McCain: a choice, not an echo?
Read the speech John McCain made on Thursday to CPAC for yourself, and see what you think. Although he freely admits that he hasn’t always marched to conservative tunes on every issue, he asserts his basic conservatism.
McCain then goes on to wisely emphasize how conservative he is in comparison to his likely opponents, Clinton and Obama, and how high are the stakes:
Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things.
The entire second half of McCain’s speech consists of illustrations of these fundamental differences between his candidacy and those of the two Democrat contenders. He expresses this contrast in almost Biblical cadences that follow this form:
Senators Clinton and Obama will….[example of what each of them are likely to do as President].
I intend to….[example of what he is likely to do as President instead].
Those who dislike him intensely will no doubt believe this speech is just another example of his self-serving lies. I don’t see it that way—nor, apparently, did many who listened.
Oh, and Ann Coulter seems to have begun her campaign for Hillary (now there’s a woman who’s full of herself—and I’m not talking about Clinton).
Let’s see—how does the Coulter argument go? Electing McCain will somehow magically lead to thirty years of Democratic rule, whereas an Obama or Clinton Presidency will somehow awaken the nation as never before to the wisdom of electing Republicans, and pronto. It will happen right in time for the 2012 race.
The logic eludes me, as it has every time someone has presented it in the last few days. By that reasoning, the best thing voters could ever do for their own party, if faced with a less-than-perfect nominee, would be to elect the worst possible representative of the other party.
This hasn’t been the way politics ordinarily works, and I don’t think it’s about to start doing so just because Ann Coulter says so (I don’t see the public salivating for a Republican Congress after the less-than-do-nothing Democratic one it elected with such high hopes in 2006, for example). Coulter’s snarky column is a convoluted way to attempt to justify cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, just as long as the operation hurts John McCain.
[NOTE: the title of this post comes from Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign slogan “a choice, not an echo.”]
[ADDENDUM: McCain seems to have convinced a few naysayers at CPAC, anyway. See this, as well.]
Pingback:“Losing my Religion”…. at Amused Cynic
So what else is new? Politics is about compromise, the least bad, the most good. I do not recall a single election where I agreed with any candidate on everything. Only in People’s Republics or in Saddamocracies does one get the chance to choose the perfect.
Ann, grow up.
I heard somewhere that Coulter might change her mind if McCain made Romney VP….as if McCain cares what some media hound like Coulter wants. He might do that, I don’t even think it would be a bad idea to make Romney VP, but I think Coulter is just yammering away trying to find a profitable niche for herself.
I think the thing that annoys me the most is the fact that these crybabies have no respect for the will of the people. They act as if we are just supposed to wipe out all those horrid votes for that horrid McCain.
Well you know what? If they really believe that losing in 06 so that you can win in 08 and losing in 08 so that you can win in 12 is the way to go, then maybe they should start their own party and the Republican party can just try to survive without them. Because I am not sure it can survive with them. In fact I think their greatest fear is that McCain will win without them…then they lose their gig.
They are increasingly paranoid and toxic.
Ann Coulter goes too far in making her point, but she does have one. The most compelling reason you have for us to vote for McCain, Terrye, is that this is the only guy left. So go easy on Coulter. After all, its not like we’re nominating a Republican anyway.
An addendum to Neo’s addendum….even Pat Buchanan is speaking of a “rapprochement” after McCain’s CPAC speech (and Pat really hates using French words).
No, he’s not entirely happy with the situation, but he’s not ready to sit home with Ann either, apparently.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/a_rapprochement_with_the_right.html
There is silly and there is sillier. Mr. Limbaugh is a fine fellow. He apparently seems to have avoided Vietnam by reason of a boil on his butt (oops, they called it a cyst). Self-annointed (and self medicated) he is the proverbial mile wide and inch deep, but good old Rush feels since he can spell conservative, he can pick and choose who should receive the label. Ms Coulter has always been more inclined to say anything that will get her that Warhol opportunity for fame. She continues to say outrageous things, more and more outrageous as time goes by. This is likely because she has said almost everything new she can think of, so all that remains is being a shockjock of the word processor. Neither of these folks has contributed anything substantive to the discussion, and certainly neither has served the Nation as has Mr. McCain in war and peace. It seems absurd that we must find a candidate that has marches to a single tune and is not allowed to be independent or to differ in ideas and goals. I beilve that was tried a couple of times in the past; the names Hitler, Stalin, Castro come to mind. Rush and Ms Coulter will embarass themselves–let them. Remember, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
No, my most compelling point is that he is the choice of the voters. Republicans like McCain, whatever Coulter and her fan club might want to believe. In fact the American people as a whole like and respect McCain.
Coulter, on the other hand, has never won an election, has never run anything in her life, other than her mouth.
What annoys me is that Coulter has a made a very good living for years trashing Democrats, now when the Republicans don’t follow her instructions and vote for someone other than McCain, she is ready to jump ship.
That tells me more about Coulter than it tells me about McCain.
And harry, I do consider McCain a Republican. I know that there are people on the far right who would say otherwise, but I am getting to the place where I really do not care what some of those people think anyway.
McCain needs to earn conservative votes. I understand the argument about voting against someone rather than voting for someone. I did that the last few times, it’s getting old. I like W, I voted for him more to deny the other side. That ‘passion’ is getting old.
Earn my vote.
Terrye:
“I know that there are people on the far right who would say otherwise, but I am getting to the place where I really do not care what some of those people think anyway.”
Whats the point of you being here anyway? Whats your definition of “far right”? Is true immigration reform “far right”? Is refusing to be taxed for energy use based on a climate hoax a “far right” issue? Is freedom of speech a “far right” stance? Just who the hell are you guys that somehow we’re the extremists? And how the hell did Rush Limbaugh get to be the bad guy? I dont understand you people.
harry:
Why are you here? Why would you even ask me that question? I think that is a better question.
What is my definition of “far right”? Gee, what is your definition of “far left”? I have heard people call McCain all sorts of names recently, traitor, McAmnesty, socialist, Manchurian candidate, liar, liberal, lefty, and on and on.
I thought using labels was all the rage.
I consider someone like Coulter to have entered the land of far right, because she is more interested in advancing her own narrow little agenda than they are in doing what is best for the country or the party.
She throws around words like faggot and raghead as if that is just so cool. She personally insulted Harriet Miers for her lack of breeding and Ivy League status.
No doubt she lives in horror of the hispanic hordes trying to reclaim America for Mexico. Invaders masquerading as roofers and nannies and hotel maids and fruit pickers.
No, I don’t think true immigration reform is far right, but I don’t think the far right is interested in true immigration reform. They like the issue too much to lose it by actually creating a workable consensus and dealing with the problem.The fact that Tom Tancredo could not even git 1% of the vote in his own party should be an indication that people do not consider his plan to be “true immigration reform”.
But I think a better question to the right, is why are you here? If you are just going to sit home and pout or better yet vote with the Democrats in November, what do you care? Obama supports drivers licenses for illegals. No one who even pretends to care about this issue can vote for a Democrat or let one win and then lecture anyone else.
And if you cared so much about true immigration reform, where were you for all the years this problem was ignored?
And harry, in what way has your freedom of speech been limited? Have you, or anyone you know been hampered from expressing opinions?
Does Bush not support freedom of speech… what about Thompson?
As far as a global warming is concerned, I think you are getting ahead of yourself, but the same rule applies as immigration…whatever complaint you might have in this regard, supporting the liberal Democrat won’t fix it.
And this is one other thing I should have mentioned.
My family has sent people off to fight in Iraq. There were prayers, sleepless nights, terror, worry, pride..all those things.
Republicans overwhelmingly supported the war, most still do. The right tends to support a strong national security candidate.
When I think that the many of the same people who supported sending these young people off to war, would render their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their families meaningless by allowing the Democrats to pursue a policy of retreat and defeat…it makes me sick. Absolutely sick with disgust.
That is Rush, multi millionare motor mouth, got to the bad guy.
Terrye,
You dont seem to be able to comprehend any better than a liberal is able to, so I’ll try to explain it where as you may be able to understand it.
For conservatives illegal immigration is a serious concern and not merely a issue to fight over just to be contentious. You see, if immigrants continue to come over the border as freely as they are able to, use anchor babies to establish a foothold, tie up already over taxed and over burdened civic resources we’re going to have major problems. I assume because you say your a conservative you may agree, but then again I wonder.
So you see, Terrye, Immigration reform to our eyes means making it so as living and working in the US as an illegal alien is difficult and undesirable. That removes the incentive they have to come here illegally and send those who are already here homeward. Do you see what Im saying? Granting what amounts to as blanket amnesty for those who are already here illegally does not do any of that. So you see Terrye, a “working consensus” that does not provide actual reforms are not actually considered workable. That is, not if you are a conservative. Do you follow me so far? On this issue there’s no middle ground. You are either offering immigration reform or your only packaging a tougher sounding ineffective version, which is not immigration reform and does nothing to solve the problem. I dont know what kind of strawman you were attempting by throwing Tancredo’s name out there, but conservative voters rallied to send a message to both Bush & McCain that their version of imigration reform was most unsatisfactory and were sucessful in getting it squashed. So much conservative voters being the fringe of the Republican party and not willing or able to get anything done.
We vote for our issues and we try to elect candidates that most closely fit our principals and at this moment are resigned to vote for probably the least desirable candidate in that respect, and for why? Because the best argument “Republicans” like yourself can give us, is he’s the only one you think we can win with. Thats a very sorry state of affairs.
But while Ann Coulter has dived off the deep end in search of purity, the rest of us bite the bullet and vote for the “Maverick” out of principal and that principal is to try and not abandon the Iraqi people or the war on terror and hope to hell McCain doesnt come up with a “working consensus” for doing anything less than that.
But what the hell Terrye. If he does, Im certain a real conservative like yourself can find away to excuse him for his lack of principals and distance yourself from the rest of us extremists.
Maybe you can start your own blog Terrye. Maybe you can call it neo-rhinocon.
I personally will gladly vote for McCain, one of my least favorite Republicans. The alternative is too ugly to bear thinking about.
However, I hope but am not sure that history will not repeat itself. The last time an authentic, elderly war hero ran against a young sociopathic reprobate (and his equally reprehensible wife), the results were not encouraging…
Short version: who died and made Ann Coulter Pope?
McCain resentment is very logical. One might wonder why we want the leader of their party saying –
“I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy.“ – John McCain
His actions as a Republican Senator in the last 10 years is a mixed and unpredictable bag. The most important issues on the right – war on terror, illegal immigration, tax cuts – 2 or of 3 he has failed at. And as far as the war on terror, McCain’s has some cracks (closing Gitmo/civilian trials/waterboarding, which in a number of cases has proven to be successful in getting crucial information).
Some pundit recently said (paraphrased) McCain does like to reach across the aisle. He not only reaches across the aisle, he walks over, puts on the other teams uniform and sings their fight song.
But he’s what we’ve got now. And unless something changes, in November, I’ll most likely vote for McCain. Huckabee is absolutely not an option for me he’s worse. All Republicans running for House an Senate in my state will get my vote, as well.
We may not get the President we want (looks like Obama to me), but at least we might be able to make it harder for them make the messes they want to make. We’ve got a House and Senate to vote on, let’s as least try to throw a few chinks in the armor.
I’m planning on donating what little I can directly to “good” Repub candidates running in other states, not just mine.
And, I have a suggestion for you, McCain “my friend.” You’ve got nine months to put your money where your mouth has been lately. Go to Washington tomorrow and introduce an immigration bill that enforces laws we already have, puts infrastructure in place to enforce the laws, penalizes employers of illegals, ends anchor baby status, and closes the border.
Where Are They?
Where are these true paragons of the cause locally? They can step right up and move into the fight in most of our big cities and many suburban areas. Right here (Cleveland) the Dems are totally unopposed for almost all county offices. C’mon guys, show us what you can do! No McCain types to fight with in the primaries! Just belly up to the bar and take on our local liberal officials with their faces in the trough!
Opportunities abound in major metropolitan areas for them to show us their stuff, if they’ve got what it takes!
This definition of “far right” by moderates gets increasingly looking more like Al Gore’s quest to get global warming debaters labeled as deniers.
Miss Coulter along with a lot of other conservatives understands compromise and negotiation. Sadly most so called republicans dont. You want to sell a car for $8000, you ask $10,000 for it. You don’t ask for $7000 and hope some really generous soul comes along. Republicans seem content to ask $6000 and then point fingers at those that ask $10,000 as the “far right” problem.
I don’t particularly want a far right candidate myself. But there is certainly an argument to be made that it makes a great deal of sense to combat ridiculously far left whackjobs taking us to hell in an incremental hand basket.
The enemy has their rabid pitbulls; we have a few too, and Ann Coulter is a champion of that breed. Credit where credit is due, the Democrats don’t kick theirs for only doing their job.
Coulter, Rush and the others are serving notice on Mr Reach Across the Aisle that he has some fences to mend, and with more than cheap talk.
McCain has two chances to win the general election, slim & none & slim has left town.
Two reasons for this:
1) The GOP is in trouble.
This is evidenced by the relatively small turnout in Rebublican primaries vs Democrat primaries. Nearly 2:1 less turnout for Repub. primaries on super Tuesday.
http://messages.yahoo.com/Government_&_Politics/By_Country_or_Region/United_States/Politics/threadview?m=tm&bn=18066891%23democratvsrepublican&tid=17194&mid=17194&tof=4&frt=2
The irony of this is that much of the GOP’s unpopularity can be laid at MCCains feet with his McCain-Feingold legislation. It spawned the emergence of George Soros & the 527 groups as a major force for the left. They have spent millions demonizing all things Republican & it is working. Soros in fact was the money man behind MCCain Feingold: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30556.html and
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D1242B8C-5587-4C3E-A3A1-ED3DCB6EF668}
2) McCain
Compounding #1, the GOP will nominate a man who is unpopular (to say the least) with its conservative base further suppressing the enthusiasm for pro GOP turnout in November. No party has won an election with a demoralized base & there is nothing on the horizon that will energize it.
This will lead to a disastrous November for the GOP.
The only way to avoid this would have been to nominate an exciting candidate at the top of the ticket to energize the party & the base. This did not happen and I predict a sunami like disaster in November.
So we must move on to post November strategy.
Unless I’m mistaken I thought I read somewhere recently that Ann has apparently fallen in love with some dimocrat, apparently lock, stock, and baloney…. and just when we thought we were all getting burned out on the old stereotype jokes, she proceeds to give blondes a bad name….
Coulter spoke at CPAP somewhat unofficially, and I happened to see speech on C-SPAN. She was really hitting McCain hard … pretty funny and very biting, of course.
In the Q&A session following, she was asked if she has dated liberals. She responded, “yes, but they’re not liberal now.”
She’s great.
My first exposure to Coulter, did make me a bit worried because I enjoyed her so.
But I started thinking about what I accepted in normal conversation from not only liberal friends, but from the Democrat leadership itself, and I’m OK with her. Besides, it’s good to have someone to counter Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, etc.
While she may not help the conservative image, I love her ability with words. It’s extraordinarily fun.
Even if McCain should somehow win the general election, he loses. With both chambers of Congress controlled by the Dems, McCain would not be able to get any of his policies or people (at least his few conservative ones) in place without great sacrifice. The Dems control Congress now and projections are that their control will only increase in November. He’ll do fine getting his McCain-Lieberman (global warming) and anti-pharmaceutical agenda items through. He’ll have to compromise on his SCOTUS nominees and give us more Souters and Kennedys. His budget proposals will be DOA at Congress, and the thought that, when the going gets tough, he will fight for tax cuts is laughable. In other words, if McCain were somehow able to become president, he would preside over a humongous debacle giving a Republican veneer to de facto Democratic policies. The Dems would be set up to dominate thereafter as far as the eye could see running on the narrative of Republican failure.
Better to make a strategic retreat, lose on principles, and be in a position to turn the country around when the liberal policy chickens come home to roost as they certainly will. The country, after all, survived Carter. It can survive Obama/Clinton. The one difference that makes me wince is, “God save the Iraqi people.”
Neo and other pragmatists can lecture us all day long on the folly of our insistence on conservative “purity” and support McCain. If only that were the reason for our antipathy toward McCain I could swallow my pride in a heartbeat. To those who tell us to grow up and be mature, I respond, “Get real.” You really need to think about the future and the consequences of compromising from a position of weakness. Governing well and America are both considerations that go past the current election cycle.
Al Peinhardt: You are forgetting one all-important thing. It’s the point I made here: McCain will have veto power over a Democratic Congress determined to make good on its promise to bid a hasty retreat in Iraq, a la Vietnam and the Democratic Congresses of the 70s. This veto power will make all the difference in the world for Iraq.
I fail to understand how you fail to understand this. Not to mention the little detail of the appointing of Supreme Court judges.
It is you who need to think about the future and considerations that go past the current election cycle.
“Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff.”
Ronald Reagan
No. I’m not “forgetting the McCain will have veto power over a Democratic Congress determined to make good on its promise to bid a hasty retreat in Iraq..”- thus my wince. It is the most important issue going forward but it is not the only issue going forward.
A veto would be the only “victory” a McCain admin would be able to pull off. In all else a McCain presidency would be doomed to failure. And this is how future electorates would judge future Republican candidacies. So the question is, “Are you willing to poison the well to future conservative governments for the sake of Iraq?” That’s the bargain you’re making.
As for the “little detail of the appointing of Supreme Court judges” I have only one word under a Democratically controlled Congress – Bork.
It looks as though Obama will win the nomination. It will be the energetic visionary young black guy against the old white guy. I fear this exercise is moot.
Neo and Terrye still cannot seem to get how serious the problem is. I suspect they are post-9/11 latecomers who lack a historical perspective on the tectonic forces that have been in uneasy balance in the RP since the departure of Reagan from Washington.
Girls, your denouncing of Rush, Coulter, etc. will only speed the dissolution that you logically should be trying to forestall. You need to understand the deeper logic–the depth psychology–of political motivation.
Until then, you will continue to make the problem worse.
A veto would be the only “victory” a McCain admin would be able to pull off. In all else a McCain presidency would be doomed to failure. And this is how future electorates would judge future Republican candidacies.
It’s a little early to preduct the Judgement of History. At some point I expect people to become disgusted with the gridlock in Congress and to become aware that it’s the Code Pink Democrats who are responsible. The Dems and their ‘base’ are being split from their sympathizers, who will one day wake up and realize that their champions are unworthy of them. That is, if the Republican base can stomach having moderates and disaffected liberals actually vote for Republican candidates.
McCain’s CPAC speech is a very good one. My man, Romney, was right to withdraw. I will forgive John his Feingold-Kennedy transgressions, as I forgave W for Harriet and Medicare D.
WE MUST NOT HAVE A DEM AS PRESIDENT.
Every other comment I submit gets eaten by the spam filter. The comment I tried to submit here is a post on my blog called “Comment on Althouse”.
Repeating myself here, but like it or not, the majority in this country are sliding left, the dimocrats into bonafide radical socialism; With the republicans solidly installing McCain as the candidate, perfectly appropriate and respectable if he were a mainstream dimocrat, the europeanization and erosion of twentieth century American culture and character continues inexorably into the forseeable future. People don’t just have bad memories, they have no memory now, and they’re largely in smug denial of the reality that Iraq represents. It’s going to take a nuclear incident, literally, to shake the non-islamic world into some common sense and solidarity….
“”the majority in this country are sliding left, the dimocrats into bonafide radical socialism…””
The best chance to save the Frog in the pot of water is to allow the heat to noticibly get turned up.
McCain is just more decieving gradualness in the process of cooking the free world. A vote for the man is nothing, if not a disgustingly selfish passing on of our countries problems to our children and grandchildren.
We will be facing a coalition of Russia, China, Greater Islam, plus the assorted Chavez’s in at best a cold, cold, war. The EU will be neutral and neutered. These powers have no common interests beyond that of gratifying their itch to knock the USA off its perch, and that accomplished, Russia will likely be the next prey. But that will be too late to help us.
We can’t hit the pause button on this storm that’s coming while we fixate on our domestic soap opera. Let’s make the most of McCain because he’s all we got.
Just one small point: McCain’s energy policy involves subsidizing alternative energy programs, not taxing the energy we have. And as that’s a huge step towards getting off Saudi oil, who the hell cares if McCain also thinks it’ll do something about global warming?
Good Golly Ms Molly:
I thought politics WAS the Art of The Possible. Now we seem to be asking for The Uncompromising Ideal.
Those Idealists also gave you in the twentieth century such sterling idealists as Mao Zhedong, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, and manu other minor league tyrants.
As far as immigration goes, why be afraid? Worry more over who’s gonna do the dirty jobs. And try to motivate the US-Born to do some of them? Those folks would rather lives in poverty and collect charity.
“The Best is the Enemy of The Good”. Still holds…
Ah. Now we are like Hitler and Lenin. Wonderful. Harry McHitlerburtonstein. I suppose thats what liberals and neorhinocons would call me.
GOC:
“Those folks would rather lives in poverty and collect charity.”
The charity you speak of comes out of our pockets. We “extremists” have been pointing that out to people for quite a while now. People in Canada and Europe manage to bring in crops without illegal migrant workers so can we. As for the “charity”, we extremists have been championing moving people of welfare and ending the addictive government dependency. All too wild and extreme ideas among the new mainstream I suppose.
Here is a little video of the good senator illustrating beautifully why we do not like him.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1073039/dont_ask_mccain/
Harry9000:
You are known, whether fairly or unfairly, by the company you keep…and what their actions are.
I find that one should judge people by their actions, not their beliefs. Beliefs can (and do) change according to new data (best) or new opportunities for advancement (perhaps worse).
Recall Groucho Marx’s remark about beliefs.
And yes, you do SOUND like a fanatic…perhaps you’re not. I can’t judge because I’ve never met you.
But sometimes “principles” are the last refuge of a sore looser. When I was a kid, it took the form of leaving with the baseball and bat.
I have heard many make the “Judges” argument for voting for McCain. The argument goes something like this:
If a Dem is elected, they will not nominate strict constructionist judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thomas. McCain will.
Let me just say I don’t think so and here is why:
1) Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thomas were dissenting votes when his beloved McCain-Feingold went before the court. Dio you really think he would appoint someone that would give the court the 5th vote – against McCain-Feingold?
2) McCain believes that the Geneva convention should apply to terrorists and the same group of justices don’t. Again one must suspend reality to believe he would appoint another enemy to his position to the court.
He’s pro-life enough, and that’s what the public eye is on – overturning Roe v. Wade. Nobody ever talks about overturning McConnell v. FEC.
I’m so terribly disappointed. While reading these comments I had a feeling of disorientation. Did I actually wander over to KoS? That isn’t meant as an insult, or cheap shot, just that familiar feeling of recoil, seeing the words “far right” used as invective, and statements about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter that usually come from other, er, sides.
Obviously neither Rush nor Coulter should be immune to criticism, because WE don’t play that way, but most of what I’m reading isn’t criticism, but disdain. Surely we can comment on the stands they’ve taken in a thoughtful, rather than dismissive, way. They each make points in favor of their viewpoints, so how about addressing those points, not their personalities?
There are thoughtful arguments out there, on all sides of this question. Dismissing the ones you don’t like as extremist is counterproductive, because the word conservative has a meaning.
I wish there was a checklist available (I might have to write myself one) of the basic conservative values. No one list would work for everyone, but I think that there are some basic characteristics that most could agree on. Taxes and immigration aren’t values, they’re issues that we take a stance on because of the values that underlie them. The fact that Reagan supported amnesty 20+ years ago has no bearing on whether it is in line with conservatism to support it today, because circumstances change; core values remain constant. We can argue about these issues, but the most important part is that we argue their merits based on the values that we share as conservatives – none of which are “extremist” or “far right” – they are simply values. If you believe that it’s wrong to kill, it’s possible to take this position to an extreme and refuse to defend your family against an attacker, but this is a simplistic and child-like belief. Adults consider circumstances using their experiences and develop values that take those circumstances into effect, i.e. “It’s wrong to kill, except in defense of innocent life.”. Obviously there can still be disagreement, but it must then be argued within the confines of stated values.
The biggest problem that conservatives have in arguing with liberals has been their reluctance to state their values in any definitive way, thereby allowing them to take conflicting stances according to popular opinion or convenience. We don’t have that problem here, so let’s remember to make our points from a position of respect. Respect that those on the other side are, like us, adhering to principles, even if we disagree on their position.
That way, we may actually learn something, even if it doesn’t change our minds, instead of becoming KoS-like villagers with pitchforks.
oh heck, no preview button… hope I didn’t mess up any tags…
First: Ann Coulter rocks. Like Rush, few can engage in an honest debate against her (or him) and prevail; they always go ad hominem.
Second: I understand Ann’s thinking. The shorthand is a Jimmy Carter gives rise to a Ronald Reagan. My only problem with Ann’s method is it will abandon the Iraqiis and our interests in the MidEast.
I’m surprised the ACLU-loving types aren’t upset with McCain-Feingold, easily one of the most heinous bills ever passed. For all the ballyhooed loss of free speech the lefties complain about, that one went down without a whimper.
Coming: A radical left-wing democratic president (Obama or Hillary), a democratic majority in both houses of congress, with eight years to gloss over or appease “a coalition of Russia, China, Greater Islam, plus the assorted Chavez’s”, while our most important “ally”, the “EU will be neutral and neutered….” (observations succinctly described by “armchair pessimist”)…. Like a bear market, when you think things can’t get any worse than they are you’re kidding yourself…. “KoS-like villagers with pitchforks”? “Respect that those on the other side are, like us, adhering to principles, even if we disagree on their position”? Actually we live in two completely different cognitive realities, where respect and principles are irrelevant for the enemy until they are defeated. It’s all and only about the threshhold of pain, when it affects us personally, and the pain becomes unbearable… From Tibet to Darfur to Israel to India to Thailand to Kenya to Chad to Lebanon to the Phillipines to Venezuela, and so on; The enemy needs us to gloss over the intimidation and murders, procrastinating and rationalizing our acquiescence in this insidious campaign, as they build momentum…. At least McCain addresses that issue with Iraq as the focus of “principle”; Rumsfeld said, “We’ve got to do something.”
Well said Rebecca. Thank you!
Anyone whose ever been a parent knows what its like to be thought of as an extremist.
Thank you very much Rebecca. I feel the same way. Im kinda dumbstruck by some of the reaction here that hasnt put forth a conservative argument for McCain, rather a logistical one of who we can win with and on the sole conservative reason of not abandoning Iraq.
Why not? We’re so ready to give in to the other “non-extremist” “far-right” principals. What are you guys about? Why are you here?
Oops. I dont know what happened to the bold thing.
Thank you for the link to McCain’s speech. I have linked to your post. I thought it was a terrific speech.
Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!