John McCain has has taken a number of positions over the years which have made it difficult for me and many of you with conservative viewpoints, to strongly support him for the presidency.
One thing we should all do, however, is respect him deeply for his service in the military and his courage and exemplary conduct while a prisoner of war in Viet Nam.
This McCain campaign ad, via PowerLine, (give the video some time to load) shows the real distinction between McCain and most GOP candidates versus Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the pygmies on the other side. Frankly, McCain is only my third or fourth choice among GOP candidates. He is, however, head and shoulders above all of the Democrats seeking the office.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Johnny Di,
If McCain is only your third or fourth choice, does that mean the other 4 to 5 republi-con candidtaes are below Hillary?
Is there any republican you would NOT vote for over Hillary? Is there any democrat you would vote for in '08?
McCain served his country with courage and dignity, but so did Max Cleland...and you saw what your party did to him.
I have trouble with these types of double standards.
Oh, and just so you know...I would not vote for any democrat. Joe Lieberman is not my favorite guy these days.
Love and kisses - - Rubes
Rubes:
I would vote for Hillary over some Republicans. Chuck Hagel leaps to mind. Tom Tancredo is also out. There is virtually no other Democrat running who I'd choose over almost any other Republican.
Its mostly because Hillary is tough. She will do what is necessary to protect the country. Her really outlandish statements are just to make sure the Daily Kossacks won't lynch her. The other Dems really mean what they say. God help us if a wimp, say, John Edwards, gets the job.
Still, you know as well as I do that if Hillary gets to appoint judges, the Federal judiciary will become deluged with left-wing social experimenters. There will be nothing standing between Congress and massive expansion of federal power over more and more aspects of our lives.
I can guess your response. Republican right wing judicial appointees help keep the federal goverment supervising our bedrooms. Even if true, there is a difference. There is a natural progression to social liberalism, with or without judicial intervention.
The Civil Rights movement was not helped that much by judicial fiat. It was Executive and Legislative action that moved it forward. Conservative judges may slow, but cannot stop, social progressivism.
Liberal judges, on the other hand, often thwart economic progress in the name of "compassion" and "fairness". Capitalism and individual responsibility suffer greatly at the hands of a liberal judiciary which values collectivism and diversity over conservative economic principles.
I will despise virtually all of Hillary's domestic agenda. At least, I will be able to live with Hillary as commander-in-chief. And since I think that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism is the greatest threat the country faces, at least on that score, Hillary's not bad.
John, John, John....sigh
The last Presidential election you based your entire vote (or so you said) on who you thought would keep this country safe and fight terrorism most effectively. But now, when the answer to that question would require you to cross party lines, well, hmmmm. Remember the line from the Big Chill? You can get through a day without sex, but just try to get through a day without a juicy rationalization.
It was a cardnal sin when John Kerry was a flip floper, but Romney and Rudy do it and, well somehow that is different. BTW, I see you had the wisdom not to try to justify the things done to Cleland. I wish you had the fortitude to denounce them.
The Federal Judges. If all the conservative appointments of this administration were doing was "slowing down" social progression, then okay. But that white wash belies the reality. This administration appoints judge's determined to reverse social progression. Their promises to Congress to leave "settled law" alone have been broken. So please. BTW, your party has appointed the Federal judges 23 out of the last 35 years (2 generations). So if the judiciary isn't what you want it to be, please don't look past your own yard.
Oh, and by the way, since when do YOU decide the appropriate speed of social progression? I think you and I might have different ideas. For example, 75% of this country wants Congrss to stop funding the war. I doubt you want the majority to determine the progression of that decison. Just so you know, I realize that cutting off funds is not a viable answer, but I do think the Dems in Congress are too weak and should take on the president more.
What domestic programs and policies do you want to see? Tell me you don't think the SCHIP should get an increase. Tell me you want more money for the folks that bring you Halliburton and Blackwater? A recent report says there was 1.2 billion of unaccounted money. Overpayment, duplicate payment, 2 million dollar XRay machines never used.
How can you know now that you will hate something that isn't even on the table? Any president (except this one, it seems) needs to work with Congress. Hillary seems to have good relationships on both sides of the aisle and understands the notion or consensus building. Besides, I doubt you would call Bill Clinton a raging liberal.
Hillary is the candidtae cloest to the center in BOTH parties. I told you four years ago, your party has been hijacked by the very, very far right (to the point where that fringe (element, group) will not vote if Rudy is the candidate. All of the Republican candidates are moving much farther right of center than Hillary is left of center.
I do not envy the choices you will have to make or the juicy rationalizations you will have each and every day beween now and the next presidential election. My only hope is that WHEN YOU STEP BEHIND THE CURTAIN, YOU WILL VOTE WITH YOUR PRIVATE PERSONA (YOUR HEART AND HEAD) NOT YOUR PUBLIC PERSONA.
I still send you hugs and kisses you big googly bear, or should I say elephant?
Rubes:
Re: Hillary.
I'm certain that Rudy, McCain, Thompson and (probably) Romney would be tougher on terror than Hillary. I really don't know that much about the other GOP candidates, but who cares? They are not going to be the nominee.
Hillary is almost a mortal lock for the Dem. nomination and I'm glad because, to my mind, she is clearly the most palatable Democrat. I will still not likely be voting for her, unless one of the four above-referenced Republicans is not the GOP nominee.
Re; Cleland.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but the alleged Max Cleland smear is a Democrat "urban legend". Find me a link to a campaign commercial that did any of the things Democrats claim was done to him. The ads were hard hitting attacks on a vote in which Cleland did not support the President on the War on Terror. Democrat spin called the ads attacks on the wounded veteran. Sorry, you'll have to cite original sources to convince me on that one.
Re: Federal Judges.
The examples you listed have nothing to do with social policy or economic policy. I certainly hope you are not advocating a role for the courts in setting legislative and executive policy?
Re: Fringe elements.
Can you name an actual policy which you could say was passed to appease the "Christian Right"? I believe Rudy will be the GOP nominee. I hope that conservative voters will ultimately realize that they are better off with him than with Hillary.
Meanwhile, look at your party. Hillary is almost the only Democrat who can make any claim on moderation. And, as a result, she is often pilloried by the nutroot left.
Rubes! Its great to have you back!
OMG,
Did you actally say the attacks against Cleland were urban ledgend? Google "negative ads against cleland" and you will see 160,00 responses. The first response is You Tube and actually shows one such ad...claiming Cleland is unpatriotic because he voted against the Patriot Act. What the ad leaves out, that he (and others) supported the bill until the Republicans put in a poison pill (no federal employee union at Homeland Security, I think...estrogen is dropping, memory is fading). Others hits talk about using "Rove" tactics. And we have your party to thank for that new verb, "swiftboating."
Perhaps you should talk to your guy McCain about the campaign techniques of your party. Hey, did they ever find the black child he was supposed to have fathered.
You said:
Still, you know as well as I do that if Hillary gets to appoint judges, the Federal judiciary will become deluged with left-wing social experimenters.
That's what I was responding to. I guess 23 years out of 35 isn't enough for you. Also, John, you might want to respond with facts and not sweeping, conclusory forecasts.
That reminds me: in the other email, you actually said I was spilling back Democratic talking points when I recited a list of events that have ocurred. Here's the difference between you and me: I listed things that have actually happened. You resorrt to the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly fear mongering, hand wringing and usual parade of horribles that will happen if there is a democrat in the White House. When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you don"t have the facts, pound the table. You must have blisters from all that pounding.
It is your party that took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in the history of this country. It is under your party's leadership (or should I say rule) that the dollar went from 32 cents per Euro to a dollar per Euro. And don't you dare say this is left over from the Clinton years. It is because the tax cuts ate up the surplus and the war created the deficit. Then add that when the Republicans were in charge of both hpuses of Congress they spent money like we had it. US companies are threatened by takeover from foreign business and we are in debt so deep to China that we may be compromised. Even Alan Greenspan (appointed by a Republican originally) has said that this administration has put our economy in peril.
Then you said:
Can you name an actual policy which you could say was passed to appease the "Christian Right"?
Let's see:
Faith Based Blah Blah...which, by the by, the Bush person later wrote a tell all book saying how the Bushies laughed at them, etc,
Harriett Myers's nomination was withdrawn to appease the far right.
The move for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage [ with supporters like Scott Foley and Larry Craig] leading the way.
I predict that Rudy will not get the nomination because of the far right.
You have Karl Rove to thank for this...bussing in the Christian Conservatives may have helped W, but it is ruining your party now. Mitt and Rudy have waffled or flip flopped, if you will and I expect that they will swiftboat Rudy...starting with the picture of him in drag.
Least you think I am an uber-democrat. When I lived in NYC, I voted fofr Rudy when he ran against David Dinkins. I thought he was the better man. I probably would have seriously looked at his candidacy until he flipped on abortion, gay marriage and became a war nut. In other words, he is pandering....
Thompson is a lazy git and will not go the distance.
Mitt faces the struggles that Rudy does and doesn't get to utter the words (or should I say numbers) 9/11.
McCain, well I don't know. I liked him better when he ran against Bush in 2000. Now he too is having to pander to the far right and is no longer the maverick he once was. Oh, and then there is that little thing known as the Immigration bill.
So, I am having trouble thinking that the far right will like any of these guys.
Perhaps you should take a look at Huckabee. He might just move up the ranks.
John, there is a reason 17 Republican senators will not be retuning. Oh well, at least you still have Craig. Tap. Tap.
A big wet smootch.
Rubes
Rubes:
I think the quote from the ad was that Cleland had "broken his oath to the constitution" due to some no vote on an anti-terrorism bill. It was a typical stupid political jibe.
The Democrats responded by saying something like its shameful to attack Cleland's patriotism since he was a badly wounded war hero. Well, no one was talking about Cleland's 1960's war record, they were criticising a 2002 vote he made as a Senator.
It is true that after the Dems raised the "how dare you smear a war hero" argument, questions came up about how he was injured. Those questions were obviously tasteless, however, to a certain extent, they came up because Cleland defenders were trying to wrap him in the flag.
The swift boat story for John Kerry is quite similar. Kerry "reported for duty" and proudly used his purple hearts as props for his campaign. Normally, that would have been fine, but Kerry had used his war service, and his medals as props before, and to a different purpose.
When he first got back from Viet Nam, he was a regular on the anti-war circuit. He denounced American troops as similar to Attila's hordes. He accused American troops of many atrocities. He claimed to be ashamed of his medals and in one demonstration, apparently threw them back to the army. Of course, it turned out that they were not really his medals he threw away.
When he started to think about being President, Kerry had an epiphany about his War service. All of a sudden, he decided to campaign as the courageous veteran.
Well, there were some of his former colleagues who had not forgiven him for his anti-soldier antics. True, they were funded by right-wing groups, but I know of no evidence disproving their claims.
In both the Cleland and Kerry cases, the claimed attacks were a reaction to the attempt to stifle debate based on the status of the candidate. Both of them wanted to be deemed "patriots" solely because of their past service. The fact that their current views and votes were anti-thetical to such postures apprently was not supposed to matter.
Frankly, Paula, the truth is that today's politics has degenerated into childish, petty, win-at-all-costs partisanship. You can blame Lee Atwater for being the architect, but guys like Carville, Begala, et al, have perfected the "art form", as well as Karl Rove. Most debates today, on almost every topic, are replete with attacks on one side or the other. The merits of the plans are generally lost in the effort to destroy the other side.
There are very few efforts by either party to persuade the other. From where I sit, the few efforts that do get made come from "moderate" Republicans. There do not appear to be any moderate Democrats. Hillary is as close to the center as any Democrat will dare travel.
I don't know if there have been periods like this in American history. I hope that new faces will come forward to replace the current crop of self-absorbed baby boomers who have gotten hold of the reins of power. If we are really going to face the challenges of the 21st Century, we better at least think about a little cooperation.
Sweetheart,
To quote your hero, "there you go again..."
The essencce of your last comment is this: its the dems fault because they put the issue in play.
I have a different recollection...I recall that your party accused both men as not having the stones to battle terrorism. It was to that smear that Cleland and Kerry responded. And, when they did, they "swiftboated." By that I mean they intentionally lied knowing that by the time the truth came out it wouldn't matter (just Like McCain and the black child).
Since this war began, the Republican party has called into question the patriotism of any person that opposed the war.
They also accuse opponents of "not supporting the troops." This from those that didn't suppy the neccessary body armor and tanks/trucks. Those that looked the other way as Iraq Vets lived in the mess that was Walter Reed. Those that have cut off Vets' medical care and refuse to recognize Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Those that have extended tours of duty over and over. Those that have dropped National Guard vets in the grease when they did come home to find their jobs were because they were deployed for so long.
Chicken Hawks that during Vietnam had "other priorities at the time" were missing from their National Guard Post, were excused from servicing in Vietnam because of anal cysts. For heaven sake John.
I want to hear from McCain, Kerry and Jim Webb, not those who have nothing to lose. Those that have the audacity personally benefit financially from this war blind trusts or not].
Nothing about the social reversal by the conservative judges (judicial activism goes both ways, my friend)?
Nothing about the fact that my talking points are about things that have happened while yours, like those of your party, are about things that haven't happened and are (at their core) hyperbolic accounts of things that might (but probably won't) happen. The Dems are in the White House....the sky will fall, the sky will fall! Lions and tigers and dems, oh my!
Nothing about the strong hold of the extreme right on your party and the pandering to them.
With Hillary's position on --
* the war and her vote on Iran
* refusaing to promise (1) that she would speak with leaders of rouge nations unconditionally within her first year; and (2) that thetroops will be out of Iraq by the end of her first term (during a dem debate)
*her refusal (in front of moveon.org, no less) that she would not stop talking campaign contributions from lobbyists
--you can hardly accuse Hillary of pandering to the far left of the democratic party (or democrat party if you are...he who must not be named, yet again.)
You still have not looked us in the eye and said that this pres is leaving our country better than he found it.
Look, before I chip more polish off my manicure, will you ever admit any faults with, weaknesses by your party in so public a forum? If not, then what's the point of this discourse?
I still love you, faults and all.
Rubes
PS: How are those blisters on your hand?
Rubes:
I have plenty of criticism for George Bush. I imagine however, that much of it is far different from your problems with him.
First and foremost, the President failed to fight the War on Terror in an effective fashion. On September 12, 2001, the American people were ready to enlist in a struggle with al-qaeda. The President should have asked us to take an active part in the War, not just watch from the sidelines.
He allowed Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Bremner to totally bollix the aftermath of winning the conventional war in Iraq. Their failure, which Bush excused, has cost many lives and dollars.
Bush also failed to rein in excesses by Republicans in Congress. Their reckless spending (very much like Democrats) seemed to have no limit. For some reason, George could never find the veto pen. The President and congressional Republicans deserved the beating they took last year.
So, in the end, is the country better off than it would have been if Gore or Kerry had won? From my perspective, it is. Had either of those two won we would be much less secure and paternalistic big government would have had 4 or 8 more years to wear down our capitalist institutions.
I admit that we are not as well off as we could have been if President Bush had stayed truer to core GOP/Conservative principles.
Rubes:
You made a couple of other points that I simply have to comment on.
First, about talking points. The internet makes it really easy to create wave after wave of issues and believing that everyone agrees with you. For every left-wing blog there is a right-wing blog. Most of the stuff both sides have to say is fabricated, exaggerated distorted and/or irrellevant.
When Bill Clinton was President, lefties liked to say that the stuff written about him was libellous crap. I have to laugh when many of the same people can't have a conversation without using the top ten lines about Bush.
Re: profiting from the war. Diane Feinstein is lucky that most of the main-stream media is on her side. A Republican could not have gotten away with having her spouse make the kind of dough off war contracts without the attack dogs coming out.
It all goes back to what I noted earlier. Its not enough to take a position. There are no reasonable differences. If someone disagrees with a position, he/she's not just wrong, he/she's a liar. Check out my point from this post:
http://repomansmootpoints.blogspot.com/
2007/09/liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html
In any event, I haven't had this much fun since Lami stopped doing politics!
Big Guy,
The world as I know it has stopped turning. You and I agree on some things.
I agree with each thing that you noted about this president and the war and spending. I do wish he had reigned in Congressional spending [on both sides].
You are right about Diane Feinstein's husband. I haven't heard about it BUT assuming it is true, I find it just as wrong as when folks on the other side personally profit on the war.
I am limited by the Hatch Act and ethics as to what I can spend on politically and what I can receive. Every year we are required to provide financial disclosure statements including what stock we own, etc. [BTW, I have no problem with this requirement. It is part of my job and my obligation to those I "serve." That would be you, big guy.] If I, a low level nobody, have to do this, well then....I mean, how does this happen?
Nice try on the 'if Kerry or Gore would be president"....But you (a) failed in your attempt to avoid answering a direct question; and (b)answered a question that cannot be answered. We will never know what would have happened had Kerry or Gore become president. Even you did not expect this president to do the things he did, so how can you say that your guess as to what might have happened had the other men been president is accurate? I say lets stick with facts based on what happened rather than speculation.
With that as my request, I ask, yet again, do you think this president is leaving the country better than he found it?
To make this easier I will answer two questions:
1. I think Bill Clinton left this country better than he found it. [Please note that I say this even though I despise his positions on DOMA and Don't ask, don't tell.] In other words, I am not sure he left MY world better than he found it, but I still think he left the nation as a whole better than he found it.
2. I do not think this president is leaving us better than he found us. I mean, have you filled your car with gas lately?
As for blogs on both sides and lies, myths and misrepresntations. I agree with you. [Ouch, that hurt to type. I may need to sit down for a second.] What bothers me about the lies, is that unless you are well read and can discern between fact and fiction, you [not you John, the reader] may believe it. Ben Wattenberg said the irony of democracy is that it is the masses and not the elite that pose the greatest threat to deomcracy. When this type of spin and mis-information work, we all lose.
Last night I heard Chris Mathews express doubt about Bill Clinton because he didn't "know his motive." I hear that about Hillary as well. "Why is she in it? She is ambitious." I don't understand the need to know the answers to these questions. Why does any man or Hillary run for president? It never is purely altruistic. For my part, trying to guess the motive of any candidate is just that -- a guess. Since we will never know absent truth serum, why bother. Also, let's say Hillary has been planning this since she was 10 years old. Is that a bad thing? I don't know how long Hillary has been planning this, but it seems better to me than someone who stumbles into it. I have no doubt that if Evelyn or Joe told you that they wanted to be president, you would think that was a great thing [okay, maybe not] but you sure would be proud if that dream came to pass.
I know there is what Andrew Sullivan refers to as the 'ick' factor with Hillary, but I really don't understand why. Are her "motives" really more sinister than Rudy's? Are her morals really more sinister than Rudy's. Do you think [and I am just asking] that there might be some sexism involved?
What? Lami won't debate politics with you? I thought that's because she now agrees with you and will be voting for the elephant. Or perhaps it is because you tend to argue ad hominem?
Bask in our consensus. But also admit where you are wrong.
Meanwhile I am off to get perfected by Ann Coulter. Boy your side can really pick 'em.
Love and kisses [no tongue],
Rubes
PS: When are you gonna venture down to your Capital? I have planty of room.
Ah Repoman-
Just started following your blog. You make some excellent and interesting points. Unfortunately, I'm not part of your local scene, so my responses will mostly be directed at your general and national comments.
In reading your McCain comments, I became distracted by the points you tried to make because of your reference to the "pygmies" running against him. Hmmm. Pygmies? First of all, even Pigmies have a problem with that term. Second, while I don't have the exact heights of the candidates you referred to, it would seem that all of them exceed the average 4'11" height of the average pygmy from central Africa (well, maybe Dennis Kucinich, but I somehow feel that's not who you were referring to). Third, and most important: Yes, I'm smart enough to know you didn't mean "pygmy" in the literal translation... and that's my problem. It's the incessant name-calling and derogatory comments that make it difficult for us to have intelligent polital debates any more. There are no perfect Democrats and no perfect Republicans. Regardless of what you think of the views of Obama, Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, et. al., these are people who want to lead the country. I'm sure they vary in intelligence, but they're not idiots (or pygmies). They may be "wrong" in their opinions (certainly, they diff from yours), but that doesn't justify using condescending and derogatory name-calling to lump an entire group of people into that category (certainly, I hope you're not going to argue in favor of the wit, intelligence and political astuteness of the Republican who now occupies the White House... at least I hope that's not your standard of individuals who are sharp and tall in "stature").
We have a long year ahead. I know you're not voting Democrat. That's okay. But if you're going to critque the opposition, you'll be more persuasive if you stick to facts and positions and opinions, rather than name-calling. Those of us that are "moderate" and undecided will have an easier time learning the issues.
Cordially,
ThePill
Pill:
If you had the time to review the past year of posts on this blog, you would note that I do not do much "name-calling" regarding those with whom I disagree.
I think you are reading a bit too deeply into the comment. It is my view that most of the Democrat candidates lack "stature". I used the pygmy term to connote small or short (I guess I could have said "Sicilians"). Note my comment that McCain is "head and shoulders above" them. It was not meant as a major slur, but I'll try to be more sensitive.
In any event, I'd love to have you and Rubes as regular commenters. Think of it, we could cover all three extremes. I'll be the Fascist; Rubes, the Marxist, and you can be the designated Moderate, Mr. "Middle-of-the-Road" so to speak.
It could be fun.
Plus, it looks like you have created a blog page. I hope you use it. I imagine you could help me with blog mechanics.
Post a Comment