Why you shouldn’t cut off your nose to spite your face

I’ve been finding very disturbing the intense hostility that conservatives direct against John McCain. So much so that I wrote a very long rant on the subject, which American Thinker was kind enough to publish and which I reprint below:

Perhaps because I’m a neocon, and not a dyed-in-the-wool, native-born conservative, I look at John McCain, with all his flaws, and still think that he’s a pretty darn good candidate for our time. More importantly, I think that Obama is a very dangerous candidate precisely because of the time in which we live. I therefore find disturbing the number of conservative purists who insist that they’re going to teach John McCain — and everyone else, dammit! — a lesson, either by sitting out the election or by throwing their vote away on a third party candidate. This is a kind of political game that may be fun to play in uninteresting eras, but I think it’s suicidal given the pivotal existential issues we now face.

It’s easy to target John McCain’s flaws. Most recently, he’s managed to buy into the whole green machine just as it’s becoming clear that the greenies probably rushed their fences, and leapt into hysteria well in advance of their facts. Still, whether because you view the world through green colored glasses, or because you really hate funding totalitarian governments that are hostile to America, there is a lot to be said for exploring energy alternatives. McCain’s free market approach should help that effort. Also, by the time he becomes President, there should be a sufficient aggregation of rationally based information about the climate to allow McCain a graceful retreat from a foolish campaign promise.

McCain also seems to be unresponsive to the feeling ordinary Americans have that illegal immigration is a big problem. This feeling arises, not because we’re all xenophobic nutcases, but because we recognize a few fundamental truths: (a) American law starts at American borders, and it is deeply destructive to society’s fabric to have an immigrant’s first act in this country be an illegal one; (b) a country’s fundamental sovereign right is the ability to control its own borders; (c) unchecked immigration provides a perfect pathway, not merely for the field worker, but for the bomb-maker; and (d) immigrants who come here should be committed to this country and its values, and shouldn’t just by moseying over to grab some illegal bucks to send to the folks back home.

Nevertheless, while illegal immigrants are irritating, they’re not an existential threat that can bring America to its knees within the next four years. They are a problem, but not an imminent one.

McCain may also never be absolved of the sin he committed with the McCain-Feingold Act, a legislative bit of bungling that has George Soros singing daily Hosannas. However, that’s done. There is no doubt that it reflects badly on McCain’s judgment, but I think it’s a sin that needs to be ignored, if not forgiven, in light of the person facing McCain on the other side of the ballot box.

You see, from my point of view, this election isn’t really about John McCain at all. It’s about Barack Obama. Of course, it shouldn’t be about Barack Obama. During a time of war and economic insecurity, one of the two presidential candidates should not be a man who has no life history, beyond a remarkable ability at self-aggrandizement, and no legislative history, despite a few years paddling about in the Illinois State Legislature and three years (count ‘em, three) doing absolutely nothing in the United States Senate.

That Obama is a man of no accomplishments or experience, though, doesn’t mean that he hasn’t managed to acquire some bad friends and bad ideas. The friends are easy to identify: Comrade . . . I mean Rev. Wright; Michelle “the Termagant” Obama; the explosive Ayers and Dohrn duo; Samantha “Hillary is a Monster” Power; Robert “Hamas” Malley; Zbigniew “the Jews are out to get me” Brzezinski; etc. Over the years, he’s sought out, paid homage to, and been advised by a chilling collection of people who dislike America and are ready to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who talks the Marxist talk and walks the Marxist walk.

Obama’s ideas are as unnerving as his friends. To my mind, the Jihad that Islamists have declared against us is the fundamental issue of our time. Thanks to the nature of modern asymmetrical warfare, the fact that these Jihadists number in the tens of thousands, rather than the millions, and that they’re often free operators, not formal armies, does nothing to lessen the serious threat they pose to American freedoms. We’ve seen with our own eyes the fact that, using our own instruments of civilization, 19 determined men can kill almost 3,000 people in a matter of hours.

Nor was 9/11 an aberration, committed by the only 19 Islamic zealots on planet Earth. Whether they’re using the hard sell of bloody deaths, or the soft sell of co-opting a nation’s institutions and preying on its well-meant deference to other cultures and its own self-loathing, the Jihadists have a clearly defined goal — an Islamic world – and they’re very committed to effectuating that goal. And while it’s true that, of the world’s one billion Muslims, most are not Jihadists, the fanatic minority can still constitute a critical mass when the passive majority either cheers on the proposed revolution from the sidelines or does nothing at all. As Norman Podhoretz has already explained, this is World War IV.

I understand this. You understand this. McCain understands this. Obama, however, does not understand this. He envisions cozy chit-chats with Ahmadinejad and loving hand-holding with Hamas. There’s every indication that, given his world view, he’ll take Clinton’s “Ah feel your pain” approach one step further, and engage in a self-abasing “I — or, rather, America — caused your pain.” That approach failed when Carter tried it, and it’s only going to fare worse the second time around.

Obama is also bound and determined to withdraw instantly from Iraq, even though the momentum has shifted completely to the American side. Even though another famous Illinois politician spoke scathingly of General McClellan for “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” at Appomattox, Obama has not learned from that painful lesson. He is adamant that he will repeat McClellan’s errors and enshrine the snatching method as national policy. Every five year old understands that you don’t leave the fight when it’s going your way; Obama, however, does not. That is scary in and of itself.

There is one thing, though, that Obama understands with perfect clarity: the role of Supreme Court judges. He knows that they should apply compassion and empathy, without the restrictive hindrance of the outdated United States Constitution. I’m not making this up. He’s said so: “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.”

As someone unfortunate enough to litigate in a jurisdiction filled to overflowing with these empathic judicial actors, I can tell you that this approach is disastrous. First, it’s unfair within the confines of a single case when the judge can ignore the law and, instead, decide a case based on the color of his underpants on any given day. Second, and more importantly, judicial activism (for that is what Obama describes) also destroys the stability necessary for a safe, strong society. It becomes impossible for people and entities to make reasoned calculations about future behavior, since they cannot rely on cases or statutes as guides. They simply have to hope that, if things go wrong, the judge before whom they appear likes them better than he likes the other guy. This is no way to run a courtroom, let alone a country.

What should concern all of us is the power a President Obama will have to effect an almost permanent change on the Supreme Court, one that will last far beyond his presidency. Those with gambling instincts point to the fact that, if anyone leaves the Court during an Obama presidency, it will be the existing liberal justices. In other words, they say, Obama, by replacing the departing liberal justices with equally liberal incoming justices, will simply be maintaining the status quo. I’m not so sanguine.

Although I preface the thought with a “God forbid,” it is possible that conservative justices might leave the Court too, whether through death, illness, incapacity, or personal choice. If that’s the case, Obama, backed by a compliant Democratic Congress, will be able to appoint anyone he pleases to the Court. With a solid activist majority, you can bet that, in your lifetime (as well as your children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes), the Supreme Court will become the second Legislative branch, with the sole difference being that it will be completely unhindered by having to woo or be answerable to any pesky voters back home.

It’s these last two points — the War and the judiciary — that make me feel very strongly that we have to accept John McCain as president, warts and all. While he is far from perfect, he is rock solid on the two issues that can’t just be massaged away in four years. He will continue to wage war, both on the field and in the realm of ideas, against the Jihadists, and he will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices.

He is, therefore, a much better bet than the scenario in which the gamblers among us have placed their faith; namely, a replay of 1976 and 1980. These risk-takers believe that, as happened before, we’ll elect a horrible, horrible ultra-liberal President who will expose to the world how hollow Democratic ideologies really are. Then, after a mere four years, a sadder but wiser American public will elect the next Ronald Reagan who will magically make everything right again.

I have my doubts. First, I think there’s a great deal of conservative hubris in believing that we can just wish for and get the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. Not only was he a pretty unique man, he’d been kicking around the political arena for decades. Do you look out in that same arena right now and see anyone remotely like him who will be ready to serve and acceptable to the American public in the next four years? Second, Reagan came in facing two primary problems: a stagnant Cold War and a moribund economy. Both of these situations were remediable. Reenergizing a stagnant war game America the dominant position; and rejiggering a damaged, but fundamentally strong economy was difficult, but do-able.

Here, however, we have two situations that are not so easily repaired should Obama bungle them (as I confidently expect he will). We are not fighting a Cold War, we are fighting a hot war. To walk away now inevitably places the momentum in the hands of our enemies, enemies who have done what the Soviets never did: entered our borders and killed our people in the thousands. Further, unlike the Soviets who had replaced their revolution with a cold, calculating political machine, one that could yield to rational self-interest, we now find ourselves facing fanatics in the blind grip of an ideology completely antithetical to any rational negotiation. To lose the high ground now – and we certainly have that high ground in Iraq – may mean to lose it forever. Even the best case scenario would only echo the changes between the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the Allies, having lost the high ground, were eventually able to win it back at the cost of more than twenty million lives.

Likewise, the Supreme Court situation, if Obama is able to switch the balance from strict constructionist to activist, cannot magically be remedied. Even Reagan was unable to make that change. It’s been thirty-five years, and American is still riven by Roe v. Wade, the most famous activist decision of them all (and that is true whether you are pro-Choice or pro-Life). One can only imagine how many decades of damage an activist Obama Supreme Court can do.

It is very tempting to those who care deeply about their country and their politics to “punish” an ostensibly conservative politician who has, too often and too visibly, wandered from the fold. Sometimes, however, teaching someone a lesson can be infinitely more painful for the punisher than for the punishee. That’s what I fear will happen now, if conservative voters decide that McCain has failed to pass the purity test and then gamble that Obama can’t really be that bad. I’m here to tell you that Obama can be that bad, and that we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to keep him out of office.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Al

    Very nicely reasoned, BW. An Amicus Curiae brief in support of McCain. There are some who are afraid he would not in fact appoint conservative Judges, and/or said Judges would not be approved by the “inevitable” Democrat Congress which many forecast. That is why all of us conservatives need to get off our collective backsides and do our jobs. As you are. The piece should get wider circulation than the AT

  • Danny Lemieux

    I am so totally with you on this. I have no patience with people who would get themselves into a snit because the world does not conform to their standard of perfection. I vote with Al to give this piece wide circulation.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    I’d love for this piece to have wider circulation — so feel free to email it to your friends!

  • David Foster

    Good post. It’s also important to consider the damage that an Obama presidency (particularly if coupled with Democratic congressional majorities) could do to the economy. To focus on only one point: our national electrical infrastructure is in grave danger because of the hostility of Democrats toward all practical forms of generation and transmission. If this situation is allowed to reach crisis levels, it will be very difficult for the economy to ever recover.

    I am also concerned about the impact of a Democratic win on free speech. Where “progressives” dominate, as in universities, they enact mechanisms of repression, and with enough power at the national level, they could be expected to attempt the same thing.

  • pondering penguin

    Excellent post. I completely agree with your line of logic. I think John McCain is the perfect Republican candidate for this election. He will put all the Independents – the fastest growing segment of voters – into play and give a chance of the ‘Reagan Democrats’ to vote Republican again.

    The thoughts of our War on Terror handed over to Obama makes me shake. And the Supreme Court? Good Lord.

    I wrote a piece about my disgust with talk radio conservative hosts bashing McCain as he secured the votes needed for nomination. I’m a moderate to more liberal Republican, lifelong member of the party and resent my creditiantials as a Republican called into question for not being a far right conservative. Blech.

    The American people need to wake up and think about the issues for themselves. The most pressing item on the agenda is to keep Obama out of the White House, for the security of our nation.

  • Oldflyer

    Your logic is impeccable Book. I am sure I will vote for McCain in the end for the reasons you cite. Still, I will not do it with any enthusiasm. The only reason for voting for McCain is that the alternative is unthinkable.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Thank you all. What’s interesting is the line of comments at American Thinker that basically says, “It’s my ball and nobody plays if I don’t play.” They’re bound and determined to punish McCain no matter what. He doesn’t pass their purity test. Indeed, one guy said it’s the Republican politicians who deserve to suffer, as if there’s no connection between ordinary people and the politicians we send to D.C. I agree that the Republican politicians are a depressing bunch to the purists, but the fact is that the average, middle-of-the-road Republican keeps voting for these guys. That’s how McCain took the primaries in the first place.

    I was also amused by the person who said that voting for a third party — such as Barr — is not throwing away a vote. Of course it is. Your vote has absolutely no meaning. You will not get your candidate of choice. All you will have done is throw an election: and if you’ve forgotten that Ross Perot didn’t win but helped Clinton to win with a minority of votes, I haven’t.

  • suek

    I’m still undecided. Only because my vote isn’t going to count…I live in California. The state will overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and my Republican vote won’t make any difference. For that reason, I feel free to vote a protest vote. A “no vote” won’t help. You might have the result of “For some reason, there was a very low voter turn-out this year…” so no indication to the party that members are unhappy with what they’re doing. I’d want to avoid that by possibly voting for Barr – a definite message that I’m unhappy with what the party has become. I’d accompany it with a change of party.

    If I lived in a state where I felt my vote counted, I couldn’t make that choice. I’d be with Oldflyer – I’d hold my nose and vote for McCain, because I think Obama will actually _harm_ the nation. I really don’t trust McCain, and I see his positions as being 40-50 year old Democrat positions.

    But he’s not Obama. And that tilts the balance in his favor.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Your point about the state in which one lives is a good one, Suek. I too am a Californian, so I know the state will go blue. My vote is just a private statement, which has no greater political meaning.

    On the other hand, I think that things become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As you may recall, despite Bush’s electoral wins, the Democrats and the media (assuming there’s a difference) worked hard to emasculate his Presidency from the get-go by pointing to the fact that, while he may have won the electoral college votes, he didn’t win the popular votes. The fact that the electoral college victory is the only thing that counts under the Constitution didn’t faze them. Any ground of attack matters. It is helpful, therefore, if a conservative not only wins, but if he wins even in states where “it doesn’t matter.”

    Lastly, this is the weirdest election year ever, especially with the gay marriage thing thrown on the grill to cook. This means that states that might have been solidly blue may suddenly take on a purple tinge. Voters who have long thought themselves useless may have meaning. They too should think long and hard before making a protest vote. Elections matter. They’re not just for grandstanding in the privacy of the voting booth.

  • 11B40


    It’s a cloudy morning coastside, and I think I may have one for you.

    I question your reference to General McClellan and Appomatox; might it have been Antietam?

  • jj

    Your logic’s impeccable – but not your facts.

    I do seem to recall that McCain wouldn’t vote for Justice Roberts, because he’s “too conservative.”

    Roberts certainly is not a rock-ribbed conservative by any means – and McCain’s reaction to him is not a good sign. It also cuts one of your two reasons to vote for him out from beneath you.

    I’m not entirely sure how much it matters anyway. If the current round of punditry turns out to be correct, then the republicans will lose up to 7 more seats in the senate, and 30 in the house, which on top of the losses they took in 2006 will render a republican president more or less irrelevant – everything he ever vetoes can be overridden by democrats without republican help; and he sure won’t get any decent judges confirmed in his lifetime.

    And just day before yesterday McCain climbed on board the idea that the oil industry is making “too much” profit – incidentally confirming what he said a couple of months ago: he’s an economic moron. (One is compelled to notice he hasn’t said anything about “big beer’s” profits being excessive, though.)

    I don’tknow, BW, I’ve never done it in my life, and I hate to contemplate it, but Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan. It’s entirely possible I spend election day watching the ships go by from my deck with a supply of Romeo Y Julietta Short Churchills and the last couple bottles of the ’78 Lafite.

  • Allen

    The thing that intrigues me about this election is what the Clinton voters will do. From what I’ve read many of them would happily vote for McCain. The most interesting outcome would be if he won with democrats tipping for him. We’ll know which way McCain is going by his VP pick.

  • jlibson

    JJ I think you have the right of it. When I read Book’s post I was also thinking: “Carter led to Reagan”.

    The Repub party needs a cleansing forest fire. Obama will be a bad president. But I think that people are wildly overstating how much damage he will cause and at the same time overstating how effective/good McCain will be.

    I will probably vote for McCain more on the “you love this country a whole lot, you took a heck of a beating and you deserve it”. But I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a single republican for congress.

  • Oldflyer

    I believe it was Alito who was “too conservative”.

    One more thought Bookworm. You fault the staunch and vocal conservatives who will cut off their noses to spite McCain. On the other hand, McCain and others of like mind clearly take the conservative vote for granted, because he assumes there is no where else to go. Much like the Democrats have always taken the black vote, among others, for granted. So, how do you get their attention?

    I said I would probably vote for McCain. I would certainly never vote for Obama or Clinton. However, it is a near thing for me and if McCain makes a few more outrageous statements of policy, I could very well pocket my vote. My vote is a personal treasure to spend or withhold as I choose. An abstention also makes a statement.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    You all make excellent points (no surprise there). I’d be perfectly willing to slap McCain around if it weren’t for the battle in Iraq. Ross Perot’s famous giant sucking sound will be replaced in popular remembrance as a giant explosion, with vast collateral damage for the entire region. As for the Supreme Court — yup, McCain would make mediocre choices. But Obama would make genuinely terrible choices. A mediocrity on a Court with strong conservative minds would learn and grow conservatively. However, if Obama can shift the dynamic with some activist whirl wind — oy vey.

    Let’s get McCain in for 4 years, and then throw him out, if he’s as impure as people worry he will be. I’m not afraid for the Republican party, I’m afraid for the security of our nation.

  • Ymarsakar

    When I read Book’s post I was also thinking: “Carter led to Reagan”.

    If you’re willing to bet your life and the lives of your loved ones on a “Carter” not selling them out for pocket change according to terrorist demands, then this might be a strategy you should consider.

    However, it’s one thing to look at Carter leading to Reagan thinking somebody else will pay for Carter’s mistakes, like the Shah of Iran, the hostages taken from US Embassy, which is sovereign US territory and an act of war in a non-upside down world, and looking at Carter leading to Reagan knowing that you and future generations will be the ones paying for the cost of uplifting Khomeini and the Mullahs to power in Iran.

    In that strategic sense, it is borrowing money now and having to pay 200% of it in interest, in interest I mind you not in total payments, in the future. Reagan ended the Cold War, yet only did so because Carter and successors had begun to empower Shia and Sunni terrorists in Arabia. Carter is still doing that, as a matter of fact. An immediate threat of nuclear destruction was evaded and solved at the cost of a future nuclear destruction at the hands of Arabic and Persian terrorists.

    Good strategy has to contain more than these types of “tradeoffs”. While there is no perfect solution to these things, since terrorism, Hitler, and Stalin always have a habit of popping up no matter what leaders or nations do, there is a huge difference, still, between good strategy and bad strategy.

    On the other hand, McCain and others of like mind clearly take the conservative vote for granted, because he assumes there is no where else to go.

    It’s hard to say, since McCain hasn’t been tested in the fire like Bush has. With Bush we have a clear account of his words and actions, not only by themselves, but in relation to the actions of the Leftists. The Leftists proposed Bush was unilateral and we clearly saw by Bush’s actions and words, that this wasn’t true. So the Leftists did us the favor of testing how much damage our side could take, by hitting us really hard and seeing what happens. McCain hasn’t taken this kind of damage politically, although he has physically in Hanoi.

    Without a solid psychological profile of McCain on specific policy positions, it is really hard to determine whether McCain really does take the conservative vote for granted or by what justifications McCain uses when he thinks of his conservative base as opposed to the moderates, meaning the mercenaries, and the Leftists.

  • Ymarsakar

    For example, had not we seen Bush’s endless and repeating justifications and explanations of his actions over social spending, No Child Left Behind, and overtures to Leftist restards, the phrase “compassionate conservative” would have been seen by people like me as a nifty catchphrase for the media’s consumption rather than the cold hard and accurate truth of Bush’s psyche profile and intentions.

    McCain’s actions with Feingold shows that he can be as easily fooled as Bush cause McCain, like Bush, gives more credence and honor to his opponents than they warrant. As to how this determines whether McCain treats his conservative base supporters as an assumed commodity, is not yet clear.

    McCain’s treatment of GitMo also shows that the lessons he learned from Hanoi was that America is about taking damage and never dealing it out. You are either always the victim, or you are helpless yet defiant, or you are passively or even actively waiting for somebody else to save you. None of which applies to a proactive execution, interrogation, or punishment of GitMo detainees.

  • Ymarsakar

    On the other hand, I think that things become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As you may recall, despite Bush’s electoral wins, the Democrats and the media (assuming there’s a difference) worked hard to emasculate his Presidency from the get-go by pointing to the fact that, while he may have won the electoral college votes, he didn’t win the popular votes. The fact that the electoral college victory is the only thing that counts under the Constitution didn’t faze them. Any ground of attack matters. It is helpful, therefore, if a conservative not only wins, but if he wins even in states where “it doesn’t matter.”

    If the Democrats were primarily made up out of honorable people like Robert E. Lee or even the flawed JFK and Trumans of the world, it would benefit the Republicans to not support their candidates as fanatically and unreservedly as the Democrats may theirs.

    However, the Democrat party is not made up of honorable or even merciful people. Thus if you show weakness and fear to the beast, the beast will annihilate you and spit you out. This has nothing to do with whether you want to fight or whether you want to be eaten or not, this has to do with an enemy, meaning the Democrats, wanting to destroy the US Constitution and you having to pick up make shift weapons and allies like McCain to hold them off in a guerrilla attack where you sometimes win, Reagan, and sometimes lose, Bush Senior.

    An honorable enemy is somebody I could parley with, negotiate with, and trust their character alone as a safeguard not to stab me in the back if I am facing personal problems or weaknesses not attributed to the direct state of war that exists between me and my honorable opponent.

    Don’t think the Democrats are happy enough with their current power and lock over Americans, blacks, immigrants, and the US Constitution that they would not roll you over if you give them a chance.

  • Ymarsakar

    It is admirable, to a certain extent, that any Americans can still think in terms of a political cycle that wil lturn back to them. This means that the American tradition is still upheld by folks, conservatives if not their political opponents.

    It is also admirable that Bush won’t personally execute enemies of the state and those that have sought and succeeded in killing American soldiers and citizens. But that doesn’t mean it will always be the right action to take.

    Meaning what? Meaning that if you assume that if you allow the Democrats to win, that they will then give you a “chance” to win back the seat of power like they said they would, don’t be surprised when they, like Chirac and terrorist buddies, stab you, meaning also Bush, in the back because you were gullible enough to believe they were “working with ya”.

    Everything is fun and games when both sides follow the rules. Then everybody’s dead when one doesn’t follow the rules and uses some kind of tactic like human shields or suicide bombing that you didn’t expect.

    The same is true of Democrats. They’ll do everything in their power to ensure that their stay in power is permanent. While it is one thing to have no choice in preventing Democrat ascension to power, it is quite another to simply give them the win because of a “hope” that latter on, they will be merciful.

  • jj

    Wait a minute, I might have to rethink this.

    Susan Sarandon just announced that if McCain wins she’ll move to either Canada or Italy.

    That’s a more positive reason to vote for him than anything that’s come out of HIS mouth!

  • Oldflyer

    I no longer worry too much about Obama or Clinton pulling out of Iraq precipitously. I believe that by January 2009 the situation will be so near resolution that they will recognize that it would HURT THEM POLITICALLY to do anything stupid. I also suspect that given the great gains the Iraqis are making, they would be able to sustsain themselves by the time we pulled out–it would take some time under any scenario. Unlike Viet Nam, the Iraqis will soon be economically self sustaining with their oil revenue. I think that Bush, Petreaus, and the Iraqis are racing as hard as they can to be ready for 1/09.

    So, McCain can’t hold me on the Iraq issue alone. He certainly can get my attention on other longer term issues. I am sure that few in this sophisticated group listen to Limbaugh. But, today he played a excerpt that Obama recorded for some “Disarm America Now” group in which he pledged to do just that. He pledged to slash defense spending for future technology; and virtually pledged to “DeNuke” unilaterally. Then there is the thought of what either of those two could do with a compliant Congress; not to mention all of the Judges. Oh My! But, if McCain keeps drifting leftward. . .

  • http://theinterface.blogtownhall.com The Interface

    Well said. I would rather fight with McCain with whom there is a finite chance of moving in the right direction, than an Obamanation who actively embraces everything antithetical to American ways and values on all fronts with no possibility of moving him in the right direction.

  • suek

    >>Susan Sarandon just announced that if McCain wins she’ll move to either Canada or Italy.>>

    Yeah yeah yeah. Promises promises. Like all those staunch Hollywood libs who swore they’d move if Bush won. But they’re still here.

    Don’t kid yourself.


    >>…don’t be surprised when they, like Chirac and terrorist buddies, stab you, meaning also Bush, in the back because you were gullible enough to believe they were “working with ya”….>>

    In other words…the frog and the scorpion fable applied???

  • suek

    >>…But, if McCain keeps drifting leftward. . .>>

    Understood…but as leftward as he leans, he still thinks of himself as a Republican, which _should_ hamper him somewhat in his compromises.

    If we get either O or C, and a Democratic Congress, I fully expect the Fairness in Broadcasting issue to get put through, and fully expect that somehow it will be applied to the internet. How do you counter those in power if you don’t have freedom of speech? That’s what will happen – nothing will be in the news unless it agrees with the Dem agenda, nothing on talk radio unless it is “balanced” with liberal agenda, nothing on the internet unless???? I don’t know how they could work that one, but I’d bet they could…unless people go off shore. Look at Canada…talk to Mark Steyn…Think hate crimes…making “hate thoughts” illegal.

  • Ymarsakar

    More like the ant and the grasshopper fable.

    It is not in the nature of Democrats to want power at any cost, that is just a choice they have made with justifications ranging ffrom democracy, to values, to diversity, to multiculturalism, to fake liberalism, and so forth.

    In their world view, they have no choice but to betray you for they do not live in a world where people can “cooperate” and not exploit other people for gain while rising up on the social hierarchy at the same time. This is the zero sum philosophy of Leftism and it s a choice they have made and a philosophy they have chosen to believe in. Human nature does not mandate or require betrayal. Once you have chosen Leftist beliefs as the core of your views on life and human affairs, however, you are now required to betray people, whether allies or simply your political opponents.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    OldFlyer: re Obama’s promise to disarm America, I’ve heard that too. Not from Limbaugh, ’cause I’m never in the car at the right time, and that’s the only radio access I have, but from other, written sources. Obama pretty much dreams of dismantling the entire American military. He seems to believe that if we’re defenseless, the mercy gene in the jihadists will kick in and they’ll graciously refrain from attacking us.

    Can one do preemptive impeachment against a presidential candidate on the ground of insanity?

  • Ymarsakar

    The thing with McCain winning is that it will be extremely hard for his supporters or people like me to support him or defend him from his critics. How will I defend McCain from MoveOn when his own Bill created MoveOn or at least allowed Soros to create MoveOn?

    How can I say that these Leftists or Democrats are beyond the pale in terms of needing 100% social ostracizing when McCain himself publicly embraces and makes sentimental comments towards them?

    Much as it makes it difficult for people to speak out against Iran if Iran shows that they are publicly recognized by the power United States, so will it be with Democrats given that McCain, as President, would still be the source of Executive directives and power.

    In such fields, it is hard to say whether McCain will try to exceed Bush in this aspect. We have all found it hard to crucify people like George Tenet and Valerie Plame precisely because 1. Bush treats them like buddies or at least “honorable people” and 2. The Left accuses Bush of treating them like enemies and people that need to be purged.

    There’s only so much talk you can engage in before reality hits you upside the head with the fact that Leftists will accuse Bush of purging Plame while Plame gets to purge Bush’s policies out of existence. There’s not much propaganda you can create to change that bit of reality, so long as the President tolerates such folks as Plame and refuses to crush them.

    I completely understand that politicians need to make deals with the devil, meaning the opposition, in order to get things done. But that’s a field where Senators and Congressmen are rightfully in, not the Executive Leader, whether President or Governor. If you compromise too many times, you are going to erode the power of the Presidency and thus erode the balance of powers that is required to uphold the Constitution.

    The balance of powers assumes that each branch of government is going to try to counter and upset the other branches or make temporary alliances to overpower one branch temporarily in the short term. You make too many “compromises” as President, and you’re going to get what is known as a “perpetual alliance” within government, called an established bureaucracy, that will be totally independent of the Constitution’s safeguards that are represented in the triangular balance of powers between Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.

    Another thing in consideration if McCain wins the Presidency is the fact that the enemies a US President gets is of a different caliber than the normal political opponents you get in Congress or even as Governor of a State like Texas.

    If you try to make compromises with the new enemies at the Presidential level like you would your normal political opponents, meaning buddy buddies, in your former political level, you’re going to get creamed. This is why there is no real training for the Presidency, it is essentially a learn as you go kind of job.

    The fatal mistake is always, of course, when you negotiate with people that will accept nothing but your complete annihilation. Israel is in this kind of situation now. Obama will seek this kind of appeasement and will make America bow her hands and knees towards our new masters. But McCain might do this just by mistake, due to any number of variables, simply because he wanted to compromise or make deals with people like he did in the Senate, where it worked to give him the power he has up until now.

    Bush has Iraq and Afghanistan to stand as proactive evidence of Bush’s intentions and actions towards our enemies. Even though people may be dissatisfied with Bush’s tolerance of the State Department and their deals with the Saudi Princes, we cannot deny the actual effective actions he has taken. But McCain is not going to create another Afghanistan or Iraq, he is just going to sit there. At that time, it will be far harder to justify any McCain inaction towards the State Department or the Saudi Princes.

    Everyone will believe, McCain, like Bush, was in league with the Saudis and were paying them off with favors. This makes it hard for McCain to execute commands and this makes it hard for his supporters to defend him.

  • Ymarsakar

    He seems to believe that if we’re defenseless, the mercy gene in the jihadists will kick in and they’ll graciously refrain from attacking us.

    That’s like Obama telling himself that had he never been born, his father wouldn’t have left his mother.

    It’s kind of late for that kind of “progressive” action, you know.

    Btw, the entire reason for my comment 27 is provide a thesis explanation, which I had forgotten to write until I hit post key, concerning the mentality of people who are refusing to vote for or against McCain.

    If a person votes for McCain, and McCain gets into some kind of trouble like Bush did, would not Republicans say that you have abandoned your President, that you voted for, simply because now the going is tough and you won’t defend the person you voted into power just cause it is no longer convenient?

    Thus a person might refuse to vote for McCain simply because they refuse to defend McCain on certain political actions that they might feel required to do had they cast their ballot for him. The reasons for such refusals I have already described.

    Individuals are one dimensional and they never really make their decisions based upon one and only one factor, see Iraq WMDs, but you never know when any of many numerous factors may be the feather that broke the camel’s back.

  • Ymarsakar


    Since many Republicans still hold to the anacrhonistic codes of honor and duty, they might feel uncomfortable voting for a person that they plan to sell out latter or because they really don’t feel comfortable putting someone into power that they disagree with on the key core policies that have been advocated.

    A political opportunist, of course, would never feel a twinge of guilt about voting someone into power and then discarding them when it becomes politically inconvenient, such as the Democrat vote for the war in Iraq.

    Hey, it was good when it worked, but when this ship is taking enemy fire, it’s time to bail and let the ants prevent the ship from sinking. That’s not exactly an attitude conservatives hold as a model of respect, while the Democrats loved draft dodgers that went to Canada when the boat was sinking.

  • Ymarsakar


    Individuals are one dimensional

    Not one dimensional.

  • suek
  • 1Lulu

    Isn’t this the same issue as in your gay marriage article?
    To quote you, “So much of this rights thing has that nasty edge: If I suffer, everyone suffers. I will feel better only if you feel miserable. What a petty group.”

    Well, McCain may not be Conservative enough for purists, but they might want to think of the Supreme Court, the war against radical Islamists, the survival of Israel, myriad cultural and economic concerns, the American identity, and American well-being and combine all that to overcome their petty resentments.
    I agree the article should receive wider distribution.

  • Pingback: Webloggin()

  • Oldflyer

    We know that Webloggin. But, we need to vent a bit. Even a mouse usually has a moment to squeak when he realizes that he is caught in a bad situation. Then silence.

    I stick by my statement that my vote is mine to spend as I wish. McCain should not expect my vote on the premise that the alternative is worse. I get my hackles up (not in a fly tying sense) when people imply that I have to go along for that reason. He will probably get my vote, but he is not entitled to it just because he is the lesser of evils.

    To extend the subject. There is one factor that would ignite a little enthusiasm from me. His name is Bobby Jindal.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    I like Jindal a great deal, but I’m worried that conservatives are ascribing to him the same youthful magic that Dems are attaching to Obama. I think Jindal has a whole lot of “there there” (so to speak), but I’d love to see him prove himself a little bit more before accelerating him into the White House.

    Frankly, the older I get, the more I see the virtues of being old, at least in matters where the had should lead, not the body or the heart. Obama is my age and I think he’s too young — especially in terms of experience to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Jindal is younger than I am and that just about says it all for me. In four or eight years, however, if Jindal’s trajectory continues as it is going now, I will be banging at the precinct doors to vote for him.

  • suek

    >>Jindal is younger than I am and that just about says it all for me.>>

    Heh. Give yourself 10-15 years and they’ll _all_ be younger than you!

    >>I think Jindal has a whole lot of “there there” (so to speak), but I’d love to see him prove himself a little bit more before accelerating him into the White House.

    In four or eight years, however, if Jindal’s trajectory continues as it is going now, I will be banging at the precinct doors to vote for him.>>

    I’m with you on both points.

  • Oldflyer

    Jindal is quite young and that is a bit of a concern, but he has a solid record of accomplishment in every endeavor he has undertaken. His conservative credentials are impeccable as far as I can tell. He is instant diversity on the ticket.

    Choosing him as running mate at this point would be a bit of a gamble, but I would like to see him get real national exposure and “inside Washington” experience for the next 4 years. McCain is apparently healthy enough for now, but I cannot imagine him as a two term President. I question if he would want to be. There is an old Navy term for how the ambitious Officer advances his career; “getting the Xs in the boxes”. All Captain McCain needs is one term to leap past his Father and Grandfather who were only 4 star Admirals.

    If he ran with McCain and they lost, he would have a national campaign under his belt for the race in four years after the country finally caught on to Obama.

  • suek

    For your “on topic) entertainmnent. OK…so it’s a schadenfreude thing…! (I hope, anyway!)