McCain has been the most ferverent proponent of the "imperialist" expansion of the "US empire" yet Erb is getting pleasure watching him get the nomination.
relying on a few gotcha quotes and a couple of issues
Unlike Erb, most people actually have principles and try to stand by them.

Erb doesn’t mind that a man who he specifically claimed is not "a visionary who can inspire a change in our approach to world affairs" will probably be nominated.

Erb also claims McCain is "conservative" even though in the past 10 years McCain was more often rated as NOT conservative by the ACU. The very few times McCain did rate "conservative" it was only at the very bottom score.

Furthermore, Erb claims McCain is "honest". Yet Erb conveniently ignores that McCain was part of the Keating 5.

Erb is a joke and his analyses are even more pathetic.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Erb is getting pleasure watching him get the nomination.
No, I’m enjoying watching the reaction of the McCainophobes. I’m not going to vote for McCain (though he hasn’t espoused neo-conservative values at all, he just has a typical Vietnam vet attitude that we can’t lose another war the way we did then). I’m enjoying watching people who were convinced all last year McCain was dead, immigration would be the big issue, and it would be Guiliani, Romney or Thompson suddenly get shocked to reality. It’s entertainment, that’s all. It’s also not rational because as much as you try to deny McCain is conservative, he certainly has a stronger conservative record than Romney. It’s all emotion and single issue reactions, you guys are caught up in your own narrative, but the country is going a different direction.

It’s not going my direction either, but I’ve made my peace with that long ago.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So Billy, is that an endorsement for Romney?
No. It’s a "maybe I can grit my teeth and vote for Romney". Can’t say that about any of the other three significant candidates left.

As one wag put it: You can pick from McCain, Hillary, and Obama - the Democrat, the Socialist, and the Communist. (Though personally I don’t see enough daylight between Hillary and Obama to give them different labels.)
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
single issue reactions
Well, considering you’ve repeatedly been given 5 or more issues against McCain, perhaps you can enlighten us as to how many issues it takes before a voter can decide not to support a candidate?
to deny McCain is conservative
I notice that you have repeatedly made the assertion, but you have not once offered any refutation to the claims that he has not been rated a conservative for at least a decade.

It must be because you can’t claim anything other than his voting record two administrations in the past.

And if you’re going to use his past record to support his present "conservatism," then you must also use his corrupt Keating 5 participation as evidence of his "honesty."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Anthropologists say that if someone is raised in nature and never sees civilization, then that person when shown a picture of a door taken at an angle will not recognize the door as being a rectangle. Apparently the same phenomenon applies to those who have never experienced principles.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
"There is a solid premise there, reducing corruption, even if it is an incorrect and unjustified premise."

Just like the solid premise, reducing sexual misconduct, behind forcing women to wear burkhas and avoid the company of men.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I think some of you define "principles" as "believing only the same as yourself." Principles are not dogmatic political beliefs that cannot be compromised. In fact, to use "principle" as an excuse not to compromise or work with others is a misuse of the term, a rather cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the complexity of life.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I think some of you define "principles" as "believing only the same as yourself." Even though nobody says that, I know what you’re thinking. Principles are not dogmatic political beliefs that cannot be compromised. We wise leftists know that it’s OK to compromise, and I sure wish the phrase "compromising on his principles" had never been coined because it completely contradicts my point, but a good post-modernist and highly trained political scientist can get past that.

In fact, to use "principle" as an excuse not to compromise or work with others is a misuse of the term, a rather cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the complexity of life. You people on the right should always work with and compromise with we wise leftists, or, as I’ve said, you’re cowards.

Of course, it doesn’t work the other way around. Oh, we might compromise on how long it takes go inject government into various aspects of your life, but we can’t compromise on the principle that government is good. You should give up that blather about freedom and minimal government. You can’t run your life or anything. That’s crazy talk.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Via instapundit, I find this post by Rachel Lucas, who lays out the typical rationale for voting for McCain over either Hillary or Barak.
Let me get this straight: you’d rather have Hillary Clinton, a bona fide socialist, liar, all-around bad person, as president. You’d rather have Obama, the senator with the most liberal voting record, as president.
Following this however, is a paragraph that essentially neuters the entire argument.
I know some say that they’d rather “have the country ruined” by a real liberal than by a RINO. [...] He’s not going to ruin the f__king country, y’all. At most he has 4 years to do whatever he does and I’m pretty sure recent experience proves that no matter how bad a president is, they can’t “ruin the country”.
If McCain can’t ruin the country, then neither can Clinton nor Obama. Of course, this kind of partisan fear-mongering has long been in use by both sides.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
McCain, Iraq, and the Left’s Hypocrisy

For the past 5 years, the lion’s share of the attacks on Bush and Republicans have revolved around Iraq. They include Abu Garib, no WMDs, lying about WMDs, lying about terrorism ties, Haliburton, Escalation, ad infinitum.

But here we have McCain, who’s one Republican Selling point is his support for the Iraq War. Not just a Supporter, but the Queen Bee of Senate Support for Iraq. Yet the Left relishes his rise as the Republican nominee.

I’ve have to believe this is only because of one or both of two possible reasons.

1) Opposition against the Iraq War was purely politically motivated, a tool to smear Bush with. With US Troops deaths as the anchor, they could attack Bush and recreate the Vietnam era for the Kerry campaign for one. And just generally deride Bush and Republicans.
Yet does any of this negativity get raised by the left when the Queen Bee of Iraq War Support is in line for the Presidency? You’d think they’d go nuts. Instead they support him. Its not even brought up directly. Opposition to Iraq has all been a fraud that was easily jettisoned.

and/or

2) McCain is a such a liberal boner, they can overlook his support for Iraq. This wasn’t the case for Lieberman who they literally kicked out of the Democrat Party. Iraq was all important then.


Liberal’s support for McCain has betrayed their opposition to the Iraq War as a political tool and they otherwise couldn’t give a crap.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Of course, I suspect that the Democrats will realize this glaring example of hypocrisy and adjust their message about McCain. They will also adjust it to as a reminder about McCain’s support for Iraq to help sell him to Conservatives.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
What I find interesting thing about that post is what it doesn’t say: nowhere in it is campaign finance reform mentioned.
That’s because it’s not an exhaustive analysis of various candidates stances on the issues.
Yes, but would you expect any list of reasons that Richard Nixon was a bad president to omit Watergate? Sometimes there’s an elephant in the room, and if even a cursory description of the room doesn’t mention the elephant, then it’s not a very good description.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I’m looking at the alternative, too, Martin... and the two are close enough to each other it’s still hard to see any differences between them, and thereby make the judgment, based on their own qualities. At that point one must take the longer view of what will help the country and thereby the party in the longer term.

As I said at my place earlier today, the problem is the small difference between them. Time was,a Real Republican didn’t need to split hairs. As it stands, most people can’t see any difference between John McCain, and the Democrats.. either Hillary OR Obama.

That longer term issue, I spoke of is one that Ann Coulter, for all her faults, brings up rather nicely... Paraphrasing;

The cold hard fact is that on a policy basis, you can’t fit water between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Both will therefore produce what will likely be the worst administration in history… and given some of the liberal greats like Jimmy Carter, that’s saying something.

But think, now; If McCain gets the WH, the Republicans will get the blame, and won’t be able to win the office of dog catcher for the next 20 years. By the same token, the reaction of the voters to a Hillary Clinton WH will be to lock Democrats out of power for the same period of time and for the same reason.

I’ve been saying for a long time that the American voter wanting ’change’ does not mean leaning further left. That message hasn’t sunk in yet, but trust me; after four years of Clinton, Obama, or McCain... and yes, I put them in the same basket... the message will be loud and clear.

I wonder if the leadership of the Republican party will have the wit at that point to see it?



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
JPM: I agree liberals would be idiots if they supported John McCain, he’s very conservative. I certainly cannot support him due to his position on the war. But the dysfunctional nature of this McCain hatred syndrome is hilarious. But I’ve noticed on this blog that there is a tendency to demonize personally those with whom people take issue: Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Dean, Ried, Sanchez, etc. You go against the dogma, you are evil, it seems! Campaign finance reform support is serious and unprincipled...for McCain, but not for Fred Thompson. I mean, that’s principle?!

No,I don’t want McCain for President. But he’s probably more principled than Romney, who changed a barrage of positions when he decided to run for President. I’m just amused by how quick people are to demonize someone, with no real evidence. I mean, bringing up the Keating 5?! That’s funny. Campaign finance reform — again, the Thompson factor. What else? It’s not a disagreement on principle, it’s emotional and personal — you guys just don’t like McCain. It’s from your gut, not your head. That’s OK, but I think you need to take a step back and think about how so many of you personally demonize people with views you dislike, and ask yourself if those people are really that bad, or if you might not be looking for reasons to tear them down because they don’t think like you. Is there really a difference between the leftist attacks on Bush and the attacks here on the various people you don’t like. Are many of you not, perhaps, just a mirror image of moveon.org — same mentality, different political positions.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
McCain endorsed by NYT - strike 1
McCain endorsed by LAT - Strike 2
McCain being called very conservative by Scott Erb - Strike 3

He’s out

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
to demonize someone, with no real evidence
Claiming someone is not conservative based on his positions is "demonizing"?

Providing his ACU ratings for the past 10 years is not "real" evidence while supplying his average ACU rating as your ONLY argument *is* evidence?

Furthermore, now you’ve gone from "conservative" to "very conservative." Seriously, on the few times he has made the rating of "conservative" from the ACU, it was only right at the minimum cutoff — and then he was below almost EVERY republican.

Do you really wonder why no one respects your commentary?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
No,I don’t want McCain for President.
You see, the rest of us are too stupid to oppose McCain for the RIGHT reasons.

If only we had the emotional maturity to oppose McCain for the right reasons, then we would have the respect of Erb.

It’s so obvious.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
If only we had the emotional maturity to oppose McCain for the right reasons, then we would have the respect of Erb.
No, many of you just can’t accept disagreement without having to connect it with personal animosity. The attacks on McCain are irrational. But that’s OK, it is great show to watch your reactions, you’re wearing it on your sleeve.

But, since you bring up emotional maturity, here’s a test: If you can find someone you think has fundamentally wrong views and still respect him as a person if he is otherwise a good person, that’s good. For instance, let’s say someone believes that the US military is a bad institution, it should not be recruiting on schools, and that children and young people should not join and all should be done to prevent them from joining. Let’s say this person considers the military to be paid killers for the state. Let’s say another person believes the military is the most important institution in our society, bravly protecting our values, with its members the most heroic of our people.

If these two people have emotional maturity, they can still respect each other as individuals and even be friends, recognizing they have a different perspective on this particular issue. If they don’t, they’ll demonize the other because of their different perspective, and not really look at the other person in a rational light.

For instance, Democrats or Republicans who are convinced people of their party are ethically and morally superior as individuals to those of the other party, rather than just having different perspectives and beliefs, are probably emotionally immature. They are letting political difference color how they see other people’s character, and that’s not rational.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
without having to connect it with personal animosity
Perhaps you can point to where people have commented about McCain on a personal level other than his policies?
The attacks on McCain are irrational.
According to Erb, it’s "rational" to claim McCain is "very conservative" by pointing to McCain’s policies during the Reagan era.

Furthermore, according to Erb, it’s "irrational" to claim McCain is not conservative by pointing to his policies and ACU ratings over the past 10 years.

According to Erb’s logic, Erb must be an idiot. (This last sentence is what "animosity" looks like.)
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
For what it’s worth, Erb, a good many of the "Pure" on this site are rats determined NOT to leave the sinking ship "Romney", and are going down with it on Tsunami Tuesday screeching "damn the logic; we are dying for our principles!"

Real rodents display more common sense than real Republicans.

 
Written By: eliXelx
URL: http://
JWG, it’s not so much the label you give him, it’s the animosity some give him. Thompson co-sponsored McCain-Feingold (from what Captain Sarcastic posted), yet he gets a pass. McCain, however, is derided as anti-constitution. Bush and McCain see eye to eye on immigration, yet McCain is condemned. Romney changes positions to run for President, yet it’s McCain who lacks principle...it just doesn’t add up!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Do you really wonder why no one respects your commentary?"

No, he doesn’t. He is absdolutely sure everyone is picking on him for no good reason, just like John McCain.

" But I’ve noticed on this blog that there is a tendency to demonize personally those with whom people take issue: Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Dean, Ried, Sanchez, etc."

The ’etc.’ means Scott Erb. Read his comments replacing McCain with Erb and it is a repeat of what he has written here about himself vs. everyone else. And of course he refuses to admit that it is possible for anyone here to both disagree with someone’s ideas and detest them personally for different reasons.

I wonder, is it improper and emotionally immmature to detest and demonize someone who believes that sex with children is acceptable and presumably acts on that belief?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Thompson co-sponsored McCain-Feingold (from what Captain Sarcastic posted), yet he gets a pass"

Well, perhaps that is because some here judge people on more than a single issue. Someone here listed a number of McCain’s objectionable positions, but I guess that doesn’t fit your caricature of those who criticize McCain.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Bush and McCain see eye to eye on immigration, yet McCain is condemned.
You just weren’t paying attention when many people on this site excoriated Bush on his illegal immigration stance. Also, Bush won’t be President a year from now; this is about who will be.
Romney changes positions to run for President, yet it’s McCain who lacks principle
Romney’s caught a lot of heat, but he didn’t belong to the Keating 5, and he didn’t sponsor legislation that abridged 1st Amendment rights. McCain is principled because he didn’t change his positions? I’m not sure I’d want anyone who holds those positions as President, no matter how principled he is in holding to them.

Echoing JWG: show us where people on this blog have commented about McCain on a personal level, rather than reacting to his positions.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
And, of course, Thompson admitted to John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that the bill was a mistake and he should NOT have voted for it.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
And, of course, Thompson admitted to John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that the bill was a mistake and he should NOT have voted for it.
Correct, and that’s the only reason I was willing to give Fred a chance. Everyone makes mistakes, but some learn from them and others don’t. I don’t mind some amount of flipping, as long as it’s of the "lessons learned" variety instead of the pandering variety (granted sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference).

McCain is not repentent about CFR. He’s proud of what he did, and from quotes since the law was passed, he’s sympathetic to doing more. Being proud of his own contempt for the Bill of Rights puts him in a different league from the usual Republican politician.

So this whole "You guys give Thompson/Romney/whoever a break, but you won’t give McCain one, so you’re just being mean-spirited" argument is silly. Others have tried the "Reagan was no better than McCain" schtick, which is the same type of sophistry. Mark Levin did a pretty good job of covering how McCain is different, and it makes complete sense for someone who loves freedom to put him in a different category.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
And, of course, Thompson admitted to John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that the bill was a mistake and he should NOT have voted for it.
Unless there is another interview where he flip-flopped from this position, Thompson absolutely did NOT say he should not have voted for McCain-Feingold-Thompson.

From the Thompson interview with Fund...
Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."
And Romney, well, Romney is Zelig, his position ares exactly what the voters he is trying to attract want them to be.

I understand evolving positions on policy, but I don’t anyone who has gone from supporting civil unions to arguing that that legally recognizing same-sex unions endangers the cultural support for heterosexual families.

On abortion, same thing, he went from a position of always legal, to a position of never legal.

I hope Romney wins the nomination, just so I can watch you guys pull your hair out when he moves to the left for the general election campaign.

Heck, with his record, I might vote for him.

But I think you guys are partially correct, if either of these guys becomes President, they will not battling a Democratic Congress, they will be working hand in hand.

I suspect their legacies will be more important to them than any ideological or philosophical bent and they will try to make the country better, that just doesn’t always work out.

It just makes me laugh that you while you may not like all of McCain’s positions, at least you know what they are. You really have no idea what Romney is, and neither do I.

We really will be rolling the dice this November, and even after the die is cast, we won’t know for a year or two whether we won or not.



 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
And, of course, Thompson admitted to John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that the bill was a mistake and he should NOT have voted for it
People who change positions to get votes are recognized as principled, those who stick to their positions are not. You guys live in opposite world.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott

The mere fact that you are pushing McCain so much and taking up for him raises red flags with anyone familiar with your liberal views.

Why are you so interested in trying to make McCain out to be a better choice for conservatives?

You couldnt have a hidden agenda there do you?


The NYT and LAT times endorsed McCain. The MSM media love the guy (for now) That speaks volumes in and of itself. Next thing you know John Kerry will get up and say how much of a better candidate McCain is for conservatives. And you will sit here and continue your blantantly obvious pandering of the most obviously liberal of the 2 viable "republican" (I use that term loosely when speaking of McCai) candidates.

Why not go back to your championing of Scott Beauchamp despite all the proof to the otherwise. It was just as funny than you proclaiming McCain as the natural choice of conservatives.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
People who change positions to get votes are recognized as principled, those who stick to their positions are not. You guys live in opposite world.
So, THAT’S why you’ve never admitted you were wrong.... on ANYTHING.
Much is explained.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Much is explained.
Yes. Life is very simple to those who are emotionally convinced that they never make a mistake. Even if they feel compelled to pretend that they are capable of error, they know internally that they never really make one. So they can feel superior to the rest of us fallible humans, and cannot resist the impulse to continuously lecture us on our mistakes and failures.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
People who change positions to get votes are recognized as principled, those who stick to their positions are not. You guys live in opposite world.
Like John Kenneth Galbraith said, "When I am faced with new information, I change my opinion. What do you do?"

Someone who takes a position, and then upon later reflection realizes it was the wrong position and changes his mind is hardly unprincipled. Someone who takes a bad position and sticks with it despite all evidence to the contrary *cough*Erb*cough* is not acting from principle.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Just a side note: Erb still hasn’t shown how anyone here has commented on McCain on anything other than his political positions.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
"People who change positions to get votes are recognized as principled, those who stick to their positions are not."

Tell me something Scott did you vote for John Kerry or GW in 2004?

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider