John Hawkins, May 2008:
Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President
I agree with John Hawkins. That is, I agree with the February 2008 version of John Hawkins:
There’s Nothing Conservative Or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November
Thanks to Simon.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
Hawkins is as dumb as a post.
Levi (76ef55) — 5/24/2008 @ 9:09 amWhich John Hawkins?
The February 2008 John Hawkins was spot on.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/24/2008 @ 9:11 amThere’s Nothing Conservative Or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November
Someone should really tell that to McCain then…
doubleplusundead (b8be19) — 5/24/2008 @ 9:53 amActually, Hawkins is simply living by his principles…all men should have some….
Levi wouldn’t understand principles, since, as a Democrat, he hasn’t any….except for higher taxes for everyone but him, death to thousands of unborn babies, open borders so that he can have cheap labor, marriage for any two, three, or twenty people, regardless of age…
Did I miss any of his principles???
reff (e20e4c) — 5/24/2008 @ 10:43 amMcCain is what he is. Among his characteristics is a mule-like stubborn streak at least as strong as anything Dubya has ever displayed.
Somewhere in McCain’s mind, there’s a reconciliation of what seems to us, outside, to be irreconcilable, and he sincerely believes that he’s been entirely consistent with everything he’s ever said, including everything on the subject of immigration reform and border security. I’m convinced that McCain believes he’s not a “liar.” And most of the time, I hope (fingers crossed), his “honesty by his own lights” will serve the public reasonably well if he’s elected.
But there are inevitably going to be occasions on which he says or does things that just don’t compute to movement conservative onlookers. I’m absolutely certain that if he’s elected, I’ll spend a large portion of my time being absolutely furious and frustrated with him. Hawkins needs to also resign himself to that prospect.
Vote for the grumpy old man, because this year, he’s as good (or “least bad”) as it’s gonna get.
Beldar (836c92) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:14 pmWhich would be worse:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:43 pmA stinging defeat with Barry Goldwater; or,
A victory with John McCain?
At least with one, I can (and did) hold my head high!
its the May 2008 John Hawkins who is spot on. he got fooled once, shame on mccain, fool me you cant get fooled again
chas (12a229) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:51 pmDarn, McCain is in danger of losing the People-Who-Impersonate-Baby-Hippopotamuses vote.
Hawkins is now one of roughtly 240 million Americans who will not vote for McCain in November. He won’t be missed. And it is not likely he was going to vote for McCain in the first place. He would probably have written in Pat Buchanan or Ann Coulter. Hawkins’s repudiation will gain rather than lose sane votes for McCain.
nk (d7f5f5) — 5/24/2008 @ 4:59 pmyou really dont think mccain is going to get 60million votes?? the way he has pissed off the base? not even half that many will vote for him.
chas (12a229) — 5/24/2008 @ 6:42 pmThere comes a time when you’re spending so much money keeping people out of your country, you don’t have the resources for proper maintenance, much less expansion and improvement. So why not try this. Instead of shutting people out, make it easier for them to assimilate.
And we start by prosecuting multiculturalists as the criminal conspiracy they are.
Alan Kellogg (9615ef) — 5/25/2008 @ 10:53 amyou really dont think mccain is going to get 60million votes?? the way he has pissed off the base? not even half that many will vote for him.
Hawkins is not McCain’s base. Or the mouth-breathing morons at Polipundit. I am now inclined to see these guys as false flag operations who did their best to give us a Democratic Congress in 2006 and are now doing their best to give us Barack Smith-Alden-Standish-Billington Obama as President.
nk (d7f5f5) — 5/25/2008 @ 2:50 pmso then what do you consider McCain’s base? if you think of it as the GOP base than McCain has lost a ton of it, as has the GOP as a whole. did you see the post from tom cole last weekend and the responses to it? and everytime McCain opens his mouth he runs off more conservatives. but i will revise my estimate to 40million votes for him, short of what he will need to win.
chas (12a229) — 5/25/2008 @ 3:25 pmI think I’m part of McCain’s base. If I were to vote on a single issue, it’s national security and the war against the jihad-monkeys and there he is a hundred percent with me. Abortion and Second Amendment rights the same.
Border security? Yes, I’d like that but who’s done it better before him?
McCain-Feingold, I could not give a rat’s behind. It was passed by the Congress, signed into law by President Bush and upheld by a majority Republican-appointed Supreme Court. And, in any case, anything that makes it harder for George Soros, Prince Bandar or Who Run China Now to buy an American election is a good thing.
I very much doubt that Hillary or Barack Cohen-O’Malley-Diaz-Spinelli-Kowalski Obama would be better on any of these issues. In fact, I strongly doubt it. So I think you “ultra-conservatives” who are trying to undermine McCain are basically shills for the Democrats.
nk (d7f5f5) — 5/25/2008 @ 3:50 pmI think I’m part of McCain’s base. If I were to vote on a single issue, it’s national security and the war against the jihad-monkeys and there he is a hundred percent with me.
Couple things about this.
You’re with McCain on the war. Good. Be aware that McCain has denounced the reasons for going in, supported giving Europe a larger say in our GWOT policy, pledged to end discomfiture for terrorists and close GTMO, giving detainees full US legal rights. All while conducting a massive reduction in US nuke inventory.
Some fighter. If you are 100% with McCain on the war, you’re not the type we can count on to keep our heads on our bodies vs the muslims.
Abortion and Second Amendment rights the same.
Great. After his amnesty, and the 20+ million new 2:1 Dem voters, and their 40-50 million family members, and more legal immigrants, and more guest workers, and more border crossers (McCain has endorsed Rudy’s “come across with an ID card all you want, and bring as many as you want with you” border “security” plan), brother you may win this election but you’ll never win another one.
Say goodbye to everything the R party protects (or used to protect) if amnesty passes. Guns. Abortion. SCOTUS. All of it. We will be different people, not conservatives, not constitutionalists, at all, anymore. The trend that is burying us now, will make what will take 50-60 years, now take 10. I’m not for that.
Would amnesty pass under Obama? Maybe, but I doubt it, It polls poorly and the Dems would have no one to hide behind. See Rahm’s comments from 2007. They want R party cover to pass it. McCain gives them that.
McCain-Feingold, I could not give a rat’s behind.
And, in any case, anything that makes it harder for George Soros, Prince Bandar or Who Run China Now to buy an American election is a good thing.
You’re way off here. McCain Feingold created the 527s, and gave Soros control of the left. You might want to note that Jaun Hernandez, McCain’s director of Hispanic outreach, works for a Soros backed think tank on open borders. You’re McCain’s base eh? You speak in front of La Raza much?
I very much doubt that Hillary or Barack Cohen-O’Malley-Diaz-Spinelli-Kowalski Obama would be better on any of these issues. In fact, I strongly doubt it.
McCain does 2 things that wreck America: Amnesty, and carbon caps. This wont do anything for the environment but will increase the cost of energy, empower the UN and stagnate the economy.
Obama will likely do these also, but they are leftist policy so the left needs to take the hit for it.
Remember Obama’s socialized medicine? When the economic impact of carbon caps and amnesty hits with full strength, there will be so few jobs that commie health care will be the only kind you can get.
Judges? McCain says the jud. comm. gets the veto. That will be packed with Dems next year. So we might not get Obama’s version of Ginsbergs with McCain, but we will get something between Kennedy and Souter. That’s bad, but we will have to rely on Roberts’ appeal to Kennedy for the moment.
Bottom line: McCain does not buy us much, and he kills us in 2010-12. Better to reboot and reinstall now, than later. Time is getting short.
The GWOT is becoming less critical as our dometic situation weakens. We need the right answers, and we need them NOW. McCain does not help at all in this regard, and soon our troops will not have much country to come home to, if current trends continue with the dollar, the border, and the budget/current account/entitlement problems.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 6:13 pmSo I think you “ultra-conservatives” who are trying to undermine McCain are basically shills for the Democrats.
Forgot this one. This is hilarious. All McCain’s field trips to the left, and WE are the Dem shills? You’ve got to be kidding?
Was it conservatives who:
Voted against tax cuts
denounced the war in its early stages
embraced the far left open borders lobby?
blocked drilling in ANWR and many other places?
blocked the Senate’s ability to end the unconstitutional filibuster of SCOTUS and Fed judges?
blocked the proper assignment of blame for the mishandling of Katrina on local Dems?
Endorsed European meddling in US policy re the ICJ and the IPCC?
Said this about the Democrat party? “I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy,” he said. “But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before.”
And he took another shot at President Bush. “You can’t fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can’t do that.”
Where did McCain make his remarks? As the Boston Herald reported today, at a “legislative seminar” hosted by U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who just happens to be one of the biggest Bush bashers in Congress.
“Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in or not,” McCain said, adding that Iraq “will be part of this presidential campaign.”
No, that was McCain that did all that. Who is the Dem shill again? Not us.
So anyway, you’re way off on the conservatives’ contempt for McCain. We know a foe when we see one.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 6:20 pmEven assuming that McCain will give the judiciary committee any more deference than Article II requires him to, and even assuming that McCain will nominate someone roughly in the Kennedy-Souter ballpark, a Kennedy is still “better” than a Souter, and either are a lot better than we will get from Obama. It’s hard to conceive how we could possibly do worse on judges from McCain than we would with Obama.
Simon (a84579) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:14 pmright wing yahoo (probably some Palestinian shilling for Barack A-Husband-To-Women-And-A-Wife-To-Men Obama) #s 14 &15:
At Polipundit’s you called me a “biglizards.com fag”. Glad you have moderated your language here. But you’re still a shill for Barack I-Win-When-Republicans-Fight Obama as far as I’m concerned. Vote for whomever you want, moby. But I seriously doubt that you and your moby host, PoliPundit, are eligible to vote in American elections. You may be both be able to write in English but that does not make either of you Americans.
nk (d7f5f5) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:17 pmIt’s hard to conceive how we could possibly do worse on judges from McCain than we would with Obama.
Yes. It’s hard to conceive how we could do worse than Obama on anything. My point is, McCain is so close to Obama on the big issues, that we might as well let the communist own his policy blunders and have a sane party to fall back on. We don’t have this option if McCain is signing left wing policy into law.
By the way, I hadnt thought of this before, but Bush’s second term has been so awful, that had I known it would be this bad I’d have rooted for the Idiot of all Idiots, Kerry, to win, so something like a Thompson could have won this year.
I can hardly imagine that after Bush’s second term we want to elect a REPUBLICAN to the left of him, (meaning as ill equipped to provide solutions and as incompetent and compromised as Bush) and make our situation even worse with the electorate.
Time to punt people.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:33 pmAt Polipundit’s you called me a “biglizards.com fag”. Glad you have moderated your language here.
I have indeed moderated my language, and so have you. Don’t ask for an apology by the way. Your language was no better, so I hardly think you need to be exulting in my moderation.
Polipundit is a bar fight, but the issues get examined in great detail precisely because a politically correct and party line police force, a la Redstate, (where the conservatives nearly have to ask permission to criticize the R party’s current left-leading nominee) does not prowl, snipe, and ban 24/7.
If you want to have a brawl, I’m game. Let’s go back over to Poli and ring the bell.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:40 pmBrawl? Over what? I only fight with the enemies of my family and my country.
Tell us first that you are an American. And why we should believe you?
nk (d7f5f5) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:49 pmBut I seriously doubt that you and your moby host, PoliPundit, are eligible to vote in American elections. You may be both be able to write in English but that does not make either of you Americans.
I was born in OH. I have been a US cit all my life and am caucasian, not semitic. I have never lived outside the US except for vacations. I have been a committed R voter since 1985 and have never voted D in my life. That’s 23 years, Beadreaux…I was a precint worker for W in 2000, manning phone banks until 11 pm 2 weeks running, urging very discouraged independents and US mil voters to come out and vote in FL, a state that W won by 537.
I have donated large sums to the R party (until this year’s amnesty, that is… yeah, buh bye GOP)over the years.
I am as committed a conservative as exists out there, and there are millions like me, whether they reach the same conclusion about McCain as I do or not.
And re “palestine” as you put it, well let’s say if I were POTUS the Israel/Pali conflict “would be decisively settled in Israel’s favor”; no need to be graphic..
So you would be wrong again.
My tactics in refusing to vote McCain (obviously I would never vote Obama) reflect a desire to do nothing more than keep liberalism confined to one party, in the interest of maintaining a viable 2 party system, which we are in danger of losing at the momment, IMO. Like Europe, we are being offered a choice between left, and far left. That will not get the job done, and so I will not roll with it.
So, you’re wrong again.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:54 pmThe result would have been that instead of an incremental gain, replacing Rehnquist and O’Connor with Roberts and Alito, we would today have a six member liberal bloc, sometimes joined by Justice Kennedy, and the outcome of the Parker case, now pending, would almost certainly be the evisceration of the 2d Amendment. I don’t disagree with the assesment that Bush’s second term has been disastrous, but better that result than what would have ensued with Kerry. Similarly, it doesn’t take much imagination to see that the results of this election will either entrench or sideline the court’s liberal bloc, to say nothing of the lower courts.
Simon (a84579) — 5/25/2008 @ 8:01 pmThe result would have been that instead of an incremental gain, replacing Rehnquist and O’Connor with Roberts and Alito, we would today have a six member liberal bloc, sometimes joined by Justice Kennedy, and the outcome of the Parker case, now pending, would almost certainly be the evisceration of the 2d Amendment. I don’t disagree with the assesment that Bush’s second term has been disastrous, but better that result than what would have ensued with Kerry. Similarly, it doesn’t take much imagination to see that the results of this election will either entrench or sideline the court’s liberal bloc, to say nothing of the lower courts.
This is correct, I must say, and gives the strongest rationale I can see for voting McCain. The SCOTUS did in fact turn out remarkably well for us, even though I remind you that had Bush had his way, Gonzales and Miers would be on the court, not Alito and Roberts. (please allow me a few moments’ to be alone with my motion sickness bag).
If you can credibly suggest that something like this would happen again in a US Senate that has 10 more Dems, or that McCain would even desire a similar result, or that he would even be influenced by the opinion of the right AT ALL, the way W was, then you will be converting me.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 8:08 pmLet’s look at McCain’s advisors, staff, speeches, contributors, lobbyist pals, etc, and see if anything like that (rightward pull on SCOTUS, or for that matter any issue, such as amnesty or carbon caps) is realistically feasible.
I say not just no, but hell no.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/25/2008 @ 8:10 pmSo you don’t like the sausage making process. Join the club. At least learn to enjoy the friggin’ sausage.
If too many Democrats on the Senate means no more Roberts or Alitos, that’s an argument for electing more Republicans to the Senate, not for electing a Democrat (especially a far left one) to the Presidency. As to being influenced by the right, McCain prides himself in not being all that influenced by anybody, but tending well to the right of the center on his own. He may be less responsive to pressure to drop a Miers-like nomination, but then again, he’s also a lot less crony-driven than Bush, and therefore, much less likely to propose such a nomination on the first place.
So which is it? Are you going to vote for the guy who will probably improve the Supreme Court, but might not? Or are you going to take a dive for the guy or girl who certainly will make it worse for generations to come? That’s one hell of a price to pay for you lofty ideal of “keep liberalism confined to one party, in the interest of maintaining a viable 2 party system.”
As an aside, you’re full of crap about McCain and guns. They guy’s not a perfect conservative by any means, but his voting record on guns is more consistently pro-Second Amendment than any President of either party who has served in my lifetime. Even St. Ron supported the Brady Act and the “assault” weapons ban, while McCain opposed both.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/26/2008 @ 6:07 amNot trying to argue with you, Xrlq, as I agree with the gist of your comment. But did McCain really oppose the faux “assault weapons” ban? Here I had in my admittedly unreliable memory that he was pushing for its renewal.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/26/2008 @ 8:06 amNo, he voted against it both times, and as recently as the NRA convention last week, reaffirmed his commitment to opposing bans based on cosmetic features. AFAIK his only imperfection on the gun front is his support for requiring background checks of private sales at gun shows.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/26/2008 @ 8:25 amWell, then you are right Xrlq, he’d be an improvement. But for the gun show silliness, he’d be a prince.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/26/2008 @ 8:29 amSo you don’t like the sausage making process. Join the club. At least learn to enjoy the friggin’ sausage.
That’s not really the point, the point is that we were extremely lucky that Roberts and Alito happened at all, given W’s astonishingly shabby, puerile and utterly superficial determination to seat Miers in particular, ignore the right’s arguments and pleas in their totality, relenting only after some Senators found her laughably, remarkably, and stupendously unqualified.
My point is we were lucky and this will not happen again. McCain WILL NOT choose any like them, and wouldnt be presented with Senatorial pressure from the center right to do so in any case. And if he did, he would come back with someone similar or worse, out of spite, and backhand the right with his usual “work with democrats, can’t you understand?” language.
If too many Democrats on the Senate means no more Roberts or Alitos, that’s an argument for electing more Republicans to the Senate, not for electing a Democrat (especially a far left one) to the Presidency
I am in favor of more Senate Rs. Let’s see how that goes. Personally I think we will lose 2 or 3 not 8, this year…again in relation to SCOTUS it will not be a positive development regardless.
You will be waiting happily for McCain to pull a SCOTUS rabbit out of his hat. I don’t think that would happen even if the Senate was 55 R, much less 46 R..
As to being influenced by the right, McCain prides himself in not being all that influenced by anybody, but tending well to the right of the center on his own.
This part is where you lose it. McCain has not been influenced by the right in a good 15 years. However as evidenced by his attack on the swiftboaters, his dalliance with Kerry, his above listed issues and statements in #15, and his far left positions on carbon caps and amnesty/open borders, these indicate that he does not “tend well the the right on his own” at all.
Does someone who tends right make statements like:
We wont drill in ANWR any more than we’ll drill the Grand Canyon?
I don’t like excessive profits either?
We may be wrong on Global warming but even so we need caps?
Or does he say anyone opposing social security bennies for illegals was a Jim Crow racist?
Does he put “first amendment protection” in snark quotes and said he’d rather have the “clean government”, meaning he’d rather pass amnesty at the urging of his contributors?
That is just a remarkable statement, that he “tends well to the right on his own”. Re-read that McCain quote in #15 about the Dem party and get back to me..Maybe if you put “of Ward Churchill” on the end of that, yeah. Maybe if you put “of Obama” on the end….oh wait.. never mind…
He may be less responsive to pressure to drop a Miers-like nomination, but then again, he’s also a lot less crony-driven than Bush, and therefore, much less likely to propose such a nomination on the first place.
This John “keating 5” McCain we’re talking about? He’s one of the most pay to play US Senators in the chamber…
So which is it? Are you going to vote for the guy who will probably improve the Supreme Court, but might not? Or are you going to take a dive for the guy or girl who certainly will make it worse for generations to come?
I don’t trust or believe John McCain AT ALL. I think your case that he will solidify the shaky court is AT BEST dramatically overstated given the candidate’s history.
I think we elect McCain, we sacrifice the last shavings of R party credibility and get precisely ZIP from McCain on the SCOTUS.
And even if you are right, what then about the other USA-destroying issues that McCain channels the left on?
As an aside, you’re full of crap about McCain and guns.
I said we’d lose the gun issue based on the permanent Dem majorities brought on by McCain’s amnesty. A few years down the road. I never said McCain was anti-gun. My point was that on the issue of who gets to live here and what laws will be set aside, the result of amnesty will be a process of retreat over some time, on all the other conservative issues as well, by sheer electoral numbers. This IMO mitigates heavily against McCain’s largely correct position on guns, abortion, GWOT, and what else again?
Trust is a big issue here.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/26/2008 @ 8:54 amHappy memorial day, everyone.
Time to grill.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/26/2008 @ 8:56 amThe bottom line is that McCain may be imperfect but Hillary and Barack Put-The-Lime-In-The-Coconut are no dam good at all.
In any case, happy Memorial Day, rwy. God bless all our soldiers, past and present.
nk (a415e7) — 5/26/2008 @ 10:07 amYou’re right, an 82.3% conservative rating does indeed place him well to the right of Ward Churchill and Barack Obama, among others.
Yes, detective, that’s the one. The one who, along with John Glenn, was exonerated of any wrongdoing. Your point (or does the question assume a fact not in evidence)?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/26/2008 @ 4:36 pmSitting it out or voting for the third party is what got us Clinton 42. Do we really want Clinton 44? or Obama?
kimsch (2ce939) — 5/26/2008 @ 6:57 pmAbout that 82% ACU rating? Not so much.
And while McCain was technically “exonerated”, he was criticized by the investigating committee for questionable conduct. No way does McCain get my vote. That doesn’t make me a shill for the Democrats, but much more talk like that will certainly keep me away from the Republican Party for a long time.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/26/2008 @ 7:58 pmAs will a 100 million Chinese “military advisors” invited by Barack What-Kind-Of-Idiots-Would-Let-Me-Be-Elected-President Obama. Do you really believe that that empty suit would defend America’s borders, Stashiu?
nk (a415e7) — 5/26/2008 @ 8:42 pmVote for him nk, you have many reasons which are good enough for you. I don’t trust him on any issue whatsoever, including the GWOT. I trust Hillary to at least act in her own self-interests, but that doesn’t mean I’ll vote for her either. Obama? Not a chance.
Being unable to stomach McCain doesn’t make someone a shill for the Democrats though. Talking as though it does just pushes me farther from the Republicans than I’ve already gone. We’ll survive McCain (although I don’t believe he will win), we’ll survive Hillary, or we’ll survive Obama… not much more than survive with any of them. All three are going to do damage if they win.
From now on, I vote candidates, not party. I’ll likely write-in for POTUS and trend Republican down-ticket… but nobody has a guaranteed vote from me ever again. McCain would have done both parties a favor if he had actually switched parties back in 2000/2001. The Dems would have a better nominee now (McCain) and the GOP would have a better nominee as well (almost anyone but McCain).
McCain is going to screw you on nearly every issue you find important, especially the GWOT and judges… but including illegal aliens, free speech, campaign finance, environment, corporations, taxes, and others. I’ll be cussing him out right alongside you, but I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/26/2008 @ 9:03 pmNK, one thing you can be sure of is that Obama will secure the borders as effectively as McCain.
(That will tell you what I think of McCain.)
kishnevi (d50358) — 5/26/2008 @ 9:03 pmI won’t fight with you two guys. I like you too much.
But if I could only believe that John Hawkins would rather starve than eat a meal that was not cooked just right.
nk (a415e7) — 5/26/2008 @ 9:11 pmNothing but respect for you too bro, and I hope that if McCain wins he turns out to be great… better than Reagan even. I think he’ll be much closer to LBJ… or Carter. The GOP “good ole boy” syndicate has taken control of the party again and conservatives are going to pay the price for letting it happen.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/26/2008 @ 9:25 pmStashiu3, there is nothing “technical” about either McCain or Glenn’s exoneration. Making an issue over either having been among the “Keating 5” makes about as much sense as attacking Reade Seligman for being one of the “Nifong Three.” This is particularly so in McCain’s case, as Robert Bennett made it clear to the committee early on that there was no basis for investigating him. No matter: the Democrat Congress had already decided there was no way they were going to go after the “Keating 3” or the “Keating 4” without getting to drag at least one Republican through the mud.
Did you actually follow that link? Of all the “McCain’s not really 82% conservative” arguments I’ve encountered, this one has got to be the silliest. I do enjoy the irony of you citing it, though. By Misha’s logic, McCain’s failure to vote for or against certain key issues makes him effectively guilty of voting the liberal position on those bills. By exactly the same logic, if you don’t vote for McCain this fall, you are a liberal who supports Obama.
If he wins, I suppose so. But if Obama wins narrowly because you and too many others like you took their ball and went home, I’ll hold you and your ilk responsible. Go ahead, start manufacturing those bumper stickers that say “Blame Me, I Threw Away My Vote.”
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/27/2008 @ 3:33 amIn that case, if Obama is the nominee I should vote for him since I’ll be held responsible for his winning no matter what. My bumper sticker is going to read, “Blame Xrlq – just because”. That will make as much sense as blaming disaffected Republicans whose party nominated a Democrat with an R behind his name. You want to blame someone? Blame the GOP insiders who went back to their old “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. They’re the ones who pushed us away and you think we should appease them for it? It would only encourage them. Does that sound familiar?
McCain was not an innocent bystander or the “token Republican” during Keating, however you want to portray it. That 82% ACU rating is BS as well, and not only for the reasons you dismissed so easily. I don’t know how you can call someone conservative who was even involved with, much less co-authoring/sponsoring:
McCain – Feingold
McCain — Kennedy
McCain — Lieberman
These are more important to me than a vast majority of the bills he supposedly voted “conservative” on. Even one of them invalidates any claim he makes to conservatism as far as I’m concerned. So you, and the ACU, can keep touting that 82%… it’s not going to change that zebra’s stripes to polka-dots no matter how hard you want it to be true. While we’re at it, who you hold responsible doesn’t matter to me one bit either. The party no longer represents my values, it no longer deserves my vote. McCain is going to get stomped in November, and he should. I’ll gladly suffer whatever damage Hillary or Obama does if it wakes people up. And whether you like that or not doesn’t matter to me either.
Vote for who you like, for your own reasons. Whatever gets you through the day. I’ll do the same. My vote speaks for me, so it’s never thrown away. You don’t like it, fine. I still get to have my say. Neither you, nor the GOP, gets to say it for me.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/27/2008 @ 4:33 amX, you still have not deigned to address all the known facts on McCain’s policy positions which put him squarely in the middle of the Dem party.
McCain could solve all this in a heartbeat. Why do you suppose he won’t? Do you think that his positions on amnesty, carbon caps, tort reform and campaign speech are those of a “footsoldier in the Reagan revolution”? These are life-or-death issues for the country…
That 82% ACU rating is bunk, it was 65% for 2006, and is not weighted for issue importance.
McCain could cancel out his liberal votes on caps and amnesty with a few procedural tax hike opposition votes in committee, and keep his ACU high, while surrendering the country to Mexico, the UN and the ACLU with his positions on immigration, energy and torture.
Does not compute. Kyl has a 100% rating and he took the Kennedy dive too.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 4:49 amAnd do you McCain types not see the fundamental illogic of urging party fealty to a man who has made a career of mocking it?
McCain should not need the R voters to boot him. He should have been booted long ago by the RNC.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 4:58 amStashiu3:
If you’re planning on throwing your vote away (whether by abstaining outright, or by casting it for someone who has no chance of winning, it makes no difference), then yes, you’ve already cast half your vote for Obama, so why not grow a pair, admit that’s what you’re doing, and take care of the other half overtly?
No one blames disaffected Republicans for being disaffected. I do blame people who do stupid things for … well, doing stupid things. Feel free to blame me for President Clinton, as I was one of many who pulled the same petulant stunt in 1992 that you are advocating now. But if you’re looking to blame someone for the fact that McCain is the nominee, you’re going to have to look at Republicans in the states that decided the Republican primary, not mine.
As for the crap about McCain being “a Democrat with an R behind his name,” let’s just say that there’s a world of difference between moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman, who are slightly to the left of McCain, and hard core leftists like Obama (or, for that matter, his ideological twin Clinton). So if you must think in those terms, fine, but at least have the good sense to do the right thing when confronted with a choice between a center-right almost-Democrat, who occasionally embodies some of the Democrats’ policies that upset you so much, vs. a hard-left near-socialist, who consistently embodies all of them.
Sez you, but then again, you’re the one that cited the silly reasons that were so easy for me to dismiss, not me. If you had a better reason, it was up to you to provide it, which you did not do.
Not a big fan of those three myself, but I must have missed the part where Sen. Obama came out stridently against any of them. Got a link?
So here we see the real reason behind your temper tantrum: your poor widdle feewings were hurt. Let’s all have a great big, collective “Aaaaaawwwww.” There, that was easy. Now grow the *&^% up already.
Once you get past your delicate little feelings, it’s time to face the cold, hard reality: like it or not, we live in a two party world, and either Barack Obama or John McCain will be our next President. There are no other options, so if you want your individual vote to mean anything at all, it must be cast for one of those two. Assuming that neither Obama nor McCain represents your values terribly well, the question now turns to which one represents your views better than the other (or, if you’re still in too pouty of a mood to think in those terms, feel to ask which one offends you the least). If Obama is the closer match, then you should vote for Obama. If McCain is the closer match, you should vote for him. If you can’t make up your mind between the two, you needn’t bother voting at all.
Another point to bring up to your shrink while dealing with all these “it’s all about me and my feelings” crap: it’s not about you, your feelings, or your neverending quest for self-validation. If you get a warm and fuzzy feeling by writing down your political preferences on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box, no one is stopping you from doing that in the comfort of your own home. Just buy yourself a notebook, call each page a “ballot” and your waste basket a “ballot box,” and spend the whole day “voting” for whoever you want. Do that every day from now through November 3. Then do the adult thing on November 4.
No one is questioning your precious, God-given right to make as big of an ass of yourself as you choose. But guess what? My right to point out what a petty ass you are being is every bit as sacrosanct. Freedom for me, not just for thee.
Right Wing Yahoo:
I’ve already addressed one that doesn’t (guns). Then there’s Iraq, abortion, etc. Even the dreaded Gang of 14 has an upside: Alito might well have gone unconfirmed without it. So you’ll have to pardon me for having little to no respect for the Real Conservatives whose response is to stomp their feet and help elect the jerk who filibstered Alito and even considered doing the same to Roberts. Besides, it isn’t as if McCain is running against anyone “squarely in the middle” of the Democrat Party. Deciding between President McCain and President Lieberman would be a relatively tough call, but picking between a guy slightly left of the Republican base vs. a guy well to the left of the Democrat center should be a no-brainer. The only reason it is not is because your emotions are not in check.
Since you and Stashiu3 are so sure McCain is no better than Clinton or Obama overall, I think it’s up to you to identify address a single major policy issue on which McCain is worse than Obama. Pointing out that he’s just as bad on some issues, while obviously much better on others, is not enough.
Xrlq (b71926) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:11 amPointing out that he’s just as bad on some issues, while obviously much better on others, is not enough.
Yes it is. The issues McCain is as bad as Obama on are the issues that will decide the future of the country.
So here we see the real reason behind your temper tantrum: your poor widdle feewings were hurt
Politics is not about feelings: It’s about representation. I vote for you, you cover my ass. Deal?
The GOP has told its voting base “you’re on your own. You don’t like it f*** you.”
Now we are saying “fine, you’re on your own, GOP” right back, and you are the one having a tantrum about that.
No one made McCain veer left, and when you do that, you won’t get votes from the right. Imagine that.
Astoundingly, you are the one expecting the get the votes of people you have kicked out of the Democratic process by refusing to represent them.
Politics is a 2 way street, and what the right is doing to McCain (ignoring him) is less than what he has done (deliberate sabotage, attack/impugn our values) for the last 12 years to us.
This is not about feelings or tantrums. This is a simple cold as ice reality: You want people’s votes then represent their values.
If McCain wins, the right will essentially be frozen out of politics. This is McCain’s goal, and I predict that in future elections, the consequences of that will only get worse.
The right is where the solutions are. All this sucking up the left will only make things worse, but it’s what we are stuck with, since we don’t have a voice in this election except thru congress. And if the R leadership keeps going as they are we won’t even have that.
The R party has gone totally mad during the Bush years, and the road back will be long and painful. Judging by the statements of party leaders, they have not yet even begun to understand the problem.
See, guys, we already have a left. We don’t need another one.
Seems simple to me. Ford lost elections, and Reagan won them. Seems like Bush/Congress is in that Nixonian phase of tearing the public’s goodwill down.
Good luck with that fellows.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:46 amAnd I never thought anyone could do a better job of wrecking the R party than Bush 41. LOL! Bush 43 is Nixon, McCain is Ford. Who is Reagan?
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:04 amI suspect Gov. Jindal, after the economic abortion that will be the first (and only) term of Sen. Obama…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:17 amyahoo knows what is best for you and the Republican party. Quit thinking, just follow yahoo.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:22 amNo, JD… Yahoo knows what is best for Yahoo.
Tell me to vote for McCain “Because” is about as likely to get me to vote for the man as someone using that reasoning to get me to vote Obama.
Bot have stances that disgust me, stances on issue that WILL decide the future of this country.
Debating their policy difference on things like Immigration, the Economy, and Global Warming is an exercise in sophestry and semantics.
Neither will lead this country. John Hawkins learned first hand what a lying, two-faced person McCain is. At least Sen Obama’s being a D from Chicago tells me he’s lying about everything from the start. The “R” next to McCain tends to fool one into thinking he has some measure of principles…
McCain doesn’t get my vote, folks. I don’t care if that means he loses. He’s a RINO, and he is most definately not Conservative.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:34 amCome on, be serious…
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:41 amI mean #48, be serious please…
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:42 amMcCain will probably get my vote for one reason: Supreme Court justices. The next POTUS will probably appoint at least one and if it’s a Dem, at least 2. I figure there’s a 50/50 chance of McCain appointing someone I can live with. I figure there’s about a 0% chance that Obama will do so.
The president will go away in a handful of years. SCOTUS appointments last a long, long time.
Then again, my state will remain blue, so maybe I might vote for Barr just because.
Pablo (99243e) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:52 amPablo, I suspect we’d end up with more Justices like Justice Ginsberg…
Hardly a reason to vote for the man. He was against Alito and Roberts, after all…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 9:09 amNo, he wasn’t Scott.
Like I said, there’s a fair chance that he won’t screw it up. There’s no chance that Obama won’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 5/27/2008 @ 9:24 amSo we know where mccain was on alito and roberts, but where was he on Miers?
stef (dfd808) — 5/27/2008 @ 9:26 amWell, that position is respectable.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 9:31 amPablo,
So his statements from before about how he didn’t like either…
I shoudl ignore those, right? I’m only supposed to listen to McCain’s words when he says what I want to hear?
That sounds suspiciously like the stratagy used by Sen Obama…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 10:13 amTranslation: “What I care about counts, and what I don’t feel like caring about doesn’t count, la la la, I can’t hear you!” For the adults among us, the reality is that no single issue is going to determine The Future Of The Country. Many factors will influence it. On some, McCain is admittedly as bad as the Democrats. On others, he’s far better. The choice is easy enough, at least to those thinking objectively rather than emotionally.
As an aside, it’s probably worth noting that the single worst aspect of McCain, McCain-Feingold, is also one of the main reasons his opponents ought to vote for him. Why? Because as Pablo noted, there’s a decent chance McCain will not screw up the Supreme Court, while there’s a virtual guarantee that President Obama (or Clinton) will. No Congress will ever repeal McCain-Feingold voluntarily. The only way we’ll ever get rid of that turkey is for a more conservative Supreme Court to strike it down. I’d rather take my chances on the guy who might get it right than throw the election to either of the yahoos who certainly will not (and who may even stack the court enough to make it impossible for any future President to do so, either).
So let’s commit ourselves to four years of Carter. The last such experiment was supposed to end in 1980, but as of today, almost three decades later, the Panama Canal still belongs to Panama, Iran is still the #1 state sponsor of terror, the Ninth Circuit is still a judicial cesspool, and Carter himself is still out there actively undermining U.S. foreign policy at every turn like only an ex-President can. The next President Carter won’t be any better; in fact he’ll likely be worse since he’ll probably get a Supreme Court appointment or two. Just like last time, eight years of the next Reagan (assuming there is a next one, a whopping assumption in itself) won’t be nearly enough to undo four years of Bozo. Quite a price to pay for making you, Scott and Stashiu3 feel validated.
Xrlq (b71926) — 5/27/2008 @ 10:36 amScott, do you have a link for McCain’s supposed “statements from before” against Roberts? If not, then the answer is yes, you probably should ignore them, along with any and all other figments of your imagination.
Xrlq (b71926) — 5/27/2008 @ 10:39 amI absolutely agree…
A shame that when viewed side by side, both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain share nearly identical views of Global Warming (and how to Save Us), Immigration, and torture.
I’m sorry that you are deeply, deeply offended that I might hold McCain to some sort of standard I wouldn’t think of holding Sen Obama to. I’m sorry you are deeply, deeply offended that I don’t intend to vote for McCain based on his stance on several different issues.
I’m sorry you feel the need to channel Levi when speaking to those who reasonably disagree.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 10:41 amFor the adults among us, the reality is that no single issue is going to determine The Future Of The Country. Many factors will influence it.
Utter nonsense. Adult or not, it is self-evidently false and self serving to say all issues are equally weighted.
What hurts America more? Tax increases or amnesty? Obviously the latter, you can recover from one not the other.
Same with the Iraq war vs carbon caps. We could surrender tomorrow, (not a good idea) and live to fight another day.
We kill the econ with carbon caps, we cant wage war with an economy to support it.
McCain is not just wrong on a few things. He is wrong on the MOST IMPORTANT things, period. If you think tax cuts are more important than barring 20+ million nrew 2:1 Dem voters, then youre not just in disagreement, you’re wrong.
And stop with the “adults in the room” noise, chappy. That doesnt fly either.
Quite a price to pay for making you, Scott and Stashiu3 feel validated.
Now who’s crying? At least we’ll be in a position to correct it. We don’t even get there with McCain.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 11:07 am“He is wrong on the MOST IMPORTANT things, period. If you think tax cuts are more important than barring 20+ million nrew 2:1 Dem voters, then youre not just in disagreement, you’re wrong.”
I know a lot of people think party building is important, but its odd that you find that increasing the number of democrats is one of the MOST IMPORTANT issues.
stef (43970e) — 5/27/2008 @ 11:52 amI’m not “deeply, deeply offended” by your open endorsement of a double-standard. I generally find such idiocy to be deeply, deeply annoying, but “annoyed” and “offended” are not synonyms.
See above. I’m annoyed at your idiocy in claiming you won’t vote for McCain “based on his stance on several different issues,” one of which you appear to have manufactured from whole cloth, and none of which distinguish him unfavorably from the hack who will occupy the Oval Office if he loses.
And I’m sorry you are so clueless as to think you can get away with claiming to “reasonably” disagree in the very same post in which you admit that such disagreement is based on a gaping double-standard. There is no such thing as a “reasonable” double-standard in my book, so by admitting as much you’ve basically said, in as many words, “I’m being completely unreasonable, but please respect my irrational, uninformed opinions anyway.” Sorry, not going to do that. My respect has to be earned.
Either can create its share of misery, and neither can be recovered from all that easily. Besides, there is not a shred of reason to believe Obama will be any better than McCain on either tax increases or amnesty, so your non-point is not taken. Instead, let’s try an issue where it may actually matter which individual is in the White House: Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominations. How on earth are we going to recover from that?
Not with the screaming children, obviously. But then again, neither will anything else, in your case. Reason only works on the reasonable, a group to which you obviously do not belong. If you did, you wouldn’t be passionately arguing for the election of President Obama on the basis that a President McCain would be too much like President Obama.
Xrlq (b71926) — 5/27/2008 @ 11:52 amEither can create its share of misery, and neither can be recovered from all that easily
No, tax hikes can be recovered from, amnesty CANNOT. There are no qualifiers to be found.
Besides, there is not a shred of reason to believe Obama will be any better than McCain on either tax increases or amnesty, so your non-point is not taken.
wahh. Actually what has been stated repeatedly is that if we are going to have leftist policy the left might as well take the blame for it.
Instead, let’s try an issue where it may actually matter which individual is in the White House: Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominations. How on earth are we going to recover from that?
This is all you’ve got. The 25-40% chance that we get a good judge from McCain and a Dem congress, and on this the party mortgages its future….
We have 5 justices anyway. Or we appear to. Ginsburg and Stevens out and leftists in still equals 5.
I don’t trust McCain on judges, period, and I will not sign up for amnesty and carbon caps. I don’t think the public wants any of it, they want tac relief, immigration enforcement, victory in battle and cheaper gas. So if everyone wants Dems they are making a bad mistake. The R party needs to be there when they wake up.
McCain does not help us “be there”. He puts us over with the Dems.
Maybe thats good enough for you, you can decide. It’s not for me.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 12:14 pmScott,
Source? The otherwise repulsive Gang of 14, a McCain joint, supported cloture on the Alito nomination. And as McCain says, his statements on the Senate floor are on the record.
He supported both nominees, AFAIK. If there’s something different out there, I’d like to see it. And I’m not going to be a McCain pimp here, ever, and I won’t be apologizing for the stupider things he does/has done. He will be the lesser of 2 evils and a possible bulwark against screaming lefty Justices.
Pablo (99243e) — 5/27/2008 @ 12:34 pmIf the public demanded all of those, we wouldn’t have these three left in the race. Sad but true.
Pablo (99243e) — 5/27/2008 @ 12:37 pmThe overwhelming majority of Americans were against amnesty the first time, and this most recent attempt with the Ag bill.
The public, however, seems to support the idea of “fuck it, vote for your party, no matter what you feel”.
Xlrq is channeling a heavy dose of Levi today. I’m done talking to him until he can talk to me in a way that isn’t blatantly insulting.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 12:56 pmIndeed. The gaping double-standard is that I expect a Republican to have a modicom of decency, honor and integrety. I expect nothing of the sort from most any Democrat, so to hold them to that standard is futile. They fail the test before they open the booklet.
Though if I were to hold McCain to the same stadard as Obama – that of being a complete nitwit when it comes to immigration, the economy, the environment, and such trivial things as free speech – then I assure you, they would each score equally well. Or poorly. However yuo care to view such a thing.
So which stance did I invent? His boundless support of Amnesty for Illegal immigrations and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (which seems to be code for “screw the rules”)?
His support of Carbon Emission caps, and AGW in general?
His active role in curtailing political speech?
His actions against judicial nominations?
His anti-torture/pro-close-Gitmo stance?
Tell me, which of those did I invent? Which of those things is FALSE?
After the disaster that was Carter, we had 12 years of Republican control, and 8 of those was uncompromising Conservative to boot.
After the disaster that will be Obama, I suspect we’d get much the same result, assuming we find someone who actually holds to Conservative values, and isn’t just using the “R” by his name to get elected in a state that rarely elects Dems.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/27/2008 @ 1:08 pmXrlq,
Take your condescension elsewhere. I am just as adult as you claim to be and deciding against McCain is no more a temper-tantrum than people who decide in good faith to vote for Clinton, Obama, Barr, or anyone else they choose.
I’ve defended McCain many times when he was being treated unfairly by the MSM, but he’ll never get my vote. He’s not better on any issue that’s important to me, including the GWOT or judges. Expecting people to toe the party line because the other side will create a disaster is what moonbats do. Apparently that’s the style of discourse you prefer. It’s not about my need to “grow a pair” or discuss with my shrink since I’ve got a pair already and don’t see a shrink. It’s about making my own choices and respecting that others can do the same, which is something you have demonstrably failed at.
Since that’s the case, I guess we’re done. I’d just as soon quit with you before you feel the need to bad-mouth my parents, kids, and choices for dinner because I won’t vote as you demand. People like you are why I left the GOP and make it less likely that I’ll ever return. I avoid low-class people when I have the choice.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/27/2008 @ 1:26 pmWrong. Its future is mortgaged already. After losing both houses in 2006, and three special elections this year in what should have been safe districts, there are no good short-term options for the Republican party. Some options are better than others, however, and half a loaf is better than none.
If we “appear to,” you haven’t been paying much attention. Four conservatives and one wildcard isn’t my idea of “having 5 justices.”
Ginsburg and Stevens out and younger leftists in still equals 4 conservatives and 4 liberals, putting either side within striking distance of a commanding majority. Ginsburg and Stevens out and 2 McCain appointees in all but guarantees actually getting the 5 (or better) majority you mistakenly believe we have now. That alone can have repercussions far beyond any short term political gains or losses over who is in the White House. Add to that the war in Iraq, which McCain has steadfastly supported and Obama has steadfastly opposed, and that’s two good reasons right there to join Kevin Baker and vote for the least repulsive Democrat running, if nothing else.
“Good enough” is neither here nor there. That train left the station when McCain (whom I did not support) secured the nomination. Now the choice is strictly binary: Obama or McCain.
Scott Jacobs:
That wasn’t the issue I had in mind, but yes, you have grossly distorted McCain’s current position on immigration, which is to secure the border first, and normalize the large illegal population later.
That would be the one. You’ve yet to cite a shred of evidence to support that allegation, or even given me reason to believe that Justice Alito would be on the court today, but for the infamous Gang of 14 deal (which, at the time, I opposed as vociferously as anybody).
So what? As I noted above, many of the worst aspects of the Carter Administration continue to plague us to this day. Even if your strategy of deliberately losing 4 years in hopes of gaining 12 were to succeed at the ballot box (and there’s no guarantee that it would), there’s no reason to believe that the next “uncompromising conservative” (who, in Reagan’s case, was so friggin’ “uncompromising” as to ban full autos and supported the Brady Act and the AW ban) would be able to undo all the damage that was done in the interim. Four years of leaving Iraq unchecked would get us a terrorist state rivaling the pre-911 Taliban.
Stashiu3:
“Good faith” doesn’t make a temper tantrum anything other than a temper tantrum. The next President will be either McCain or Obama. Period. Anyone who refuses to accept that reality and throws his vote away on anyone else (save for Clinton in the remaining primaries) is acting like a bratty child, not an adult.
Like I said, it really is all about your precious, fragile feelings, isn’t it? Otherwise, people like me wouldn’t have that power.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/27/2008 @ 3:49 pmSo the reason you’re not a Democrat is because they have power over you? Got it. Enjoy that.
Oh, and before I forget… Right.Out.Loud.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/27/2008 @ 3:59 pmThe following McCain quote, the week after April 28th, must mean something different to you…
“We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform.”
Yeah, he’s all for securing the boarders…
Much as I would love to own a MAC-10 for home defense, I really don’t think anyone outside the military and SWAT needs a fully-auto weapon…
Congrats, Xrlq… You’re the type of person that makes sure I won’t vote McCain, the same sort of person that as a Libertarian calls us facists for not condeming the imprisonment of a drug smugler, and as a Liberal calls use fucking retards and bigots when we fail to agree…
You have far more in common with Levi that you might suspect…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/27/2008 @ 4:44 pmXrlq is a good guy, Scott and Stashiu.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 5:12 pmReally? Being called a child and having my intelligence insulted because I dare to not Toe the Party Line isn’t how I generally gauge such things.
In the past, I’d liked his comments here. Now? No so much the fan anymore.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/27/2008 @ 5:16 pm“…I really don’t think anyone outside the military and SWAT needs a fully-auto weapon…”
Since the passage of NFA-34 (the National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating and taxing full-automatic weapons, among others), there have been tens of thousands of full-auto and other weapons legally registered, and taxed, under this law.
Only one (1) IIRC, of these thousands, has been used in a crime.
The problem is not the guns, and it is not the law-abiding owners of those guns, it is the crooks, thieves, and otherwise mokes of the world, who bring grief to us on their schedule.
And, it has nothing to do with needs…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/27/2008 @ 5:18 pmnk, I always thought so too. Maybe it’s a touchy subject for him, or maybe he’s having a bad day, I don’t know. What I do know is that nothing I said called for his attacks on me and when I tried to just end it, he continued. If that’s how he wants it, fine. If he wants to see what a temper tantrum really looks like, he should look in the mirror after re-reading his comments to others. There are more important things in life than internet flame-wars, so until he can keep a civil tongue, I’m done with him.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/27/2008 @ 5:45 pmX is fine. He just doesnt see loyalty, or the political process, as any sort of 2 way street. It’s all from-the-top-down with him. I prefer America as a from-the-bottom-up place, the way it used to be…
All this sturm and drang would not be necessary for one minute if McCain had a conservative bone in his body.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:04 pmI do see it as a two-way street. The day the Democrats put up a candidate who is better than the Republican alternative is the day I vote for the Democrat. Some Democrats probably would beat McCain on that score; it’s just that Clinton and Obama are not those Democrats.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:19 pmAnd that line of reasoning, unfortunately, wrecks the R party for 2012.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:24 pmOnly because the Democrat Party can be trusted to stay worse than any conceivable version of the Republican Party. If you’ve got any way to fix that, I’m all ears, but punishing the Republicans for being too much like the Democrats certainly won’t, as doing so simultaneously rewards the Democrats for being too much like themselves. Politics is, for better or for worse (mostly worse) a zero-sum game, in which you cannot punish one party without rewarding the other.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:27 pmPolitics is a touchy subject. I think I lost two friends over whether the Village Park and Recreations Department should essentially take over Little League or whether we should just continue to pay rent to the Village for use of its facilities and donate improvements we want to the Village’s ball-lots. Honestly.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 6:45 pmAnd, if you will permit me, I will add this caveat about Barack Doctor-What-Can-I-Take-To-Relieve-This-Bellyache Obama. He became a U.S. Senator because “conservative” downstate Republicans sabotaged Jack Ryan. And Jack Ryan was the last hope of Illinois’s GOP after Peter Fitzgerald refused to run for any office again.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:06 pm#78, there’s such a thing as giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. Your way, there’s no incentive for the Rs to stop sliding left.
I say this is far enough, and go on without me.
Of course that means rewarding Ds by default. Giving up the field goal, and getting the ball back with an offense that knows how to move the ball.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:26 pmHe became a U.S. Senator because “conservative” downstate Republicans sabotaged Jack Ryan
Well, tough crap on Ryan. Dance with who brung ya, and that won’t happen.
right wing yahoo (If McCain can be a maverick, I can too.) (88f89b) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:27 pmIt’s tough crap on us, rwy. Jack Ryan got over it. He still has his life, his millions and the memory of sleeping with Seven-of-Nine. We have Daley, Blagojevich, Tony Rezko and Barack I-Should-Sacrifice-Everyday-To-Fortuna Obama.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:45 pmExcuse me?
Don’t blame me and mine for the actions of a judge that ignored Jeri’s wishes and released the documents anyways, and Jack eventually dropping out because he refused to stand up for himself.
Hell, I liked the guy more when I heard that story… I mean, I’d have a 100′ screen outside my house playing home “movies” is Jeri had been my wife… If only to prove that yes, I was having sex with Seven of Nine…
Ryan dropped out because he got blind-sided by a lovely dirty trick the Daley’s pulled out of the “Classics” collection…
And then we went and phoned in with Alan Keyes, who’s about as looney as they get…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:49 pmIt was his primary opponents who leaked the information, Scott. Well, ok, maybe Rockford is not downstate. But that other unmemorable asshole teaching at Carbondale who wanted to be slated in his place instead of Alan Keyes certainly is.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 7:58 pmPlease… Carbondale is Daleyland South… It’s a pile of corruption all it’s own.
And I find it unlikely thatthe Daley’s didn’t have some hand in it.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:05 pmI am inclined to believe that a large part of the Republican Party in Illinois is a Daley false flag operation.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:14 pmHalf of Illinois’ population is in Cook County. Kjellander is an incompetent boob and he’ll be gone soon. Bringing in Keyes just guaranteed Obama the post.
Now let’s not guarantee him the presidency. As I said upthread: sitting it out or voting for a third party got us Clinton 42. Do we really want Clinton 44 or Obama? Really? There is no guarantee that we’ll get 12 years of Republicans in exchange. We got 8 years of Clinton 42…
kimsch (2ce939) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:31 pmYou know, at least Senators Clinton and Obama admit to being Democrats…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:38 pmIf we get Hillary or Barack Don’t-You-Mess-With-My-Toot-Toot Obama we have no guarantee that we will ever have another election.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:40 pmYes, but at least we’ll have a more conservative Republican Party. It won’t have any political power, of course, but at least it will be “clean.”
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:47 pmYou know what, I’d rather not get laid than go banging some diseased whores…
But you have fun. Remember, hit ’em with the shampoo…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/27/2008 @ 8:51 pmSigh.
nk (a415e7) — 5/27/2008 @ 9:20 pm