Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thanking John McCain
“ … it is hard to hide the fact that (McCain’s) would be a second Bob Dole campaign, with less energy and fewer conservative principles.
-Hugh Hewitt
“I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.”
-Ann Coulter
“There is a reason so many liberals in the media and the Democratic party want John McCain to be the GOP presidential nominee. He gives them cover to continue smearing grassroots conservatives.”
-Michelle Malkin
People have many reasons for wanting John McCain to win the Republican nomination. Some want someone who is serious about ending government waste, and McCain has been a determined opponent of pork spending.
Some want a great commander-in-chief, and see McCain as their choice because of his service in Vietnam and leadership in the Senate.
Others, tired of debates over the meaning of “is” and misleading information as to who is purchasing uranium in Nigeria simply want someone they can trust.
Personally, I want it to happen because of the people it would anger.
On Sept. 12, 2001, your average American was full of doubt about many things. One thing we believed at the time, however, is that all of us had a common enemy, and should unite in order to overcome that threat.
It took less than two years before disagreements over the best way to confront that enemy had already torn that union apart.
The politicians helped, and the left-wing is not blameless, but this would not have been possible without the vileness being spread by the right wing of the punditocracy.
We have been told that anyone who questions whether or not our president was sending troops to fight the right enemy was a traitor.
We have been told that anyone who thinks that fight was being fought in the wrong way was helping the enemy.
We have been told that those with different ideas on the role of government and interpretation of the Constitution are a greater threat than terrorists.
John McCain agreed that they needed to be confronted. He also agreed that Iraq would be an ideal way to start that confrontation. Whether you agree with him or not, one must look at his record and conclude that he would have led us to fight that war in a responsible way. He would not have waited until we had been in Iraq for three-and-a-half years following a failed strategy under a blundering Secretary of Defense.
And he would not have made the free press and the opposition party into enemies, rather than mere opponents.
Even when he shares their vision, he does not share their methods.
Because of this, and because he looks for (often ill-advised) compromises that will solve problems like illegal immigration, judicial filibusters and the influence of soft money in elections, they hate him.
Those such as Hewitt, Coulter and Malkin are part of the same neoconservative cabal that has accused anyone who disagrees with them of being in league with Mephistopheles, Al Qaeda, NAMBLA or all three.
In fact, calling these three “neoconservatives” is better than they deserve: neocons hope to spread democracy around the world. Their ideology maybe fantastical and their methods tragic, but there is something they want to create. Those such as Malkin and Coulter want only to make a comfortable living destroying reputations in the most flamboyant way possible.
They have dominated the Republican Party for too long. And because attacks on patriotism, taxes and sexual mores have more sting to them than what the left can muster, they dominate the country.
And because Mitt Romney is clearly determined to say anything in order to win their support, they give it to him.
John McCain has shown that their support is not nearly as necessary as it used to be, and they hate him for it. Once they no longer control the Republican Party, they fear their book sales will drop.
I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the general election, even if I have to write his name on the ballet. I respect John McCain’s service, but I don’t feel he’s the best man to fix our swollen budget and overextended military at this time.
Even so, he has my gratitude. He is causing the right-wing character assassins to inject their venom inward instead of outward in all directions, and it’s a satisfying thing to behold.
In a political climate like ours, you take your pleasures where you can get them.
If he is nominated, what we will have will certainly be preferable to being caught between two unappealing, polarizing opposites when November comes around.
Pat Buchanan, a far more principled and sensible conservative than those quoted at top, is also a McCain opponent. Recently, he wrote: “The question conservatives may face if McCain is nominated is not whom should I vote for, but should I vote.”
All due respect, Pat, but this is how libertarians, centrists, and moderates of both parties felt in 2000 and 2004.
It’s time the conservatives traded places with us.
-Hugh Hewitt
“I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.”
-Ann Coulter
“There is a reason so many liberals in the media and the Democratic party want John McCain to be the GOP presidential nominee. He gives them cover to continue smearing grassroots conservatives.”
-Michelle Malkin
People have many reasons for wanting John McCain to win the Republican nomination. Some want someone who is serious about ending government waste, and McCain has been a determined opponent of pork spending.
Some want a great commander-in-chief, and see McCain as their choice because of his service in Vietnam and leadership in the Senate.
Others, tired of debates over the meaning of “is” and misleading information as to who is purchasing uranium in Nigeria simply want someone they can trust.
Personally, I want it to happen because of the people it would anger.
On Sept. 12, 2001, your average American was full of doubt about many things. One thing we believed at the time, however, is that all of us had a common enemy, and should unite in order to overcome that threat.
It took less than two years before disagreements over the best way to confront that enemy had already torn that union apart.
The politicians helped, and the left-wing is not blameless, but this would not have been possible without the vileness being spread by the right wing of the punditocracy.
We have been told that anyone who questions whether or not our president was sending troops to fight the right enemy was a traitor.
We have been told that anyone who thinks that fight was being fought in the wrong way was helping the enemy.
We have been told that those with different ideas on the role of government and interpretation of the Constitution are a greater threat than terrorists.
John McCain agreed that they needed to be confronted. He also agreed that Iraq would be an ideal way to start that confrontation. Whether you agree with him or not, one must look at his record and conclude that he would have led us to fight that war in a responsible way. He would not have waited until we had been in Iraq for three-and-a-half years following a failed strategy under a blundering Secretary of Defense.
And he would not have made the free press and the opposition party into enemies, rather than mere opponents.
Even when he shares their vision, he does not share their methods.
Because of this, and because he looks for (often ill-advised) compromises that will solve problems like illegal immigration, judicial filibusters and the influence of soft money in elections, they hate him.
Those such as Hewitt, Coulter and Malkin are part of the same neoconservative cabal that has accused anyone who disagrees with them of being in league with Mephistopheles, Al Qaeda, NAMBLA or all three.
In fact, calling these three “neoconservatives” is better than they deserve: neocons hope to spread democracy around the world. Their ideology maybe fantastical and their methods tragic, but there is something they want to create. Those such as Malkin and Coulter want only to make a comfortable living destroying reputations in the most flamboyant way possible.
They have dominated the Republican Party for too long. And because attacks on patriotism, taxes and sexual mores have more sting to them than what the left can muster, they dominate the country.
And because Mitt Romney is clearly determined to say anything in order to win their support, they give it to him.
John McCain has shown that their support is not nearly as necessary as it used to be, and they hate him for it. Once they no longer control the Republican Party, they fear their book sales will drop.
I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the general election, even if I have to write his name on the ballet. I respect John McCain’s service, but I don’t feel he’s the best man to fix our swollen budget and overextended military at this time.
Even so, he has my gratitude. He is causing the right-wing character assassins to inject their venom inward instead of outward in all directions, and it’s a satisfying thing to behold.
In a political climate like ours, you take your pleasures where you can get them.
If he is nominated, what we will have will certainly be preferable to being caught between two unappealing, polarizing opposites when November comes around.
Pat Buchanan, a far more principled and sensible conservative than those quoted at top, is also a McCain opponent. Recently, he wrote: “The question conservatives may face if McCain is nominated is not whom should I vote for, but should I vote.”
All due respect, Pat, but this is how libertarians, centrists, and moderates of both parties felt in 2000 and 2004.
It’s time the conservatives traded places with us.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
