To me this seems like much ado about nothing. McCain and Romney are both moderate Republicans; the differences between them have been exaggerated by those who don’t like McCain, and don’t have much bearing on what’s good for the country. I realize that I’ve been accused of lacking fire, but while none of these candidates is close to my ideal, I really don’t understand the Kossack-like anger here.
I suspect we will begin to see a lot of this: that those who refuse to vote for John McCain are like “Kossacks” - a code word for lunatic wreckers.
Can this be the same Glenn Reynolds who, on the same issue, posted only a few days ago: Instapundit.com -
Hey, for everybody there’s a point at which they’d rather take their marbles and go home. For me it would be Huckabee.
Apparently, refusing to vote for Huckabee is a principled decision, but refusing to vote for McCain is “Kossack-like.” The justification for this seems to be that McCain and Romney are just as alike as two peas in a pod. But Huckabee is different.
Well, he is - he’s actually stronger on the Second Amendment - an issue of Glenn’s - than either McCain or Romney. Otherwise he’s a populist-style social conservative who, like George Bush, wears his Christianity on his sleeve. But refusing to vote for him wouldn’t, I guess, be “Kossack-like anger.”
In my opinion Mitt Romney is just George Bush is a slightly better suit. Same country-club RINO inheritance, same sense of entitlement, same disdain for movement (or for that matter, any kind of) conservatives. Same direct political bloodlines from his family, same wealthy establishment background.
I wouldn’t vote for Bush again, although I did vote for him twice. Why not again, if he could run? Because he has failed. He’s made a terrible botch of things. But it didn’t necessarily have to be. If he’d had an ounce of leadership ability, and an ounce less influence from his internationalist RINO half-a-loaf father, if he’d stuck with his Axis of Evil and his “with us or against us” he could have been a solid, and maybe even a great President.
So maybe Mitt would be a Bush with leadership skills. He at least seems comfortable with speaking English in public.
But because I say that, I supposedly forfeit any right to judge John McCain, and withhold my vote if I find him wanting? Or else I’m a Kossack?
I echo Andy McCarthy: The Corner on National Review Online
I’m sure tired, though, of the intimation that people who have deep misgivings about him must be deranged.
Or, well, Kossacks.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
It’s the anger I’m talking about, Bill, not the sentiment.
In my opinion, most of the anger comes from years of McCain’s going out of his way to insult and anger conservatives. Conservatives, even though they make up the most logical group of voters, are people too. So now they are returning the compliment. This is an entirely human response. McCain is reaping what he has sown.
To all those tut-tutting over the angry response: why do I see little or no recognition of the fact that McCain has earned this response? I suspect because most of the people tut-tutting aren’t strict conservatives, and hence have not themselves been the recipients of McCain’s ministrations. It’s always easier to maintain a cool detachment when it’s someone else’s ox that is being gored.
Speak for yourself, D. I posted my reasons for refusing to vote for McCain, and his insults to conservatives were not, as I recall, on the list. Yes, I’m not thrilled about him tarring everybody who opposed his immigration schemes as racist, but that wouldn’t keep me from voting for him if the rest of that list didn’t exist.
The problem is, Glenn, that I don’t think most readers will take it that way. I think they’ll take it as yet another slam at those who won’t vote for McCain. Why won’t they vote for him? Because they’re “Kossack angry.” Especially with the rest of the McCain Amen Corner (no, of course I don’t so number you) referring to those who won’t be voting for McCain as crazy, deranged, stupid, self-destructive, childish, traitorous, and similar appellations.
“Kossack anger” seems to fit neatly into that particular litany even if you don’t mean it to be taken that way. “Kossack anger” is, after all, a semantically loaded term.
Bill, you’re an exception. Me too. Heck, I’m not even a hardcore conservative, more of a libertarian/classic liberal. I was just addressing my take on the reasons for the anger, not the reasons for not voting for the guy.
My comment here, is applicable in this thread, as well.
It won’t make any difference, but I am pleased that my little state of Alaska had more voters for the nut case Paul than they McCain. He came in dead last–where he deserves to be. (We have enough (large L) Libertarians to give Ron Paul a smattering of votes.)
I think a lot of the anger is coming as a reaction to the pressure from the party-first people to suck it up and vote for McCain.
Absolutely JohnG. I had no intention of voting for McCain — the guy scares me — but I wasn’t angry until I read Bill Whittle this morning telling me that if I don’t vote for McCain I must want to punish America. If I don’t vote for McCain I court “The Deluge”.
I know there are come cranks out there that really do hate America and want to punish us, but I don’t think that the vast majority of Democrats who will vote for Billary or Obama will do so because they hate America and I would never impune them by suggesting such a thing. I don’t think that having a Democrat in the Whitehouse will be the end of the world. Naturally, YMMV.
Rather, I think that this sort of hyper-partisan codswallop is a good part of the reason why we’re faced yet again with the evil of two lessers. It’s because of the ‘they’ve got to vote for our candidate because the option is unthinkable’ mentality that we’ve got such horrid candidates to choose from. If the partys’ aparachiks didn’t take us for granted they just might give us more acceptable choices.
The ’suck it up and vote for us’ thingy didn’t work so well in 2006, but apparently some folks are slow learners and another lesson will be necessary. Again, I think writing in Fred is exactly the lesson needed here. Under no circumstances should we hold our noses and vote for someone just because he’s “The Party’s Candidate” and anyone who tells me different can just Bite Me.
Yes, in case you hadn’t guessed, Whittle’s sanctimonious little screed really pissed me off. I’d thought better of him.
Wanted to. Wasn’t able to. Write-ins are only for the general election, said the poll marm. I have no idea if that was correct (the NYS board of elections site isn’t very good, findlaw didn’t help, and a quick web search didn’t help either) but I ended up not voting at all yesterday.
On CNBC Larry Kudlow showed his typical Republican Party no matter what colors by coming out and pushing NcCain to us. Charles Gasparino asked him straight out, (paraphrasing) “How can you, Larry Kudlow, Mr Unfettered Capitalism is Good for This Country, endorse McCain after what he said in South Carolina about hedge funds and Capitalists?” Essentially McCain slammed them exactly because they were capitalists. McCain may as well have walked up to Larry, called him an a$$hole and spit in his face. Kudlow ducked the question from Gasparino.
Kudlow may say “yes sir, may I have another sir” but not me.
Just to be clear, I am advocating writing in Fred in the general election (as is Bill, I believe). That’s where the message will count. I am surprised though that no write-ins would be allowed in a primary. Particularly in some small precincts a write-in effort could put someone on the general election ballot for local positions.. Oh, wait, that’s probably why write-ins aren’t allowed.