Patterico's Pontifications

He was never a maverick. He is, however, just another political narcissist. He wants the attention, and has done what it takes to get it, and the people of Arizona simply had to choose the lesser of two evils. In about two years, he will be back to his (VERY CLOSE TO) RINO personna, and he’ll be a thorn in the side of real conservative politics.

Arizona, sorry for your “gain.”

reff (b996d9) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:34 am

perhaps he will be useful as a bad example for new senators

quasimodo (4af144) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:39 am

Mccain, a soros puppet, means more trouble for any agenda a possibly-financially-conservative congress might have.
What a contrast, and so soon, to the man who ran and lost the presidency to another soros puppet.

J (2946f2) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:40 am

Another unbelievable story regarding congressional behavior. Senator Baucus claims he wrote Obamacare, but didn’t actually, you know, read it.

Yes, really: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/sen-max-baucus-i-wrote-health-care-law.html

I mean its hard to beat the passage of the ________ act of ______, but its a real contender on that front.

Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:51 am

And I am not a crook!

Richard M. Nixon (54a83b) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:52 am

It would make an interesting article to sketch out how so many folks succumb to the lure to continuing political power rather than stick to principapl or retire to enjoy what time they have left.

Soronel Haetir (fadc29) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:53 am

So…

What exactly, other than his support of comprehensive immigration reform, makes McCain a RINO?

Matt Welch provided a pretty good argument in his book — McCain: The Myth of the Maverick — but what are the reasons here?

Christian (f10530) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:13 am

When is Palin scheduled to suffer that embarassing defeat the MFM promised us?

JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:20 am

attack against Gitmo, support for cap n trade, opposition to offshore oil drilling, the bush tax cuts, a weak position on the prolife issue,

ian cormac (6709ab) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:20 am

if we can’t rid ourselves of a paltry McCain what hope do we have of cleansing our little country’s soul of the dirty socialist besmirchings done on her by Obama and his congress friends?

This is a dark and portentous day.

happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:22 am

On the positive side, he did support Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy to aid the surge, when Biden was tutoring Obama, based on Power and Galbraith, that the war was lost. And he did propose
the regulation of the subprime market, that ultimately crashed the economy

ian cormac (6709ab) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:27 am

Re-election of John (RINO) McCain. Senator Goldwater is likely spinning in his grave. Damn, if we had elected Goldwater in ’64, maybe we wouldn’t have a McCain.

GM Roper (5f13e9) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:36 am

I thought it’s only liberals who ran away from their past positions. Oh wait, sorry Mr. McCain. What was I thinking. On the other side, if Hayworth couldn’t beat McCain in this environment then it’s good that he didn’t make it to the Senate cause he’d be of no use fighting the democraps there either. We just had better pray that we get a fourteen vote repub majority, so that these RINOs like McCain, Graham, Snowe, etc., get marginalized.

eaglewingz08 (74f660) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:40 am

I suspect McCain traded his surge support for Bush’s agreement to support putting McCain’s silly immigration scheme on the agenda.

That’s just my suspicion.

happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:42 am

If only we had a chance to support Scozzafava.

JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:47 am

Well, one thing is clear: however it goes in Alaska, Palin still has a lot of clout. If Murkowski had won in the MSM’s predicted landslide, we’d be seeing Palin’s political obit on every front page, right along with the “McCain trounces Tea Party” meme that’s rolling out.

Hey, maybe the MSM will talk up Palin now.

Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:53 am

I have two words to explain why i really had to hold my nose to vote for mccain in 2008:

McCain-Feingold.

I know, obambi is even worse that way, but i had a real desire to punish mccain for spearheading that unconstitutional law and i have been overjoyed that the SC stepped in and knocked it down.

i’m not saying i didn’t disagree with him on anything else, just that this ONE THING, that unconstitutional law he put his name onto, made it really hard to vote for him.

Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:01 am

Alaska…What office will Todd run for?

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:02 am

Does McCain’s primary victory mean he’s back to being pro-banana again now?

Mitch (890cbf) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:08 am

Mitch – McCain has never changed his positions for political expediency. Evah.

JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:17 am

OK, I held my nose while I voted for Johnny McC. Haynesworth is a total and complete embarassment to any office he holds (down to and including Sewer Mop). McCain falls into the ‘he ain’t perfect, but I gotta’ vote for one of these jerks’ category – and he is head and shoulders less jerk than the alternative. (Actually ‘ain’t perfect’ is probably a compliment.)

How I wish, wish, wish there’d been a rational alternative. Now I gotta’ seriously look at the Dem. alternative in November – (insert depressed sigh here).

Robert N. (41e487) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:54 am

No question every one of the 100 senators can impact national policy, and therefore each one of them affects us all. That said, this was a state primary race and as far as I am concerned Arizonans of late have more than proved their smarts and “sensible bonafides” with the election of Jan Brewer, and their overwhelming support of her stands-especially with respect to immigration. If Arizonans (being closer to their situation than most of are who live in other states with our own problems) in knowing the two R candidates, and weighing their options chose McCain to represent them in the general, then I think we owe them the respect of not criticizing or questioning their judgment.

elissa (f224b1) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:02 am

“When is Palin scheduled to suffer that embarassing defeat the MFM promised us?

Comment by JD ”

What’s interesting about this is how the MSM made the argument against the Tea Party, or Palin if some prefer, based on their predictions of loses in long shot races. It was pretty dishonest. And now that those long shot calls are actually coming through, indicating something huge, they are very muted in their analysis.

I think Miller’s just amazing. This is not a professional politician, and it shows. That he closed this gap against a long powerful dynasty should be a major story on the Tea Party’s viability.

Happyfeet’s right that it’s a damn shame with Mccain’s reelection. I think we lost this race when Hayworth became the opposition. Mccain lost to Obama with horrible tactics, but he’s actually a cunning politician against conservatives, and we should have picked someone bulletproof to oust him. If Mccain had lost yesterday, I think it could have signaled a major change in what the GOP stood for.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:09 am

If Arizonans (being closer to their situation than most of are who live in other states with our own problems) in knowing the two R candidates, and weighing their options chose McCain to represent them in the general, then I think we owe them the respect of not criticizing or questioning their judgment.

Comment by elissa

Oh man, if you weren’t very reasonable and insightful all the time, I’d probably take this a different way.

A lot of senior leadership gets picked over reform candidates due to corruption. They get far more money, and a lot of people see that seniority as more fed dollars.

I respect that Arizona got screwed by a primary with no great choice. They deserved better and this is the best they can salvage out of it, much like my Mccain vote in 2008. Their judgment may be solid, but I really think the country is in deep trouble as long as the GOP has such powerful members with Mccain’s record.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:13 am

“…A lot of senior leadership gets picked over reform candidates due to corruption. They get far more money, and a lot of people see that seniority as more fed dollars…”

And we’re talking about the co-author of McCain-Feingold, that was to remove the corrupting influence of money from campaigns;
a campaign in which John McCain has spent (so far) $21Million!

But, of course, just as when he could not point to one fellow Senator that was corrupted by campaign contributions (when challenged to do so),
this record amount of money in an AZ Senatorial PRIMARY will not corrupt Saint John either.
/sarc off/

Pogo would be proud!

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:23 am

Yeah, McCain belongs in the same RINO class with Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. He’ll sell out the GOP in a NY second, just like he’s done before, time after time. He’s an old dog and he isn’t likely to learn any new tricks at this stage of his career.

Count on a cynical John McCain to talk the talk when he needs votes, but refuse to deliver when the voters need him to walk the walk. That’s when McCain decides to praise the virtues of bipartisanship and urge compromise. Which always turns out to rescue Democrats when they’re on the ropes.

If Nixon’s dirty tricks guys were still around, I would suspect them of selecting JD Hayworth as the designated patsy for McCain to knock-off. Every time JD showed up on TV it seemed like he had a subliminal target on his forehead, flashing just under the thresholds of perception.

ropelight (5e7857) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:27 am

He is an arrogant, rage-aholic, self-righteous liberal who pretends he’s a “maverick” (and then eschews the label), and who has been wrong about every major issue of importance to conservatives, from the border to the Bush tax cuts, from campaign finance “reform” to waterboarding. I am sorry he was shot down and tortured; we all owe him our thanks for that chapter of his life. The rest of his life has been a disgrace.

Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:33 am

This is why its hard to get too optimistic about a potential GOP Congressional victory in November. The party remains firmly under the thumb of the same faction of Big Government Republicanism as ran it into the ground in the Bush years.

It’s pretty damning that the entire Republican establishment, including such erstwhile keepers of the conservative flame as Palin and National Review, went to the mat to save one of the worst members of the party.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:33 am

McCain as he was, is, and will always be:

Question by Ambassador KEYES: Senator McCain, in my past questioning I think I have established that you support the Clinton policy “don’t ask, don’t tell” on gays in the military. But I heard today that you had been asked a question about what you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion. And you said at first, as I understand it, that the choice would be up to her, and then that you would have a family conference.

I have got to admit, I think that displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter came to you and said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say “let’s have a family conference.” You would look at her and say, “Just say no, because that is morally wrong.”

It is God’s choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our Declaration principles is just as wrong. Therefore, how can you take the position that would subject such a choice to a family conference or any other human choice? Isn’t it God’s choice that protects the life of that child in the womb?

Senator McCain: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life. I’m the only one here who has gone to the floor of the Senate and voted in the preservation of the life of the unborn. I have worked very hard for the ban of partial birth abortion. I have sought for approval and legislation requiring parental consent and parental notification. I am proud of that pro-life record, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion.

KEYES: Meaning no offense, Senator, the question wasn’t about your record. It was about your understanding. If we take a position on this issue, and are then nominated by this party, we will have to go forward to defend that position in a field where Bill Bradley and Al Gore aren’t going to take your record as an answer. They will need a persuasive justification before the American people as to why that position is consonant with our principles and our heritage. And the answer you gave today does not display that kind of understanding. How can we trust you to move forward and defend our position on this issue?

McCain: Because unlike you, I have a 17 year voting record and record of service to this country, including doing everything that I can to preserve the rights of the unborn. I have spoken as eloquently as I can on that issue.

Matador (2acb9c) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:38 am

The first one to step up to the plate to face McCain was the guy from the Tombstone Epitaph, who had the brick of the Minuteman movement hanging around his neck – but at least that was a straight-forward policy controversy that, in today’s environement – would have been a legitimate campaign issue, and might have proven a positive now, but was highly negative prior to SB1070.
But, it would have provided the voters in the GOP Primary “a choice, not an echo”.

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:39 am

OK, I held my nose while I voted for Johnny McC. Haynesworth is a total and complete embarassment to any office he holds (down to and including Sewer Mop). McCain falls into the ‘he ain’t perfect, but I gotta’ vote for one of these jerks’ category

You think that “Haynesworth” is a total and complete embarrassment to any office he holds, and you then vote for John McCain?

The basic premise of the American form of government is that the voters are not morons. Thanks for reminding me that this premise is no longer operative.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:39 am

Subotai, you needed more than 2008 to open your eyes?

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:42 am

Subotai, it’s not damning that Palin endorsed Mccain, in my opinion. She, like Arizona, picked the best option of a slate of bad options. Plus, Palin’s just another politician… she’s doing great good, but she’s not going to endorse the guy running against the guy she fought Obama alongside in 2008… that would have been very, very poor strategy.

The Republican Party is in trouble as long as we have long standing and super powerful members like Mccain. You’re right. Progress on cleaning up the party and country is going to be slow. Miller is a good example of great progress. Most of Palin’s endorsements are. It’s a great example of choosing the feasible over the perfect. Like Fiorina in California. In an ideal world, we could have a more conservative candidate there, but it’s more important that we actually have a chance at controlling the Senate in the next few years.

Anyway, I’d take that Big Government Republicanism over what we have today. Bush was a good president. He wasn’t a great president, but he was a good president. I think you can actually get what you want, though, if we are willing to support the GOP, post primary, and focus on reforming it, pre primary.

In some exceptional cases, Mccain being a valid one, I think saying the GOP’s general candidate isn’t worth any support is perfectly reasonable. But I think Palin is a great example of a reform oriented movement that shouldn’t be damned for making a few calls that are not politically perfect for us.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:42 am

If Nixon’s dirty tricks guys were still around, I would suspect them of selecting JD Hayworth as the designated patsy for McCain to knock-off.

I’ve never understood the hostility and suspicion of so many people in the GOP towards conservative candidates.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:48 am

You think that “Haynesworth” is a total and complete embarrassment to any office he holds, and you then vote for John McCain?

The basic premise of the American form of government is that the voters are not morons. Thanks for reminding me that this premise is no longer operative.

Comment by Subotai

Seems less than moronic to me. Mccain is a principled liberal republican. He loves his country very much, but is very misguided and quite a jerk.

Hayworth can reasonably be seen as inferior. I’m not going to insist he’s inferior, but it’s not a moronic point of view at all. After all, you almost certainly have voted for Mccain at least once. It’s possible to be worse than Mccain. AD’s right, there were other options and I suspect Mr Minuteman would have won the nomination. I would have voted for Hayworth, personally, just because he was beholden to the right, but I don’t think he was an acceptable candidate.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:48 am

Absent the urge to spend to previously unthinkable levels (proven by current events to be mosquito bites on an elephant’s ass)
by the panjandrums in Congress, Bush’s Presidency would be highly preferred, and celebrated by all except the (redundancy alert) Deranged Left.

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:48 am

I’ve never understood the hostility and suspicion of so many people in the GOP towards conservative candidates.

Comment by Subotai

You’re the one bashing Palin, remember? Hayworth isn’t suspicious because he’s conservative. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone ever suggest he’s dishonest because of he’s so right leaning.

People just disagree on his character. If you recognize the reality of this, you might be better equipped to beat the Mccains. They will not go down without stronger and smarter reform movements.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:50 am

this was a state primary race and as far as I am concerned Arizonans of late have more than proved their smarts and “sensible bonafides” with the election of Jan Brewer, and their overwhelming support of her stands-especially with respect to immigration. If Arizonans (being closer to their situation than most of are who live in other states with our own problems) in knowing the two R candidates, and weighing their options chose McCain to represent them in the general, then I think we owe them the respect of not criticizing or questioning their judgment.

That’s absurd. By electing McAmnesty, Arizonians have undermined Brewer and their own states position on illegal immigration. McAmnesty is a rock-solid vote in the Senate against the policies represented by Arizonas recent law.

You might as well say that we cannot criticize the judgment of the people of South Carolina in electing Lindsey Graham.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:53 am

You’re the one bashing Palin, remember?

If Palin was a conservative candidate instead of a McCain clone, that would be a devastating comeback.

Hayworth isn’t suspicious because he’s conservative. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone ever suggest he’s dishonest because of he’s so right leaning.

Of course – the reason people voted for McCain over Hayworth is that McCain is so frickin’ honest!

Get real, Dustin. In a body of men notable for their dishonesty, McClown stands out for his readiness to lie to people.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:59 am

Well, in six-years there will be an experienced Congressman to take on McCain in the primary, or succeed him if he retires –
one who has widespread name recognition, and can create his own pallet:
Ben Quayle!

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:00 am

Subotai, if you think Palin is a clone of Mccain, I don’t really know what to say to change your mind. We’re just going to differ on that. You seem to have given up on the party, which is your right. I do not pretend Palin is a miracle, but she’s a good reform agent.

That’s the thing: some people refuse to support corrupt candidates. Mccain is a sleazy politician, and you’re right that he stands out for his readiness to lie. I already noted I would have voted for Hayworth, because he’s just so bad. But Hayworth has the stink of corruption to him in a different way.

Some people think that issue is much more important than policy. I think Palin’s more surprising choices are often answered if she does too. She spent a ton of time fighting a tough war against corrupt Republicans who talked a conservative talk, so perhaps this is kinda personal to her.

I’m not suggesting you’re wrong on Mccain… I’m just pointing out the legitimacy of voting for him because there wasn’t a good enough opponent. I’m doing this to explain that the concept of reforming the GOP is not lost because Mccain won the nomination. It’s just going to be a long, hard road, and we lost this one.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:04 am

They will not go down without stronger and smarter reform movements.

Any reform opponent who is to the right of the current GOP will always be slimed by a tag-team of the liberals in the Democratic Party and the liberals in the Republican Party.

The liberals in the Republican Party would sooner see a liberal Dem win then a conservative. See, for example, Randy Graf. You can also contrast McLosers no-holds-barred treatment of Hayworth with his all-holds-barred campaign with Obama.

The real enemy, for the McCains of this world, will always be to the right.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:08 am

You can also contrast McLosers no-holds-barred treatment of Hayworth with his all-holds-barred campaign with Obama.

You have a good point, there. It’s just plain odd that Mccain is so nasty to the right. I know your stripe (no offense intended) doesn’t like Cornyn all that much either, but Mccain was extremely ugly to him a few years ago, which made me think he was going to fight Obama using all this ammunition. Instead, as you said, all-holds-barred.

It’s not fair, I guess, but conservatives don’t survive well if they have even a hint of corruption. Republicans do, sometimes, but conservatives do not. Let that be a lesson for future attempts to oust RINOs. They will fail with Hayworth style candidates.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:12 am

I pointed all the issues she was at odds with McCain about earlier, now back in Alaska because
of the unique characteristics of the political demographics of her own party, she had to work with democrats more often then not to pass the AGIA line,
the tax reform, the ethics bill, (the last of which
boomeranged on her, when she went after Obama) The
story is not McCain, today but Miller, a virtual
unknown who topples a dynasty

ian cormac (6709ab) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:14 am

The
story is not McCain, today but Miller, a virtual
unknown who topples a dynasty

Comment by ian cormac

True. Mccain was always going to crush Hayworth and it’s not fun to consider 6 more years of him, but that was decided many months ago.

Miller is a huge step forward for the GOP. That’s part of the reason I wish Subotai would relax a bit. The GOP got more conservative in the last 24 hours. Palin helped, but it’s not necessary to make this about Palin. The Tea Party made this happen.

We will not win every primary, but if we fight hard in every primary, the GOP will get more reform oriented as time goes along. If we are smart, we will keep the GOP strong in general elections as we repair it in the primaries, partly because Big Government Republicanism, to take Subotai’s term, gives us more time to save our country.

This should be a day when the Subotai’s are pleased and motivated to go through this again, in my opinion. Instead, I get the feeling like it’s a hunt to find something, anything to identify in order to reject people, movements, etc, that are mostly good. What is the point of that kind of effort? It’s like demanding we not have any immigration. That kind of demand hands the issue to the left.

The kid who rejects any ice cream that isn’t Blue Bell Century Sunday probably doesn’t get as much ice cream as the kid who makes do with a variety of quality ice cream flavors.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:20 am

Also, I think Joe Miller would have won the primary in Arizona, too.

We need to take a good hard look at the differences between Miller and Hayworth. It ain’t difficult. We know what it takes to beat a RINO. A professional politician saying very conservative stuff is nowhere near good enough to convince the masses that a real improvement is offered.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:27 am

Subotai, if you think Palin is a clone of Mccain, I don’t really know what to say to change your mind

If you knew of differences between them, you could list them. Of course since you don’t, that’s not an option.

Hayworth has the stink of corruption to him in a different way.

Sure, if by “a different way” you mean “in no way”.

Some people think that issue is much more important than policy.

Then some people are too stupid to be free. And in in due course, they won’t be. When considering a political candidate, nothing is more important than policy. The Republican obsession with electing “good men”, people of good character, in the expectation that they will then do the right thing has never, ever worked. That’s how we got George W Bush.

If you ever wondered how a erstwhile “conservative” party keeps electing liberals, this lack of interest in policy and obsession with character is the prime culprit.

And to add insult to injury, it turns out that voters are also pretty crappy at determining the quality of peoples character. Which is not surprising when their knowledge of a persons character is gleaned from the media.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:29 am

Look in my neck of the woods, we have what I consider an absolute fraud, Rick Scott, barely
eking out a win, over a lackluster candidate like
McCollum, after 50 million dollars spent

ian cormac (6709ab) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:30 am

Some people think that [corruption] issue is much more important than policy.

Then some people are too stupid to be free.

Granted, you aren’t trying to persuade and you aren’t required to, but this isn’t a strong position to take.

Some people will simply refuse to support someone who could be a crook. They do not require a high burden of proof, either. You point to this obsession as something that ‘never works’. But why do you say that? Bush’s administration was relatively clean, after all. Your example seems to show it did work.

We not just pick people who don’t look like politicians playing the game, but are actual concerned citizens like Joe Miller? As I said, let’s look at the difference between a RINO slayer and a losing campaign. Let’s not just throw our arms up and proclaim Arizona doesn’t deserve to be free, which to me seems like a load of crap.

That’s how to productively reform.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:37 am

What is the point of that kind of effort? It’s like demanding we not have any immigration. That kind of demand hands the issue to the left.

From your own position on the left flank of the GOP, that must seem very clear to you. But in the real world my position is a lot closer to that of the American people than yours.

To Republicans like you, the trick is to always stay just a small step to the right of the Democrats. But that’s a reflection of your own political desires as much as it is of what’s politically possible.

Mccain was always going to crush Hayworth

That’s like saying that Obama was always going to lose. There is no “always” in politics. The future is what you make of it.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:39 am

“… lack of interest in policy and obsession with character is the prime culprit…”

A prominant media individual counsels that examination of character is very important – plus there’s that old “content of their character” thingie, too.
But, pushing policy uber alles seems to be why the Libertarians have no successful national candidates.

We elected W in ’00 over The Great Sigher precisely because we thought he was a man of “character” even though many of his policies, while not anathema, were not truly “conservative” (meaning Small Government).

Once again, we must not allow the desire for perfection to become the enemy of the attainment of good.
“A good in the hand is worth two perfections in the bush.”
Reminder: The Pursuit of Happiness is no guarantee of the attainment of such.

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:41 am

I think I’m drastically more conservative than you are, subotai, but this isn’t a contest. I don’t believe in a federal government with the intrusive powers you want. I don’t believe in a federal government determining the make up of the country, which I think is a natural consequence or even intent of your view on immigration. That kind of business just isn’t something I would ever want the federal government to intrude upon. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I just don’t think you’re nearly as conservative as I am.

I understand the rejection of people who might be corrupt or might not. I advocate looking at how superior Joe Miller was to Hayworth, simply as a credible candidate. It’s an uphill battle to oust a powerful long term candidate. You have to do it right, or you get crushed. Indeed, there was never any chance Hayworth was going to win.

You make personal attacks against me, Arizonans, etc. And look at the results. Mccain crushed a group of people who had a very strong and relentless series of very believable personal attacks. It’s just not enough.

In fact, looking at Murkowski, the relentless ‘I’m not that terrible person’ argument appears to badly backfire. The people turned against her to the tune of 30 freaking points, and the only real difference in the end was that Murkowski went much further in demonizing Miller (again, my opinion).

Anyway, this isn’t about Mccain. No one credible ran against him and this is old news. The story of the day is that the GOP hopefully made the right choice with Miller.

Here’s Dave Weigel:

And if Lisa Murkowski loses, she can run as an independent.

What a freaking jackass.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:47 am

–that’s absurd…. Arizonians have undermined Brewer and their own state’s position…–

–The basic premise of the American form of government is that the voters are not morons. Thanks for reminding me that this premise is no longer operative.–

You obviously have given this a lot of thought and feel strongly about it, Subotai. Are you aware, though, that some of your statements are beginning to sound a bit similar to the smug and knowing Libs who always like to howl that “clueless” and “moronic” people vote “against their own self interest” because they are too stupid to know what they are doing? This type of blame the dumb voter argument is often off the mark, doesn’t ever sit very well with people in general, feels disrespectful, and is therefore not particularly persuasive no matter who says it. As Dustin has pointed out in several well stated posts here, many Arizonans felt they had to try to make the best of a not very good primary situation yesterday. They really do not deserve such scorn.

elissa (f224b1) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:51 am

Granted, you aren’t trying to persuade and you aren’t required to, but this isn’t a strong position to take

It’s the position taken by the Founders. That’s strong enough for me.

Some people will simply refuse to support someone who could be a crook.

Those people make up the almost half of Americans who don’t vote. If you vote at all, you’re voting for somebody who could be a crook. In fact you’re voting for somebody who probably is a crook. That being so, the important question for intelligent people is what policies the different crooks favor.

Bush’s administration was relatively clean, after all.

Corruption, on the highest levels, is rarely illegal. Whatever the government does is, pretty much by definition, legal. This is true for the Democrats funneling taxpayer dollars to the teachers unions, and it was true for the GOP’s policy under Bush of “any employer in America should be able to hire anybody from anywhere in the world whenever they like”.

Let’s not just throw our arms up and proclaim Arizona doesn’t deserve to be free

Nobody deserves to be free by virtue of existing. It’s something which must constantly be earned.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:56 am

An awesome joke, applies not only to the Maverick, but to people who make the same mistake:
“What about people who remarry the person they divorced? Isn’t that like going to the refrigerator for milk, sniffing it’s gone bad, then putting it back thinking, ‘maybe it will be good tomorrow!'” – Larry Miller

TimesDisliker (f49701) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:01 pm

pushing policy uber alles seems to be why the Libertarians have no successful national candidates.

No, the problem with the libertarians is that they their policy sucks, not that they are too loyal to it.

Once again, we must not allow the desire for perfection to become the enemy of the attainment of good.

So if we vote for McCain over Hayworth (on the inane proposition that McCain is “less corrupt”) are we not than allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good? It sure looks that way to me.

The trouble with this “perfect being the enemy of the good” is that is assumes that their exits some agreement about what we think the “perfect” and the “good” actually are. And I don’t think that’s the case. A lot of Republicans are looking for a party which has pretty much the same policy positions as the GOP in the Bush years, but maybe with a little less corruption.

And a lot of other Republicans think that such a party is neither “perfect” nor even “good”.

If we can admit that, then we’ll have at least the starting ground for discussion.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:08 pm

Nobody deserves to be free by virtue of existing. It’s something which must constantly be earned.

Comment by Subotai

I disagree. In a practical sense, we have to fight for our God given rights. He helps those who help themselves, after all. But it is never the government’s place to oppress us. When they do it to a weak people, they are wrong. The USA was unable to win her revolution without the French blockading Yorktown. People need help sometimes, even the founders.

This is what I mean about our differences politically. It’s not up to you or I to determine who deserves freedom. I don’t think people are morons automatically if they didn’t trust Hayworth, and I think even the North Koreans deserve every ounce of liberty that I deserve.

You seem to be arguing that results determine how much merit someone has. That’s a rational POV, but it’s not consistent with your view on Hayworth’s campaign. A reform movement doesn’t deserve to win if it doesn’t pick someone more like Joe Miller, if we apply that rule.

This is much easier to discuss if we just let that kind of thinking go. It’s not about who deserves freedom or who is a moron, to me, but about figuring out ways to reduce RINOs in the future instead of blaming the voters for not cooperating.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:12 pm

many Arizonans felt they had to try to make the best of a not very good primary situation yesterday.

I don’t know what they “felt” and neither do you. I do know that, objectively speaking, they chose poorly. At least they chose poorly if their goal was to send a conservative to the Senate – perhaps their actual goal was to elect a RINO, in which case they succeeded.

They did not have a “very poor primary situation”. Most people in the country never get as clear a choice as they had.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:16 pm

I don’t know what they “felt” and neither do you.

Granted, that was her opinion, but she’s probably right. Arizona’s approval of Mccain is something like 1 out of 3 approve, if I recall correctly.

You need powerful evidence to overcome the evidence available that Arizona didn’t like Mccain, but preferred him to Hayworth.

I think it’s absurd to say this was as clear a choice as many ever get. Both are slimeball politicians who have been around forever and failed to win wide approval of their constituents. Mccain admits he’s made mistakes, and it’s tough to believe he will really follow his word in this campaign. Hayworth also admits he’s made some mistakes, such as that terrible informercial, and says that’s not the real Hayworth. I could pile on this poor guy, but it’s not necessary to prove he’s really as bad as Mccain claimed (likely he’s not so bad).

My point is really very simple: you wanna beat powerful RINOs, you need to look at the differences between Joe Miller and JD Hayworth. If you can’t admit any problem with Hayworth, and just insist the voters don’t deserve freedom for their offensive choice, I think you’re not helping my cause.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:25 pm

I think I’m drastically more conservative than you are, subotai

I’m familiar with your belief that liberalism is conservatism. This is not the place to get into that.

I don’t believe in a federal government with the intrusive powers you want.

You don’t usually resort to Aaron-style outright dishonesty. It does not sit well on you.

I don’t believe in a federal government determining the make up of the country

The federal government is determining the makeup of the country right now. Of course it’s doing so in defiance of the wishes of the people it supposedly represents.

One of the few enumerated powers of the federal government is precisely to “determine the makeup of the country” i.e to secure the borders and to make immigration policy. And whatever policy it has, it will be determining the makeup of the country. It’s an odd feature of your “conservatism” that it has no place in it for a government which does these things.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:26 pm

Murkowski cannot run as an independent, as per AL law. Whomever wins this primary will win the general election, this is Alaska, after all.

East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:27 pm

Er, I mean AK law.

East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:28 pm

If I misrepresented your view on immigration, I apologize. It’s not my intent to misstate your views. I do understand them to be taking a role I would prefer the federal government have little to no part in.

I appreciate that you understand my view that individual rights and liberty is the foundation of my definition of conservatism, and I respect that you just don’t agree.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:29 pm

I disagree. In a practical sense, we have to fight for our God given rights.

So in what sense do you disagree, other then that of the annoying pedant?

it is never the government’s place to oppress us. When they do it to a weak people, they are wrong.

Wonderful. That’s very helpful for all the unfree people of the world.

This is what I mean about our differences politically. It’s not up to you or I to determine who deserves freedom.

Then its odd that you just said that people are only free if they “fight” for it.

Part of the problem with trying to discuss anything with you is your insistence on disagreeing with everything I say, even when you agree with it.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:32 pm

East Coast Chris, that’s excellent. I don’t think a game player like Lisa Murkowski would do that to the party, anyway, despite my low opinion of her. Crist is a real piece of work, and I think it’s a good idea to restrict candidates to one party. Jumping ship to reject voter will short circuits the entire system.

Dave Weigel was just being a jackass, though. A lot of clowns really have egg on their face. The line now is that ‘if you think Palin really helped Miller, think again, because she loses some endorsements’. That’s just pure insanity.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:33 pm

“So in what sense do you disagree, other then that of the annoying pedant?”

?

You’re the one saying people don’t deserve freedom and are morons, claiming they liked Mccain despite their disapproval of his performance. I’m annoying you? Maybe you presume way more patience than you exercise.

I’m arguing with you in good faith. I believe that rights exist even if they aren’t successfully fought for. It’s really not that complicated. It’s just a philosophical point. I think people in Arizona are fighting for their rights, and your analysis is very strained. Everything is wopyjawed out of place, and the gravity all seems to pull from an unwillingness to admit fault of JD Hayworth.

Would the founding fathers have deserved their rights if France had refused to blockade Yorktown and the revolution failed? I think these questions answer themselves. This is what informed my view of limited government.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:37 pm

If I misrepresented your view on immigration, I apologize. It’s not my intent to misstate your views. I do understand them to be taking a role I would prefer the federal government have little to no part in.

Your position on the proper role of the federal government with respect to immigration is certainly one you are entitled to. I only object when you claim that it is compatible with conservatism, or with the views of the Founders. Neither of those positions are supportable.

I appreciate that you understand my view that individual rights and liberty is the foundation of my definition of conservatism

I do understand that, and I understand that it is incorrect. Here is what the father of the conservative movement had to say about that topic.

I must be tolerably sure, before venture publicly to congratulate men on a blessing, that they have really received one. Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver; and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies; with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue; with the solidity for property; with peace in order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things to; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit while it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may soon be turned into complaints.

Going on about “individual rights and liberty” does not really advance the discussion at all. Taken literally, it is meaningless. Osama bin Laden believes in “individuals rights and liberty” in some sense.

I strongly suspect that when you talk about “individual rights and liberty” you actually mean a certain particular system of thought, one which excludes a good many of the things which people would be pleased to do if we returned to a state of nature.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:49 pm

I’m arguing with you in good faith. I believe that rights exist even if they aren’t successfully fought for.

Okay, we disagree there.

an unwillingness to admit fault of JD Hayworth.

What fault would you like me to admit on his behalf? All I’ve heard so far are whisperings about “corruption”.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:55 pm

Dustin, one viewing of Hayworth in that government-money scam infommercial is enough to convince ANYONE that the guy is inferior.

[He was a decent sportscaster, though. So says this former Phoenix resident.]

Icy Texan (01e21d) — 8/25/2010 @ 12:59 pm

Good grief. I thought Weigel was joking.

According to Ace, the Murkowski campaign is considering a third party run.

What in the HELL is wrong with these people, who reject the wishes of the voters? Granted, I do not think she has a legal leg to stand on. Chris is probably right that no such run is possible. But this makes her into an enemy of democracy, in my opinion.

also, I have been reading Weigel’s girlfriend’s work, and she’s ridiculously ugly to Palin. Doesn’t prove Weigel is a liberal as much as Weigel’s Joun-o-list crap, but it’s amazing how many people went along with that fraud.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:01 pm

Would the founding fathers have deserved their rights if France had refused to blockade Yorktown and the revolution failed?

No.

I think these questions answer themselves.

Heh. I think so too.

This is what informed my view of limited government.

The trouble with your view of limited government is that it always requires a very large government indeed to implement it. Any government dedicated to securing “individuals rights and liberty” must always grow out of control. That is the history of liberalism in America and around the world. The scope of the task is enormous, so it requires a corresponding government power.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:02 pm

What fault would you like me to admit on his behalf? All I’ve heard so far are whisperings about “corruption”.

Comment by Subotai

He admitted mistakes, didn’t he? Perhaps you didn’t follow the Arizona race, at all, and have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. If you really can’t see the difference between Hayworth and an actual RINO slayer like Miller, that’s exposing a problem in your analysis methods. The difference is huge and that explains a lot.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:02 pm

Perhaps you didn’t follow the Arizona race, at all, and have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about.

That’s a remarkably non-responsive response to a very simple and straightforward question. What fault would you like me to admit on Hayworths behalf?

If you really can’t see the difference between Hayworth and an actual RINO slayer like Miller, that’s exposing a problem in your analysis methods.

Again, when asked a pretty basic question you resort to squirting ink. Why don’t you tell me the difference between the two?

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:11 pm

One difference between Hayworth and Miller is that the GOP establishment closed ranks in support of McCain, but not in support of Murkowski.

Subotai (952367) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:15 pm

What is this alleged loophole? Where will she get any money? She should just take 4 years off and run against Begich in 2014.

East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:22 pm

Her loophole is that the Alaska Independence Party has not picked a nominee. While she has missed the deadline to run independently, she may be able to run if an actual party picks her. Somehow.

This is absolutely absurd, though. It’s such a poisonous idea that I wonder if it’s being planted. Perhaps as pressure to make her concede? More likely, she really is a scumbag.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:25 pm

FWIW, I held my nose and voted for Hayworth, despite getting numerous phone calls from McCain’s election campaign. Of course, I will hold my nose again and vote for McCain in November. I was hoping McCain wouldn’t run this time as I am sick of having to vote for him.

At least our Governor won by a large margin. Although I was a little disappointed that she and Sheriff Joe endorsed Mccain.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:27 pm

What’s sad is that many people think this kind of clawing and clawing to keep power, no matter the cost to the party, the people, integrity… they think that’s not nearly as bad as quitting an office if it’s in the state’s best interest, or even someone’s personal best interest. Power vs sense.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:29 pm

I think PatAZ represents a heck of a lot of people who held their nose, either voting one way or the other. They deserved better candidates. More than 2 or 3, and a few with no beltway experience.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:30 pm

McCain just turn down
plum lead role in new “oater”
film “Brokedick Mountain”

that one for noyk…

ColonelHaiku (60a24c) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:33 pm

From afar, it seemed to me that McCain had the opportunity to show he was going to be serious about the border now even though before he was against it, and with his seniority he might be effective in the fight. And I don’t know much about his opposition.

OTOH, I would not be terribly surprised if he softened on this again. I would be terribly angry, but not terribly surprised. I would move for a recall, even if it can’t be done, just to show the level of dissatisfaction. And I would start calling him “Sen. Specter from AZ”.

Pogo would be proud!
Comment by AD – RtR/OS!

So many young folk here don’t even know who Pogo is/was, let alone his famous saying. We could tell them, but then again, let’s keep it to ourselves.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 1:33 pm

Sarah Palin gets a pass for endorsing McCain. She owed him and she paid her debt. It was the honorable thing to do, but it’s over now.

ropelight (68c27e) — 8/25/2010 @ 3:07 pm

We have met the enemy and it is us.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:52 pm

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

There is no room in there for “they only deserve their rights if they win the fight.” No room whatsoever. And to claim such while simultaneously claiming to stand with the Founders is to make a false claim, whether intentional or no.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

-John Adams

That “huge government” needed to make “small government” work would be “a moral and religious people.” (Note that during Adams’ time, “religious” meant Christian.)

Now, as far as Murkowski goes, I can’t call her the Primary loser just yet. From my understanding, there are 18,000 absentee ballots yet to be counted, and if the spread remains the same as the live ballots, 13,000 of those ballots would be for the Republican primary. With Miller up by a mere 2,000 votes and Miller’s late-game surge, it is still within the realm of possibility that Murkowski could still win, and possibly with a margin (since Miller came from a long way back in such a short time).

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:53 pm

I was wrong on a previous post. Sheriff Joe did not endorse McCain. Numerous other sheriffs did, but not him.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:57 pm

She could win the absentees, John. She would have to really beat Miller, more than 7,500 to 5,500. That’s just not likely. I think the perception of Miller surging is partly just terrible likely voter samples. In my opinion, motivated voters are even more represented via absentee than in traditional voting, and that means the Tea Partiers should support Miller quite a bit.

Murkowski imploded into a negative fit at the end, but I’m willing to take a friendly wager on this. I bet Miller’s percentage of the absentees is higher than his traditional votes.

Did anyone catch the libertarian party’s emails to Drew M (ace.mu.nu) about Murkowski? The GOP is more principled than the libertarian party comes across, and that’s not saying much.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:00 pm

Dustin,

I think Murkowski will win, the Republicans are a more organized political party and many absentee ballots bcause of the physical geo of Alaska maybe accepted earlier than most states do.

I would not be surpirzed if she wins these by a comfortable margin

Its a shame since absentee balloting has been morphed into a incumbent advantage rather than what it was originally intended as

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:10 pm

EPWJ, care to make a bet? Friendly wager of $10.

I do agree on the shame of what absentee voting has morphed into, but I note that it’s more complicated to absentee vote. It requires a little more motivation. It’s not hard, but it favors motivated voters. I think the likely voter models are simply way, way off, and Miller will actually have a greater margin over her than he does now.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:12 pm

Given some people’s track record on predictions, the safe money is on Miller.

JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:13 pm

Oh, I hope Miller wins, but I’m not ready to call Dewey our President-elect just yet. And I’m sure you’re right about a large part of the absentee ballots being from “motivated” voters but I’m not entirely certain about the motivating factor re the primary.

I have voted absentee before, back when I was a trucker, because I couldn’t guarantee being within 1500 miles of my polling place. But I wasn’t a “motivated” voter; I was a voter who deemed it my duty to vote.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:13 pm

“But I wasn’t a “motivated” voter; I was a voter who deemed it my duty to vote.

Comment by John Hitchcock ”

Don’t sell yourself short. I suspect you cared greatly about your voting. And this is a race about people who care about this nation instead of more pork and malaise and vaguely kicking the entitlement can down the road.

This is such a huge upset, just to get to this tight race status. Smart not to say it’s over. It certainly is within the margin of lawsuit. But the fact that Murkowski is entertaining this other party nonsense (she refuses to discuss it, which is bad enough, IMO) says she does not think this glass is half full.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:22 pm

Comment by PatAZ — 8/25/2010 @ 4:57 pm

I don’t think his non-endorsement will garner him any favors at the DoJ.

AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:22 pm

Comment by PatAZ

Were you born before or after 1960?

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:23 pm

FWIW, I held my nose and voted for Hayworth, despite getting numerous phone calls from McCain’s election campaign. Of course, I will hold my nose again and vote for McCain in November. I was hoping McCain wouldn’t run this time as I am sick of having to vote for him.

At least our Governor won by a large margin.

PatAZ, good to see you! I imagine alot of Arizonans feel the same way as you. Are you and fellow nose-holders anticipating he’ll haul out the path to citizenship meme again?

btw, nice profile of Jan Brewer in Time magazine. Considering the source, it could have easily been far worse. Seemed fairly even-handed.

Dana (8ba2fb) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:29 pm

MD, I was born way before 1960. In fact, I’m probably one of the oldest timers on here. And I’ve visited at least 56 states.

Thanks, Dana. Always enjoy your commentary. And yes, we do expect McCain to go back to his old ways when he is reelected. Which he probably will be. I wonder who his electorate is anyway.

I didn’t see the Time article about Jan Brewer. Will have to read it. She said on Facebook that she received 82% of the vote. I really can’t see her losing to Terry Goddard. He is the Attorney General that wouldn’t stand up for SB1070. Teh Won selecting Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security is the best thing for Arizona as we got Governor Brewer.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:01 pm

There is no room in there for “they only deserve their rights if they win the fight.” No room whatsoever. And to claim such while simultaneously claiming to stand with the Founders is to make a false claim, whether intentional or no.

You’d don’t read too good.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Implicit in all this is “If they can win”. The Founders certainly did not think that all mankind “deserved” freedom by virtue of being born. It depended on the peoples character.

Here is Jefferson commenting on Latin America,

I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. The achievement of their independence of Spain is no longer a question. But it is a very serious one, what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under military despotism, and become the murderous tools of the ambition of their respective Bonapartes; and whether this will be for their greater happiness, the rule of one only has taught you to judge.

“They will fall under military despotism, and become the murderous tools of the ambition of their respective Bonapartes” – a pretty far-sighted guy, TJ.

But lets continue with some other Founders.

“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private virtue, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” John Adams

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Patrick Henry

“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
~George Washington

“[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” Samuel Adams

So no, the Founders did not think that people “deserved” freedom, regardless of all else. They felt that people “deserved” freedom if their character was sufficient to merit it. And that absent such character, people would not and could not be free.

Subotai (c0ebf2) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:22 pm

Subotai-

I see your point, but I always thought they were saying that unless people were people of character the facy of the matter is they would not be able to keep and exercise their rights, whether they “deserved” them or not. When you let go of a glass it falls to the ground and may shatter, not because it “deserved” to shatter, but that is the reality of things. That’s how I saw the link between virtue and freedom.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:04 pm

Comment by PatAZ

I wanted to tease/challenge the “youth” to figure it out.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:07 pm

only sheriff that
should endorse McCain is dead
beloved Sheriff John.

ColonelHaiku (60a24c) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:15 pm

sorry, MD.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:17 pm

No problem, Pat

I just hope they realize how fortunate they are to have received such wisdom.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:18 pm

Teh Won selecting Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security is the best thing for Arizona as we got Governor Brewer.

Heh. The best laid plans… I bet the thought that he would unleash such a fierce opponent in Brewer by his questionable choice of the wishy-washy Napolitano never crossed his
mind. Makes the bite-in-the-butt reality that much more amusing.

Dana (8ba2fb) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:23 pm

“They felt that people “deserved” freedom if their character was sufficient to merit it. And that absent such character, people would not and could not be free.”

Subotai – How is the above the same as the “constantly earning” their freedom you advance earlier? It seems the founders are saying more that a society embedded with bigotry and immorality is merely incompatible with or doomed from the perspective of liberty and freedom of its people. This “deserved” bit is a bunch of crap.

daleyrocks (940075) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:03 pm

Subotai – How is the above the same as the “constantly earning” their freedom you advance earlier?

Do you think that character is a constant, whither in one person or in a people?

It seems the founders are saying more that a society embedded with bigotry and immorality is merely incompatible with or doomed from the perspective of liberty and freedom of its people.

They are saying that, but they are also saying that “bigotry and immorality” can creep in at any time. If the Founders thought the American people were forever impervious to moral decay, they would not have issued their warnings.

What the Founders thought was simply the Whig view of human nature and its relationship to the state. Another Whig, Burke, put it best.

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as the soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumptions; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Subotai (c0ebf2) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:14 pm

“Subotai – How is the above the same as the “constantly earning” their freedom you advance earlier?

Do you think that character is a constant, whither in one person or in a people?”

Why don’t you answer the question instead of asking one?

daleyrocks (940075) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:24 pm

“They are saying that, but they are also saying that “bigotry and immorality” can creep in at any time.”

The thoughts are not mutually exclusive and I did not claim them to be.

daleyrocks (940075) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:26 pm

I suggest you avoid questions of race, daleyrocks. It tends to get a bit ugly.

JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:29 pm

JD – I am aware of Subotai’s positions, thanks.

daleyrocks (940075) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:31 pm

8/25/2010

Open Thread: Primary Edition

108 Responses to “Open Thread: Primary Edition”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out