IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME: McCain Derangement Syndrome arrives. I understand people having issues with McCain, but people need to calm down soon. This is politics, the art of the possible, not the ideal. Some people on the right are starting to sound almost Kossack-like.
No, politics is not the art of the possible. Politics is the art or science of government.
I know it’s fashionable to get all cynical and say that politics is the “art of the possible,” which boils down to “choosing the lesser evil” in the voting part of the process, but none of this cheap analysis does anything to improve the health of the republic and is, in fact, a recipe for its continued erosion.
I further resent the implication that those of us who don’t choose to give our imprimatur to people we don’t wish to see representing us are somehow “not calm.”
I said more than two years ago that I would never, ever vote for John McCain. Nothing has changed. I won’t vote for him, and I won’t vote for Mike Huckabee.
Personally, I think all of the folks who get so exercised at even the notion of some of us not choosing to vote for somebody we can’t abide need to chill out. Forcing. Demanding a vote for is no less dictatorial than preventing a vote. Both presuppose that the voter should not be permitted free will when it comes to the ballot. But yes, I do agree that some folks are starting to sound Kossack-like - especially those who demand that we must vote for or support candidates we can’t stand for the sake of the party.
UPDATE: Glenn responds, and I mostly agree, but not particularly with this part:
Those who hold a special grudge against McCain over immigration or McCain-Feingold are a different case. But again, everybody gets to vote how they want. Just be prepared to live with the results.
I don’t think Glenn means that those of us who don’t choose to vote for McCain (or Huckabee) forfeit our right to protest and organize against the doings of a Democratic President, should one be elected.
I do know, however, that some folks do think that way. Remember: at least a part of my intentions with a refusal to vote for a GOP candidate I cannot stand would include extremely strong resistance to anything I didn’t approve of from a Dem in the White House.
I’ve been giving GWB hell for about five years now, and I voted for that guy. I see no reason that not voting for a GOP candidate would preclude giving hell to a Democratic candidate. So, sure, I’m fully prepared to live with the results of my choice, as long as you understand that my lifestyle will include full-tilt battle against policies and actions I consider as a threat to the things I believe in.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Nope not gonna vote for him. God have mercy on my soul I actually gave him money in 2000 but after he spent the last 8 years pissin in my face and telling me its raining I will vote Hillary or sit home against Obama(I have never pulled a D lever for a federal election before). The worst thing is seeing people who a week ago were saying we gotta stop him now saying we gotta suport him. Well F that if they want to eat that shit sandwich fine for them but I ain’t that hungry.
Same here. I’ve said in the past that I would stay home if McCain or Romney got the nod, and would vote Democrat if Huckabee was nominated. At this point, knowing a few more things about McCain and having thought about the longer-term political dynamics in play, I’m leaning towards voting Democrat against McCain as well.
My reasons can be somewhat glibly summarized in six words: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman. A president who opposes free speech, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and buys into the global warming shibboleth. If this is the face of the modern Republican party, I want no part of it.
I’m a secular, pro-freedom individualist. While the Democrats are even more hostile to my political values than the Republicans, both parties are at this point disasterously bad — the difference is that people still think the Republicans stand for the things I value. The only choice left to me is which party’s public image will take the blame for the statist policies we will have crammed down our throats over the next four years. I choose the party that is publicly associated with statism all the way through, and that’s the Democrats.
“The art of the possible” somehow finds it impossible to produce anything better than “slightly less execrable.”
Well, if you perceive little difference between McCain and his probable Democratic opponent, then is there really an issue over whether you bite the bullet and vote for him or not? In some ways, it’s almost preferable to lose - you get the same government either way, but losing at least tells the Republicans that they can’t win by being Democrat Lite.
I hate McCain and the Democrats. If it comes down to McCain or Hillary, I am leaning toward Hillary. The “logic” of the vote (I put the logic in quotes because the choice is also motivated by spite against McCain, the primary process and voters who have chosen him) is that as a die-hard Republican I cannot bear the thought of McCain being held up as a Republican. He is not. He is an independent.
If he is elected his actions (amnesty, etc) will be associated with being a Republican and I think that that will do long term damage to the party. If you think GWB has done long term damage, just wait.
Moreover, when John McCain defies conservatives he does not just go along, he leads the charge. It’s his damn name that keeps popping up on all the bills that conservatives hate so much.
On the other hand, I expect Hillary to govern like Bill, which means governance by polls. On some issues (immigration, for instance) polls favor the conservative view. While she might not move in a conservative direction on such issues - she is likely to let them lie benignly neglected. On other issues, there is good evidence that she may be somewhat pragmatic. Of all of the Dem. nominees she was the most reasonable on the war.
Why not Barak? If he wins, he is much more likely to rule on Democratic “principals” and he will really invigorate the Democratic party. Both of those things are bad for me.
I have been reading John Bolton’s book. The only thing that causes me some doubts on my vote plans is the fact that McCain did seem to strongly support Bolton in each of his nomination processes). Can a man who supports The Stache be all bad? Does it hint that McCain has a core that is conservative? Does it indicate that McCain may be more shrewd than seemingly opportunistic? Could he be playing a game that he has to do some (seemingly popular and media warming) liberal things in order to accomplish his core conservative goals? Or am I desperately trying to find a positive way to envision eating a shit sandwich?
No candidate is all of one thing, but in this case, the majority of McCain is, indeed, a shit sandwich - and becoming more so with every passing year.
I don’t think what’s happening is McCain Derangement Syndrome so much as an absence of Hillary Derangement Syndrome. A lot of people are going to argue that we have to vote Republican regardless of how we feel about the nominee, in order to stop Her Inevitableness from becoming President.
The idea that McCain is the one to stop her, is laughable. She’ll chew him up and spit him out.
I will never vote for John McCain. Someone who can’t grasp the basic fundamentals of the Bill of Rights has no damn business running this country.
McCain Derangement Syndrome: something you say when you’re too lazy to make an actual analysis.
I like Prof. Reynolds, but he doesn’t get the deep antipathy many/most conservatives have toward McCain. He’s happily shat in our faces the last decade or so, fought against tax cuts, curtailed our freedom of speech and set himself up as God, i.e. the Gang of 14. Also, he’s an egocentric little tyrant, who bitches and rages when he doesn’t get his way. It isn’t derangement to find the likelihood of voting for such a person, who coincidentally is a member of a party that purports to be the conservative one, to be somewhat less than the probability of my winning the lottery 10 times in succession.
My brother-in-law and I discussed the possibility of the GOP committing McCainicide. He’s so conservative that he makes me look like Mussolini, and he stated for a fact that he would not vote for McCain, no matter who the
SocialistDemocratic Party of America trots out.Fuck John McCain. And fuck the GOP.
One thing to consider is this: we’ve seen with GWB that the Republican Congress is very likely to roll over for a Republican President, even if they don’t really approve of what he his doing. Ex: Bush’s spending habits. Whereas they seem to grow more of a spine when they are opposing a Democratic President. So if there really isn’t all that much difference between McCain and Hillary, we might actually come out ahead with Hillary.
It’s a long way to the Conventions, and longer still to the General. Let’s keep our heads up and keep fighting. We’re not dead yet.
OK guys & gals. Nobody can, or is going to try by means other than verbal persuasion, make you vote for McCain. I’m voting for Mitt in the CA primary myself, but…
I just have to ask, just how would four years of Hillery or Barack in combination with a Democrat controlled Congress be better than McCain? Could you explain that? Would Hillery appoint better judges? Would Barack pursue the war on Islamic terrorists? Who is more likely to run for a 2nd term? A 65 year old Hillery? A 51 year old Barack? Or a 76 year old McCain?
If forced to choose between assholes I’ve got to go with the GOP asshole rather than either the Democrat asshole or the clueless Democrat.
Better print up your bumper stickers:
Don’t blame me! I sat home with my thumb up my ass!
“..we’ve seen with GWB that the Republican Congress is very likely to roll over for a Republican President, even if they don’t really approve of what he his doing. Ex: Bush’s spending habits.”
Say what? I’d say it was more a case of Republican Congress’s bad spending habits.
They didn’t roll over, they were leading the charge on out of control spending.
Some things were never meant to be. I agree with many here, elsewhere in the blogosphere and talk radio. It would be better to have the country go Davey Jones Locker flying the Democrat flag than with a false conservative at the helm.
Supreme Court judges! you wail? Well, Reagan, Bush Sr. and others were plenty surprised by their selections, weren’t they? And this all presupposes that an incremental improvement in McCain over Billary would provide the sought after relief. Would McCain nominate the judges that will strike down McCain-Feingold?
The country gets what it deserves. Those who want us to hold our noses and vote for the man who brought us a fistful of the worst legislation of the past ten years, are the ones who need attitude adjustments. I guarantee you that I will not whine and complain about whomever happens to win. Things work out the way they’re supposed to in life.
I would hope that folks trying to force Mr. Quick to vote for McCain would “chill out.” I would also hope that, if it turns out to be McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton, Mr. Quick might reconsider on the ground that the conciliatory internationalism practiced by most of the national politicians and advisors of the Democratic Party is not the way to meet the challenges of Jihadistan, China, Islamization of Europe, etc.
Well, Bill Clinton with a Democrat controlled Congress lead to the biggest Republican victory in decades.
My position is that while a Democratic president will, as Bill Clinton did, espouse many programs I don’t like, at least the Republicans in Congress will fight them. As long as they have enough senators to filibuster, they can successfully do that. On the other hand, if McCain proposes various programs I don’t like, the Republicans won’t seriously fight him, and he’ll get plenty of Democratic support.
For example, under a Democratic president, Republicans would likely put up more a fight over an immigration amnesty bill than they will for McCain. Like it or not, McCain will regard his own election as proof that the American people want illegal immigrant amnesty. He’ll go after it with everything he’s got, and he’ll probably get it. How are you feeling about that?
I don’t know. Would they be any worse? John McCain has already said he doesn’t like Alito because he “wears his conservatism on his sleeve”. Sounds like we might get another Souter out of him, and Souter is as far left as any judge on the court. Certainly McCain’s fundamental disdain for the Constitution indicates that he’s unlikely to pick anybody I’m happy with.
The question I’m most concerned about is whether we are going to have a two party system, or a two-sides-of-the-same-dime system.
The cynical “vote for the moderately lesser of evils” strategy guarantees that we will reach the second sooner rather than later.
McCain has demonstrated through his actions that he has little if any respect or understanding of the Constitution. I see no reason to expect such a man to appoint judges who do. Moreover, given the structural realities of Senate seat distribution, the next President is going to have to deal with a sharply Democratic Senate. Even if McCain were to, say, try to appoint Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court, what are the odds of the Senate confirming her? I’d go with exactly no chance in hell.
The next four years are going to be very very bad. The best we can hope for, in my judgment, is that the right people and ideas get the blame.
I had a friend who was always right. It was infuriating. For example, I wanted to like Jimmy Carter. He was a southerner and a Christian. How bad could he be? Frank said Carter was basically a mean spirited hick. And he was right.
He told me there were two parties in this country, a government party and an antigovernment party. There are Republicans in both. There are very few antigovernment Democrats. This is why a Republican majority in Congress always loses to the government party super majority. He was right in this too.
John McCain is a member of the government party. he will support such things as the fairness doctrine because he believes bloggers and talk radio are corrupt and his friends in Congress are not. He will cheerfully support continued campaign finance reform because he really believes anti-corruption is a more fundamental value than free speech.
It would be a catastrophe for the country to see Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in the White House. I could never vote for them. But McCain shares their membership in the government party. He would be better in the sense of less bad. That’s not enough. There must be some minimum standard and McCain doesn’t meet mine.
If John McCain is the Republican nominee, I will vote third party or leave the Presidential selection blank. I am not angry. I do not hate John McCain. I simply cannot vote for him.
Your friend is a very smart cookie.
Yeah, vote for McCain because anything else is worse. That’s the philosophy of a battered wife. I won’t do that.
Wow, quite a lot of comments - not deranged, but reasoned! All spot on!!
The best reason to not vote for Maverick is that the Repubs in the Senate may fight harder against a Dem prez, than against McAmnesty.
Good enough to stay home or vote 3rd party (hopefully the Libertarians will nominate someone not totally crazy)
Nope, sorry. Because I don’t trust McCain as far as I can spit him. Based on past history, he’d sell us out to the Iranians or the Saudis for nothing more than an approving editorial from the New York Times.
What makes you think he’d stand fast? His support for naked, undefended borders, his desire to needlessly extend full constitutional rights to terrorist warriors who attack and murder us, his refusal to sanction any action against captured terrorists they might find inconvenient or offensive, or his support for the sale of critical port infrastructure to an Islamic government that supports the destruction of Israel?
Those inclined to glib McCain quotes on this point would be well-advised to review GWB’s public statements immediately after 9/11, measuring them against what he has actually done, and not done, in the years since.
Anent McCain’s antagonism for Gitmo and his support for granting constitutional civil rights to foreign terrorists: This is usually excused by his supporters as being the logical outcome of his dreadful experiences in captivity in Vietnam.
What is conveniently glossed over is that the North Vietnamese treatment of him was in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Our establishment of Gitmo, and our treatment of those held there, was and is not in violation of the Conventions.
As usual, McCain wants to have his cake and eat it, too.
Fascinating how ‘Moderate’ fence-sitters have this extraordinary ability to act as if they are not part of the problem when in fact, because both parties pander to the moderate voter everything is all mixed up.
It’s sort of like when these fine Moderates campaigned for the ‘1 billion mercury light-bulbs in America’ and the government responded to these demands by banning ordinary Edison bulbs, these fine Moderates are now outraged that the government took them seriously.
McCain panders to the Moderates which is why I won’t be giving him my support. IF the Moderates want to fight the War on Terror they’re going to have to do better than ‘if you don’t vote McCain you’ll end up with Hillary’.
Well, so will Moderates but the difference is that I’ll still have my integrity while all the Moderates will be left with endless whining about how miserable life is under a Liberal Democrat.
The only good thing if–and we can still hope it doesn’t happen–McCain get the nomination will be to watch all of his buddy, pal, friends at the NYT and other lib rags who have built him up, rip him into shreds.
I will enjoy seeing that very much. (Not that I’m deranged, or anything.)
Yeah, I find that hilarious, too. McCain looks good in polls of the ignoramuses, but I wonder how good he’ll look after the MSM chews on him for five months straight, without him getting any backup from us conservative bloggers and talkers he dislikes so much.
Because I’ll tell you now - not only will I not vote for him, I won’t waste even one pixel in supporting him - no matter how outrageous the attacks on him from his MSM pals become.
But what the hell - he doesn’t need us conservatives for anything, does he?
Not to be too terribly Middle-Agey about it, but - I’ve decided the appropriate view for me is: A pox and the bloody flux on both their houses.
I long ago came to expect perfidy and fiscal irresponsibility from the Demonrat Party - it’s only in relatively recent years that I’ve come to see the same from the Rethuglican Party, as well.
There’s no one now who appears capable of achieving the nomination of either major Party, who is also capable of receiving my vote - no matter how futile it may seem, it’s a write-in vote or none at all for me.
And thus transfixed, betrayed by all his friends, in his last anguish he shall cry out unto the Times, “Eloi! Eloi! lama sabachthani!”
McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman.
If Obama wins I’m voting for him. At least his political positions are clear and upfront. And he seems like a genuine nice guy…despite his politics being completely wrong.
OTOH, Juan McCain is the type to smile as he stabs you in the back. He’s spent every waking moment since he lost SC in 2000 doing what ever it took to keep his name in the media. He’s the true stealth candidate; he’s been running since 2000 and it’s only just now that I realized it. Demeaning fellow Republicans, the Gang of Fourteen; it didn’t matter as long as he got his pearly whites in front of the tube.
Even if it meant he stepped all over our Rights, as in McCain-Feingold, to get that air time.
Dunderhead moderates who haven’t investigated the candidates at all vote for McCain because of the news coverage he’s received the last eight years.
Sheesh.
Of course, the Canklebeast could still win the Dem nomination…what moonbat are the Libertarian’s trotting out this year?
Or was that, “O tempora! O mores!”?
So if a 9/11 occurs again, you’re all cool with Hillary being in charge? You’re going to let something like campaign finance reform move you in that direction? A law pertaining to the way we run elections to determine who will govern a small part of our lives? Immigration - an issue nobody talked much about until 4 years ago when talk radio suddenly made it an issue? Of course, we’ll take all the Cubans we have room for.
It’s interesting that people can see in McCain’s heart and know that he “enjoys” ticking off conservatives. Perhaps he just feels differently? 50% of Florida Republicans voted for the guy. Perhaps it’s fair to say that conservatives don’t own the party? Reagan is often praised for appealing to a broad swath of Americans. The “Reagan Democrats.” McCain gets 50% of republicans in a major state and he’s a pariah.
There’s something pathologically self-destructive about party members actually disliking the fact that the media likes their candidate. You can see it on the far left liberal blogs with respect to Obama. I don’t understand it. That should be seen as a good thing.
On another note, I failed to see much conservative mobilization for Romney or Thompson or Huckabee. Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy, for crying out loud.
I’d be prepared to wager the following - McCain will say no to Republicans and Democrats alike when it comes to spending. He will be prepared to veto - something Bush and too many other presidents have been shy about. If total spending doesn’t decrease during a McCain presidency, the rate of increase will. He’ll also kick butt and take names when it comes to Islamic terrorists. But that’s so passe now.
Yep, that’s the argument in a nutshell. The Democrats will be ever so much worse than whatever shit sandwich the GOP serves up, because, you know, the world is coming to an end.
But it isn’t. And, actually, if 9/11 occurs again under a Clinton presidency, Hillary won’t be in charge, Bill will. And he will smash those who attacked us. He’s always felt that the real smirch on his legacy was that he let Osama escape. He’s been openly envious of GWB for being a “war-time” president. And, frankly, he’d be hard pressed to do a worse job that Bush has done.
In fact, thanks to GWB’s monumental farkups, a Clinton might be the only way we could mount a military response to an attack without triggering a full-throated “GOP lied, people died, no war for oil” response. Further, I think the Clintons are owned by the Chinese, not the Saudi Arabians, as the Bushes are.
But that begs the question you are really asking, and to that, the answer is, “If you want me to vote for your candidate, give me a candidate I want to vote for.”
If you can’t, well, too bad, so sad, enjoy your time in the wilderness, we’ll try again in 2010 or 2012. You no longer get my vote merely because you’re supposedly the lesser of two evils.
Um, how do you figure McCain got 50% of Florida Republicans? You have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Florida Republican primary, and he got 35% of that vote. 35 is not 50.
You’re correct, I was transposing the delegate numbers to the percentages from my memory.
Even so, Giuliani received 15% in addition to McCains %35. It just doesn’t seem to me that the people the party relies on for votes are overwhelmingly as conservative as people think. People who agreed with some of Reagan’s ideas mistakenly attribute his success to those ideas. I believe it had more to do with why Obama is doing so well - charisma, personality, optimism.
For the record, Reagan had no problem with amnesty for immigrants and actually called it that.
I think the 50% meme is coming from those in the commentariat who add the votes of Huckabee and McCain (the two candidates least supported by conservative talk radio, the right side of the blogosphere, and the NR/Weekly Standard pundits) together to disparagingly downplay the influence of those folks on the nomination.
True. And his plan was less of an amnesty thanMcCain-Bush-Kennedy. But they refused to admit it was an amnesty. Why do you suppose that was?
It couldn’t be that the supposedly less conservative US voters would have torpedoed it from the git-go, could it? As they eventually did anyway.
Sorry this is long, but there is a point at the end of it.
Glenn Reynolds wrote on Instapundit:
Romney is probably no worse than Bush. He’s saying the right things at the moment, and if the wind’s blowing in the right direction he might occasionally do the right things. McCain is actively on the other side, on too many things: He holds the first amendment in contempt - it’s not just that he doesn’t understand, it’s that he understands and doesn’t care. Then there’s corporate welfare, which is the root of the corruption he claims to be concerned about. And “unfunded” tax cuts, which he’s against. I don’t much care about immigration, though his having a Mexican nationalist as his advisor seems worrying. Now he’s turned into an environmentalist.
Then there’s his temper - should someone who can blow up in public as he has done on so many occasions - and at his supposed colleagues - be trusted either with diplomacy or with the football? He also seems to have an excess of “collegiality”; remember that Bush’s biggest screwups were when he “reached out” to the other side.
And then there’s the whole Keating Five thing, and I’m not at all convinced that he merely gave the “appearance of impropriety”; his accusations during the BCRA debate that all Senators are corrupt sound very like Kerry saying that all USA soldiers were guilty of atrocities - I think it’s a case of a guilty person assuming that everyone else is doing the same thing. Remember, during the Clinton Asian fundraising hearings, when Haley Barbour testified about a loan that the RNC had raised in Hong Kong, and the Ds just assumed that of course they’d used it improperly for election- related expenses, just as the Ds had done, because “everyone does it”. They seemed astounded when Barbour testified that the RNC had been careful *not* to use that money for anything election-related. When McCain said that about his colleagues, to their faces, that was what I flashed back to.
Not to mention how McCain cheated on his first wife, and married the second about five minutes after getting divorced. Not the greatest character, there.
Now remind me, why exactly I should prefer McCain to a card-carrying Democrat? What exactly would they do that he wouldn’t?
In 1996 I had no preference between Clinton and Dole, so I voted for Harry Browne, and I still don’t regret that vote. Even in hindsight I see no reason to believe anything would have been better had Dole won that election. And if McCain gets the nomination I may be in the same situation, whereas if Romney gets it I can still hope that he might do the right thing at least some of the time.
Only three things:
1. He’d propose judges that were merely leftist, instead of far leftist and 30 years old. Since the liberals on the SC are waiting for a dem to be elected so they can retire, the judge situation could affect America for decades. Also, there’s a LOT of empty seats in the other courts just waiting to be packed by a dem pres+dem senate+dem house. All of a sudden they’d be full, and an entire branch of the government would suffer a hostile takeover that can’t be undone by elections. Maybe McCain would only delay or soften that takeover, but that DOES meet the criteria you ask for.
2. The GWOT. Or have you forgotten Obama’s position on it?
3. Socialized medicine. Another really bad democrat idea that once implemented, can’t be taken back. You can’t put an entire private sector back together once you dismantle it any more than you can put their patients back together once you dismantle them.
McCain is cynically counting on you to care more about not letting the country fall down that cliff than you hate him for his betrayals.
Don’t shoot the hostage out of pique at the hostage-taker’s tactics.
All that does is encourage more hostage-taking. Far better to shoot the hostage-taker stone dead (politically speaking) and demonstrate that the practice doesn’t reward you, it destroys you.
Which is what I hope we can accomplish with McCain, Huckabee, and the rest of the RINO mob.
1. I don’t trust McCain not to appoint the same 45-year-old leftists (even Obama won’t appoint 30-year-olds to the SC).
2. Hillary, at least, will fight the war. And I don’t believe Obama will do much worse, if push ever comes to shove.
3. I see no reason why McCain won’t end up with some socialised medicine plan either; and if he does, enough GOP senators will go along with him out of party loyalty that he’ll be able to get it through. Hillary failed the first time and I can only hope that she’ll fail just as badly the second time.
Another reason to oppose McCain: his attack on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, four years ago. Instead of supporting them, he chose to stand up for his Senate colleague Kerry and slime the Swifties.
What evidence do you have that McCain will attempt to impose socialized healthcare?
Also, consider ALL the facts regarding nominations… not just the ones that support the conclusion you want to reach. The gang of 14 actions are debatable, but what is NOT debatable is that he supported Roberts, and BOTH Hillary and Obama did not.
You might not trust McCain’s choices, but anyone who would pretend that Roberts isn’t worthy of the SC is guaranteed to pack the court with ideologues. Absolutely, 100% guaranteed.
Is it your position that opposing Roberts was in any way a reasonable way for a person who wants the job of picking justices to act? Yes or no.
Oh, bite me, Waxxy. How about if I just hold up my hand? Would that deliver enough depth for you?
In the first place, if GWB had has his way, the nominees would have been Al “Open Borders” Gonzales and Harriet “I’m A Good Secretary” Miers, and McAmnesty would have supported them both to the hilt.
You display a touching amount of trust in a shameless politician who has stabbed conservatives in the back time and again.
But let’s leave all that aside - the real problem you have is you’re still playing the stupid lesser of two evils game: trying desperately to convince us that we have to vote for McShitSandwich because he might be marginally better than the Dems.
That’s the thinking that brought us the disastrous George W. Bush. I made that mistake twice, but the last time was in 2004. I won’t make it again.
I repeat: If you want my vote, nominate a candidate I want to vote for. And for all your phony bravado and yes or no demands, McCain is not, and never will be, that candidate.
No, although I thought it might get a straight answer. But apparently getting a yes or no from you has about the same chance as Bush getting a up-or-down vote on the remaining nominees before his term runs out.
You must be psychic, because I sure as heck don’t know where else you are getting the ‘touching amount of trust’ line from. You sure you aren’t confusing me with another commenter?
I responded to a question. That question was “Why prefer McCain to a card-carrying democrat?” My answers have not yet been refuted, unless you count evidence-free hyperbole as refutation.
Further, I think that the spectacle of you blaming McCain for GWB’s SC picks and Milhouse inventing the McCain = Hillarycare without any real evidence confirms the diagnosis of MDS, the primary symptom of which is disconnection from reality.
For god’s sake, blame the man for his OWN actions, not someone else’s, and not on paranoid inventions of what you imagine he might do. That’d be a start on the road to recovery.
Waxx, you apparently don’t read this blog, or you’d know how many of McCain’s actions I’ve blamed him for in the past, and hold him accountable for today.
But what I’m really challenging, and what you are apparently just too fucking stupid to understand, is the argument underlying all your pathetic whining about McCain versus Democrats: You expect us to vote for him solely because you think a Democrat would be worse!
No.
If you want to vote for the lesser, but still, evil, fine. Enjoy the warmth of your chains, because they have the imprimatur of GOP sweetness rather than Dem deviltry on them.
Let me see if I can get it through your thick skull: If you want me to vote for somebody, find somebody I want to vote for.
McCain isn’t that guy. Your argument for him is nothing more than a recipe for the further destruction of conservatism and liberty in the United States.
Later on, I’m going to post the full bill of particulars against John McCain, because lackwits like you seem incapable of understanding why some of us loathe him so much. Maybe if I put in all in one place, in short, easily understood words, it might punch through your well-nigh impenetrable wails of “But…but…but the Democrats are worse! We have to vote for the Republicans.”
Start here. And watch for more soon.
You appear to be under the impression that blaming someone for his own actions fifty times gives you a free ride to blame him for GWB’s later on. It doesn’t work that way.
As I said, the only thing I was doing was answering a question. Presumably that’s allowed in this section. Someone who probably didn’t actually want an answer asked why McCain would be better than a Dem. I answered. I am looking for your refutation on those 3 points, but not seeing much of one.
Unless of course you are relying on Milhouse’s response, in which case let me know so I can take it apart for you.
Okay, let’s take your stupid little question apart.
1. “Better?” Define it, please. Better for who? You? John McCain? The GOP? The United States of America? The conservative movement?
Post an answer, and we’ll proceed.
Waxx: What part of loose cannon egocentric oath-breaking anti-business amnesty-touting constitution wrecker are you having trouble dealing with?
The man has proven multiple times in the past that he’s willing to do whatever it takes to get in the good graces of the socialist media. I don’t want him as my president. I survived Jimmy Carter, I can survive Obama or Hillary. Sure, the military will suffer retention problems exceeding those of the Clinton years, and our great nation will suffer economically, and our freedoms will shrink under the Democrat. I just believe that McCain would jump at the opportunity to show the MSM what a great guy he is, and enthusiastically enact exactly the same socialist policies. And I’d rather see honest mistakes, however difficult to undo, than self-aggrandizing crap from a man who is the nominal head of a once-great party that used to stand for liberty, patriotism, responsibility, and limited government.
Only by soundly rejecting him can that party survive to re-embrace those principles. And if they embrace him, then they clearly reject those principles, and just as certainly reject me.
Full disclosure: I was raised in a GOP household, registered Libertarian at my first opportunity, rejected the big “L” fairly early on due to teh crazies, and have been searching for a party that would protect my nation, and leave me alone.
Still searching.
Waxx, the whole point here - which Bill keeps trying to get you to see, and which you, in your own little, schoolboyish “where’s-the-proper-rebuttal-to-my-argument” way, continue to fail to perceive - is this: Based upon the multitudinous and multifarious far-more-severe transgressions against good government, good order and his own solemnly-made oaths, Big John McStain’s “bad” far, far outweighs and outdistances any possible “good” he might deliver on your three items.
In short: Your points, in the face of his prior actions, are pointless.
One more time: “Less evil” just isn’t good enough, anymore. Unless you can somehow reverse all that McStain’s done before, he hasn’t earned the ticket to doing more, based purely on the fact that he may be marginally better in some ways than the Demonrats.
Kindly spare us your thoughts on Milhouse’s response, BTW - your three points just aren’t worth rebutting, where ol’ McStain’s concerned.
Lets see: Three responses, not even of which even MENTIONS, let alone rebuts, the answer I gave to that question.
Now, I don’t really mind three-on-one, but by now I think it’s fair to say by now that not a one of you is interested in discussing those points. Fine. Perhaps when next you ask a question, you should include a “/rhetorical” tag so that no one takes it seriously.
K?
This is not a reason to prefer McCain. A McCain leftist nomination is more likely to make it through a Senate with a significant GOP minority than a Dem nomination would be.
I don’t see anything that tells me McCain would be any better on the GWOT than George Bush has been - and Bush has been a disaster. In the event of anoth er major attack, in fact, somebody like Hillary/Bill might actually have - and use - more effective force that McCain. McCain will be hamstrung by his support for Bush’s pathetic “beat them with Democracy” strategy which has left Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and, possibly Pakistan even more dangerous than they were prior to 2001. McCain will do nothing to remedy any of this and, in fact, will probably make it worse. If we’re not going to fight the war - and McCain won’t - then better somebody else be in the White House to take the brunt of our surrender.
Oh, you mean like the Bush Prescription Entitlement program, the biggest new entitlement program since the 1970s, which McCain loudly supported and voted for?
Anyway, in answer, McCain’s long record of “compromising” with Democrats gives me small hope that he would veto some Dem universal care plan, no matter what he says now. He isn’t going to be able to get his own plan passed, so the best hope for avoiding universal care is an aroused Congressional minority fighting to prevent it, rather than depending on the very shaky prospect of a McCain veto.
There are too many McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Kennedy showpiece bills around for me to believe that a McCain-Kennedy Universal Health Plan is beyond the realm of possibility.
The man is simply not trustworthy enough to helm the White House with a Dem majority. Let the GOP fight the battle in the trenches - they have a better chance of winning it there than depending on a man who stabs conservatives in the back every chance he gets, as long as he gets lots of adoring face time at NYT and CNN.
*Sighhhh…*
O.k., one time and one time only for the lil’ schoolboy troll -
And you offer exactly what to back up this opinion? Because, you know, it is merely your opinion here - you offer no evidence (probably because there isn’t anything useful to offer) that Johnny-The-RINO would do anything useful at all where the SC or any other judgeships are concerned. Besides, are you going to tell us that “merely lefty” is so superior to “really lefty, and young, too”? Sorry - “maybe” he’d be better isn’t a useful point at all.
Again, you seem to be espousing the idea that we’d be better off with McStain - who, I seem to recollect, has been pretty o.k. with George’s altogether-disfunctional fumbling around. What actual evidence can you offer that, once again, this isn’t just a matter of “slightly-less-bad”, rather than “he’ll do us some good”?
In case you haven’t been paying close enough attention, all of the major candidates in both parties have been talking about “the national crisis in the health-care industry” - once again, where’s your evidence? National healthcare isn’t just a “democrat” idea, and McStain could easily “bipartisanship” his way into a deal on this. What’s going to prove to us that, no matter who gets elected, we’re not going to see some kind of nationwide, Gubmint-run medical system shoved down our throats?
Yet another expression of opinion, I think -
See what I mean? Unless you’ve got some kind of mind-reading technique you haven’t told us about, what makes you so sure - aside from opinions like these three which you apparently pulled out of that notorious outer planet - about just what ol’ McStain would do on any of this, given the chance?
Like I said - not really worth a rebuttal.
Well, Mr. Debater, such cynicism deserves an equally cynical reply: ” We can haul the country back up that cliff a lot easier than we can stomach helping to elect somebody who’s helped to put it on the brink by betraying his own honor and his supposed ideals!”
Gettin’ late again - gotta go -
Fine, I’ll take a shot at it. Your three reasons why McCain would be better than a Democrat are, in essence, the following:
1) His judicial appointments will be merely left-wing instead of very left-wing.
2) McCain will better prosecute the GWOT.
3) McCain allegedly doesn’t support socialized medicine.
Let me take these points in order. The first is an obvious instance of what Bill objects to — you outright admit that McCain’s judicial nominations will be left-wing, i.e. hostile to the Constitution and individual liberty. Perhaps slightly less hostile than, say, Obama’s likely appointments, but hostile nevertheless. At best, this can be spun as killing our freedoms slowly rather than quickly.
The second point is, sadly, not particularly relevant. Truly effective prosecution of the GWOT requires strong and aggressive military action against the regimes that support the spread of Islamic totalitarianism. Under our Constitution, such military action requires authorization from Congress. Congress will be under the control of the Democrats, and will not be willing to provide the necessary authorization short of some kind of major disaster such as a nuclear attack on an American city. And should such a disaster occur, even an Obama or Clinton would be forced to respond to it. I don’t particularly like that state of affairs, but it’s real nevertheless. The kind of half-assed pseudo-war that we’ve received so far, and which given political realities McCain would not be able to improve on, is arguably worse than outright capitulation. It gives people the impression that we’ve tried to defeat our enemies and have failed, and thus acts to remove the possibility of a real war from the table on the sly. (It also sacrifices the lives of Americans in pursuit of strategic goals that are, at best, irrelevant to our nation’s interests, which is a moral obscenity I won’t go into any further right now.)
On the third point, I’m not up on the details of McCain’s positioning so I’ll stipulate that you’re correct for purposes of argument. McCain will try to block or slow down the establishment of socialized medicine. Even granting that, though, I don’t think he’s proposing any viable (i.e. serious market-driven) alternative reform proposals, which means the issue will simply continue to fester. The current system is broken, and the status quo is not acceptable.
I’d even give you a fourth point which you didn’t cite, which is that McCain has been relatively hawkish on attacking spending and earmarks. I don’t expect anything positive on those issues from any of the Democrats.
The question which you aren’t addressing is what the long term costs of moving the Republican party in McCain’s direction would be. While McCain may have a handful of concrete policies where he isn’t as bad as the Democrats, his basic principles are just as bad, and it’s the basic principles that are important over the longer term. It doesn’t do us any good if McCain buys us time on a few concrete fronts at the cost of undermining the principles that dictate what we will be trying to fight for the next time around. Suppose McCain blocks socialized medicine, but signs a new version of McCain-Lieberman and imposes comprehensive peacetime energy rationing on the US economy? After he leaves office, and the next guy tries to nationalize health care, on what basis could we argue against it having accepted the principle that wholesale government regulation of the economy in the public interest is OK? If McCain’s allegedly superior moderate left-wing judges rule that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect my right to keep and bear arms, what basis would we have to object having accepted a man who we know up front doesn’t think the First Amendment protects my right to political freedom of speech? And so on.
You’re talking about trying to win concrete, short-term victories — no, not even that. You’re talking about trying to win concrete, short-term stays of execution at the cost of abandoning the basis of long-term victory. I’ve already accepted that my political values are going to be attacked viciously over the short term no matter who wins the election. All I can do is try to preserve the principles behind those values so I can return to fight again another day. Supporting McCain requires me to abandon the basis of that future fight in exchange for, in effect, being stabbed instead of shot.
No thanks.
Gee, except for, I dunno, the surge? You know, the part about actually winning the war in Iraq? Please tell me I’m not debating with cavemen who’ve been sleeping out the last few years.
Except for the MINOR detail that the question was weather he’d be better than Obama, not GWB. Way to answer a question that was never asked. What did I tell you about blaming the man for others’ sins?
As opposed to the ‘Beat them from Okinawa’ strategy from the other side. Check.
I notice you don’t mention Obama. You got a little birdie telling you that he’s really a hawk in sheep’s clothing? Do tell.
And isn’t it kind of too late to use force AFTER another major attack? Obama plans to not fight the war at all. Which means no deterrance (not that the dems left us with much cred there), and no prevention. As far as I have heard, McCain hasn’t been calling for us to cut off spying on the enemy (torture debates notwithstanding). Unlike certain democrats. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
And Hillary would be using the CIA to spy on the repubs, not the Islamists… or have you forgotten?
————————–
No matter what he says now… or has said during his tenure as a Senator, where if he was planning such a thing, there would presumably be SOME advocacy on his part, eh?
Again, if you’ve got him on the record proposing universal health care, lets hear it.
Unless of course your sooper sekkret dekoder ring tells you his master plan is to hide his dark intentions to socialize healthcare until AFTER he leaves the chamber where he could actually, you know, write up such a bill.
Oops.
You know, you set up your little question and don’t like the answers you get, but it’s all meaningless. I don’t buy your underlying argument, and I won’t be voting for McCain, no matter who he’s running against.
So, you’ve accomplished exactly what, here?
Nothing.
Oops.
Now excuse me while I get back to writing “Don’t Vote For McCain: The List.” We’ll see who ultimately wins this little argument in about nine months or so.
I wrote:
To which Ryan Waxx responded with:
and later added:
I did not make any affirmative claim that McCain will do such a thing; I don’t know that he will. You’re the one claiming to be sure that he won’t, and offering that as a reason for me to prefer him to a Democrat. I just don’t see any reason to believe that he won’t do it. He likes to pander to Democrats, and his entire history gives me no confidence that he won’t give them this, just as he’s given them so much else. I’m not aware that he’s expressed any strong in-principle objection to it. Sorry, the mere chance that he might resist socialised medicine isn’t enough to make me prefer him to a Democrat.
Now Bill may have rejected the “lesser of two evils” idea altogether. I haven’t, and if Romney’s the nominee I’ll probably vote for him, hoping that he’ll end up doing the right thing significantly more often than the wrong thing, at least if the winds blow that way. No worse than Bush. Unlike Bill I don’t think voting for Bush was a mistake; he was probably better than Gore and certainly better than Kerry, and if Romney is no worse that will make him better than either Clinton or Obama. But McCain I’m sure will be worse than Bush, and in the same broad range as both Democrats, so I don’t see a reason to prefer him to them.
Oh REALLY? Ok, how do you propose to put the heath care system back together after being socialized? Hmm?
Hmm, I hear you pulling, but its not coming back up the cliff. Not even moving. Maybe you need a bigger winch?
Lest you forget, the first thing Hillabama want is to eliminate all private-sector competition to the new care order. That’s what you do if you want to enshrine a bad idea forever, since you’ve eliminated all points of comparison.
You want an idea about how hard it’ll be to get rid of it? Think Social Security on crack. You think the ‘third rail’ is hard to get rid of, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
And justices? How, exactly, do you propose to haul THAT puppy back up the cliff? Legally, I mean? Hmm?
You want to teach the republicans a lesson? How about teaching the democrats a lesson, instead? They learned through hard, painful experience that gun control lost them elections, because people were willing turn out and vote against that, even if they don’t like the person opposing it.
Now the winds are turning away from gun control… the battle isn’t won by a long shot, but we managed to avoid the worst excesses of national registration and confiscation. And there’s a sizable amount of democrats who wouldn’t vote for national registration now.
We should send a signal that Universal Healthcare is also such an issue, because until we do, the democrats will bring it back again… and again… and again because they know that once they get it in place they can dole out healthcare like candied pork and lock in an issue that’ll keep them in power for generations as they milk that sector for pork and power.
You think we’ll just wait 4-8 years for a ‘real’ republican? So what exactly are you going to have him do after it’s too late? Feel your pain? Because he sure as hell isn’t going to put the sector back together.
Well, lets see:
1. He says he won’t. (yeah, I know)
2. BOTH his opponents say they will… and would be in the perfect political position to do so.
3. As I have pointed out, he’s been in a position to propose such a thing for a very long time now… and hasn’t. Hell, the Senate’s a better place to get that accomplished than the presidency is.
So yeah, there’s no proof that he’s not hiding the impulse… just like there’s no proof that he’s not really Batman. But based on what evidence a reasonable person could expect suggests that this is not one of his many sins. And that same evidence suggests that his opponents not only can do so, but will have more than enough power to accomplish it.
Just as I can’t offer proof that McCain would sign a universal health care bill, you can’t offer any that he wouldn’t. His word is worthless.
No, he won’t be any better on the war on terror than Obama. Prove to me that he will. Prove to me that McCain will use preemptive force.
You can’t. Your entire phony, carefully constructed argument is built on hope, wishful thinking, and self delusion.
In answer to all your questions, then: No, McCain won’t be one whit better a President than either the Clintons or Barack Obama. Prove otherwise.
I said prove.
You can’t?
Okay, fuck off, then.
In the meantime, I’ll not vote for him for the things he has done (list coming) rather than the things you blindly hope he will do.
1. He’ll propose merely “Leftist” judges and not “Far Left” judges.
The judiciary is already Left of Center. Appointing a few more Leftist judges who will sit for another 20 years still guarantees a left leaning judiciary for the next 20 years.
We need Conservative judges now. Anything less and it’s just a matter of time - now or later - that the whole thing collapses.
Get it through your head. The US is heading for a disaster politically. Dems will get there faster, but RINO’s will get there nonetheless. Unless we elect Conservatives pretty damn quick, our only hope is that we succeed despite the dregs in Washington. Perhaps the Singularity will save our ass. I’d rather have the insurance policy of having a real Conservative and not a Dem Lite as President. Otherwise it might as well be a Dem when the thing collapses than a Dem Light Republican who will then taint conservatives by association.
And let me guess: “Reasonable people” are defined as people who agree with you that McCain ipso facto will be preferable to Obama or the Clintons.
Go chew on your tail for a while. And then fuck off. Or did I mention that already?
Forget it, Kenny. Waxx is caught up in the glory of debating his meaningless little set of questions. His entire argument is based on trusting that McCain will be true to the few words he’s uttered on some subjects. He’s the sort of trusting idiot that has done more than any other type to put the GOP in the straits it is in today. And he thinks that somehow voting for the lesser evil isn’t, you know, voting for evil.
Ignore him. His argument is moot, anyway, because McCain won’t be President in the first place, in large part because principled conservatives won’t vote for him.
I lost the entire post I was working on, Don’t Vote For McCain: The List, when my farking XP machine froze solid. I swear to god, the only OS worse than Windows is Linux.
Anyway, I’m slowly reconstructing about a thousand words from memory, and looking for the supporting linkage. Here’s the outline. I’ll be adding more to it.
mccain-snowe-dorgan drug reimportation act
mccain feingold - first amendment trashing
mccain kennedy - amnesty open borders act
mccain edwards kennedy tort lawyers wet dream
keating five corruption
attack on swift boat vets
class warfare against “the rich”
tax cuts opposition
vote for prescription drug entitlement
gang of 14 betrayal in favor of Dem filibusters against GOP judicial nominations
full constitutional rights for terrorists
opposition to end of death tax
near exit from GOP
Since I’m a libertarian conservative, not a social conservative, I’m not even going to get into his SoCon “sins” like the oppositionj to the marriage amendment or to an anti-abortion amendment, because I don’t care - although they’ll be enough to keep a lot of SoCons from voting for him too.
No, “reasonable people” means a person who accepts the obvious proposition that if a lawmaker hasn’t submitted a universal healthcare proposal after two decades, he might not be planning to suddenly grow fangs and fly the moment he becomes president.
A reasonable person accepts what evidence is possible… and mindreading McCain is NOT possible, so all you have is his record, which is UHC-free despite having the opportunity for 2 decades.
That is the best evidence that is realistically possible to get. I understand that you can imagine no perfidy that’s beyond him, of course… but that’s hardly proof, however you try to spin it.
So you held your nose and voted for Bush against the moderate Kerry who was facing a Repub Congress anyway, but you can’t hold your nose and vote for McCain because you threw a fit two years ago? Even though we’d have a Dem President and Dem Congress?
“1. I don’t trust McCain not to appoint the same 45-year-old leftists (even Obama won’t appoint 30-year-olds to the SC).”
Well, some of the top legal scholars on the right DO trust him, including Ted Olson. So what do you know that they don’t?
After the 14 how can you trust anything McCain says.
The GOP had a chance to enact serious Conservative legislation and appoint serious judges but McCain actively opposed it.
Actively. Opposed.
He talks a good game on some things but when push came to shove he blocked any chance of actually doing it. Did we ever have a better chance of getting something meaningful changed than after the 04 election? And he sunk it.
How can you trust him on healthcare?
Apparently, McCain’s record, dumbass.
Hey, Waxxy, you aren’t answering my queeessstttionnnn….
“Can you prove McCain will be one whit better a President than either the Clintons or Barack Obama?”
Come on, Waxxy, answer my questioonnnnn… Don’t dodge, otherwise, you looooosssseeee…
Dumbass.
Two can play your idiots’ game.
The only thing I could hope for with a McCain election is that when he leaves the White House he won’t rip off the furniture..probably the only difference between him and the dim-a-crits.
I figure that Micky Mouse is gonna get at least one write in vote in Florida for president…mine
“Gee, except for, I dunno, the surge? You know, the part about actually winning the war in Iraq? Please tell me I’m not debating with cavemen who’ve been sleeping out the last few years.”
I was going to comment on this but for somebody so clueless
I don’t know where to start, the total lack of understanding of the history on this subject leads me to believe that Ryan would not understand anything that I said. “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
An addition to your list, Bill:
Unclear on the concept of torture
If McCain is the GOP nominee, I’ll vote for Hillary but not Obama. In the case of Obama vs McCain, I’ll vote write-in for Fred. I will vote for Romney if he’s the GOP nominee.