January 30, 2008

Karl of Protein Wisdom on "McCain Derangement Syndrome"
— Ace

Excellent response to those suggesting we ought to just fall in line behind the preening peacock from Arizona.

Correction: I wote it was Goldstein; it's not, it's Karl. Thanks to Allah for the tip and the correction.

Posted by: Ace at 06:04 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That was Karl, dude.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 06:06 PM (o/KrO)

2 Shrug. If he's the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. Now that Fred! and Rudy are out of the primaries, I don't care between McCain and Romney. At least Fred! torpedoed Huckabee.

How profoundly depressing.

Posted by: funky chicken at January 30, 2008 06:16 PM (I+jPP)

3 Well, I'll vote against the democrat, just like I did in 2004. It might matter in AL.

Posted by: funky chicken at January 30, 2008 06:17 PM (I+jPP)

4 They have so many guest bloggers it gets confusing, sort of like Ao..........

Well never mind.

Posted by: JAFKIAC at January 30, 2008 06:17 PM (Vg0uD)

5

I guess I'm gonna have to fall in line too and vote for Vincente Fox ... er, wait, I live in the US?  Damn.


Here's hoping for Romney to pull one out of his ass on Super Tuesday.


Posted by: Hermit Dave at January 30, 2008 06:21 PM (Tk5HT)

6

I think Karl made a pretty good rebuttal of Roger Simon's MDS article. Unlike BDS, nearly all the dislike of McCain stems originally from his policies.


But it's McCain's self-rightiousness and disdain of those who dare to disagree with him that transforms ideological unhappiness among conservatives into intense dislike.


Posted by: Maetenloch at January 30, 2008 06:33 PM (HHAbw)

7 Maybe it's time to tip Romney's jar a bit. I'm assuming a link to a political camp from a now, generally, more pro-Mitt blog doesn't violate McCain-Feingold.

Judges? Still legal? Is the blogger exception valid... or is this something that has been, um, reined in for fairness?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 30, 2008 06:41 PM (Y0gTb)

8 Maetenloch:



It's a pretty insignificant issue, this MDS deal, but isn't it Bush's
"self-righteousness and disdain of those who dare to disagree with him"
the same justification lefties use to justify their BDS?



I find it self-defeating that this is all happening now with McCain
just like it happened with Huckabee, what, three weeks ago?. Instead of
focusing on finding a candidate that the mainstream of the party can
get behind, we've devolved into a shitfest over purity and "true"
conservatism.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 06:54 PM (o/KrO)

9 You want deranged? As his last official act, I think Bush should free John Hinckley. We'll get Jodie Foster to bat her eyes at him.

Posted by: Ostral-B Heretic at January 30, 2008 06:57 PM (+P4HU)

10

runninrebel,


"It's a pretty insignificant issue, this MDS deal, but isn't it Bush's "self-righteousness and disdain of those who dare to disagree with him" the same justification lefties use to justify their BDS? "


The people he is diagreeing with are Pelosi and Kos.  Not the Republican base.  Who cares what the lefties use to justify irrational hatred?  We don't like McCain because he is running as a Republican and he disdains Republicans.  How hard is that to understand??


Posted by: susanita at January 30, 2008 07:05 PM (Dw3vY)

11 ok. so ...  Bush has disagreed with the base and I can't spell, but still... I think I have a point.

Posted by: susanita at January 30, 2008 07:08 PM (Dw3vY)

12 If McCain is the nominee, I'll still vote, but only for my Senator and Representative.

Posted by: Kevin at January 30, 2008 07:10 PM (f0QzP)

13 The term "derangement syndrome" has really been dumbed down if its now used to refer to people who won't vote for a politician whose positions on issues of national importance are unacceptable. BDS was used for people who were comparing Bush to Hitler and hoping his friends died of cancer. No one's said anything nearly as bad about McAmnesty.

Posted by: V the K at January 30, 2008 07:13 PM (/0sRQ)

14 Ann Coulter, favourite** whipping girl of many on this site, is saying that she'll prefer a President Clinton to a President McCain because "With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility."

FWIW.

**I'm feeling a bit British tonight, except without all the bowing and scraping to Islamofascism.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 30, 2008 07:13 PM (ThZCx)

15 Love Ann, hate McCain and no I won't "fall in line." When 'n the hell did that line start to be popular with the conservative party?

Posted by: Hongqi at January 30, 2008 07:22 PM (+WuMm)

16 With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility



And Hillary's never shown any hesitance to bomb every swarthy motherfucker in sight, either.



She just says it was all your stupid fault, penis-pants! afterward, and anyway, you're lying, she wouldn't have done such a thing, you penisy old liar.



But she'll do it, every time.



So there's not one reason to choose McCain over her.

Posted by: Retired (Not Gay) at January 30, 2008 07:27 PM (k5JzA)

17 It's ok, I know you are feeling vulnerable right now. Take my hand. We will get to the voting booth together and vote for McCain...;-)

RWS

Did I mention, she has a chat going on?

Posted by: Hongqi at January 30, 2008 07:34 PM (+WuMm)

18 Susanita,



I'm not talking about not liking
McCain. I can't stand the SOB. But to say he disdains Republicans and then going on endlessly in every fucking post, whether it's about politics or interpretive sex dance classes, about how you will either stay home, vote democrat, or drink yourself to death, is the kind of hyperbole that's just stupid in politics.

To say he's a perpetual
contrarian, wannabe T.R., stubborn fucking dickwhad is one thing. But
disdain? If he disdains repubs, how do the dems feel about us? You know
the ones that call Bush Hitler and all of us Fascists? Do they
double-really fucking-disdain us?



Jee wiz.



But that's not even what I'm talking about. It's this non-stop, shortsighted
negativism and self-destruction that started with Huckabee in Iowa. Any
sensible person at the time would realize that .00001% of the
population had voted and it didn't mean shit, but if you looked here
you'd think the whole thing was sewn up and the Lord God had come down
to the Earth to scorn the evil conservatives and make us all stop
smoking in public.

Just get a grip, people, and spend your energy defeating McCain instead of alienating everybody else.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 07:44 PM (o/KrO)

19

Instead of focusing on finding a candidate that the mainstream of the party can get behind, we've devolved into a shitfest over purity and "true" conservatism.


I kinda thought that's what the blogosphere was for.  If the blogs aren't where the ideological purists gather, then where?  The pragmatism of diluting purity for the sake of "the possible" is the job of everyone else.


We maintain the ideal blueprint -- one we recognize can never be fully actualized in reality (sorry Paulnuts) -- and they slog it out in the trenches to realize that vision as best they can.  Without the pragmatists, the purists are gibbering cranks (sorry Paulnuts).  Without the purists, the pragmatists simply seak the path of least resistance and forget why they were ever in a trench to begin with.


Posted by: VJay at January 30, 2008 07:57 PM (1efGB)

20 No one's said anything nearly as bad about McAmnesty.

Really, V the K? You don't remember the 'he's so old, hopefully he'll pick Fred as his VP and die in his first term" comments? I do. Shit, I think I even got caught up in that shit.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 07:59 PM (o/KrO)

21

To say he's a perpetual contrarian, wannabe T.R., stubborn fucking dickwhad is one thing. But disdain? If he disdains repubs, how do the dems feel about us? You know the ones that call Bush Hitler and all of us Fascists? Do they double-really fucking-disdain us?


No, the democrats loathe conservative Republicans. McCain is merely disdainful of conservatives. There's quite a bit of difference of degree between these.


Runninrebel, don't get too worried about all the McCain hatin' going on right now. A lot of it is cathartic, and I think people's emotions will simmer down once both nominees are picked.


I'll admit right now that I'll almost certainly vote for McCain in the fall against Hillary or Obama. But in the meantime I've got a lot of unresolved anger towards McCain that's been building up over the last few years. Complaining about him and voting for Romney in the primary are about the only ways I've got to express my anger towards hime. Well that and killing hobos....


Posted by: Maetenloch at January 30, 2008 08:03 PM (pc3z1)

22 VJay,

Yes, except for the shitfest part. Before the intertubes the purity contests took place within the various Party caucuses (i.e. The Liberty Caucus) and at the conventions during the platform committee meetings. But those have democratic procedures to resolve issues, all we have on the web is invective.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 08:05 PM (o/KrO)

23 Send money to Mitt...Put your dollars where your mouths are.

Posted by: free at January 30, 2008 08:06 PM (cFwGO)

24 call mc office tomorrow and everyday until super duper tues. ask what his position is on rebates for mexico.  bug the blank out of those people....call hill call obama...

Posted by: free at January 30, 2008 08:09 PM (cFwGO)

25 Maetenloch:

I figure that, but the general is all about turnout and telling a third of the party that they are traitors, retards, and untrue conservatives (Oooooooo!), during the primary doesn't bode well.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 08:09 PM (o/KrO)

26 "...but the general is all about turnout and telling a third of the party
that they are traitors, retards, and untrue conservatives (Oooooooo!),
during the primary doesn't bode well."


True. Personal insults risk blowback, but what if they really are traitors, retards, and untrue conservatives? You have to call them on it. Isn't that an internet protocol somewhere? No? Well... it should be.

Anyway, the best defense against these undesirables is to convert them with facts because, generally, they speak for themselves. If their eyes still gloss over and they fail to succumb to reason, then ad hominem it shall be.

Hey, I didn't make the rules. I just enforce 'em. What? Those aren't the rules? Well... they should be.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 30, 2008 08:22 PM (Y0gTb)

27 AnonymousDrivel, I totally read what you are saying through the humor, but going on and on about how you will never ever vote for the guy they support is not a *fact* nor will it convert anybody to anything other than the idea that they should tune you out.

Attack their guy and call for consensus at the same time. It's the tried an true way to win in both the ideological and political arenas.


Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 08:32 PM (o/KrO)

28

I figure that, but the general is all about turnout and telling a third of the party that they are traitors, retards, and untrue conservatives (Oooooooo!), during the primary doesn't bode well.


Jeeze, if you can't have vicious, hand-to-hand, partisan internecine infighting during a political primary season, when can you have it? :-)


Part of all this squabbling is just normal internal party politics. But a large part of it is because conservatives have gotten too comfortable, having the presidency for the last 8 years and congressional majorities for a lot of that. When you've been in power for too long, you start looking for heretics. A lot of people have forgotten how much it sucks when the other party is in the White House. Right now the Democrats are hungry to get back in, and the GOP isn't.


Posted by: Maetenloch at January 30, 2008 08:38 PM (pc3z1)

29 <i>we've devolved into a shitfest over purity and "true"
conservatism.</i>



And Romney's the second conservative coming. Snicker. Romney's a business man, not a conservative. I could vote for

Romney, I could vote for McCain, I wanted Fred to wake up, Giuliani
looked promising. But this torch and pitchfork mob thingee is a
disgrace. I don't like mobs. And if you're running in one, you're
fooling yourself about your "independent" thought and "justified"
reasons.

Posted by: chuck at January 30, 2008 09:06 PM (kdDQF)

30 Ace, Goldstein is absent most of the time now from Protein Wisdom, seems to post about once every other week or so, so you should anticipate that any post you find over there will not be from JG.

Posted by: Bob at January 30, 2008 10:12 PM (TV64i)

31 I'll try to limit myself to keep me from wearing out my welcome with this, but

This is Hillary's record on abortion

# Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
# Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
# Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)

This is McCain's

# Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 199
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

This is Hillary's record on race/sex/affirmative action related issues

# Op-ed: Voted no on flag-burning to build centrist credential. (May 2006)
# Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
# Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
# Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

This is McCain's

# Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states. (Nov 2006)
# Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 199
# Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
# Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
# Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
# Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
# Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
# Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
# Require 90 day delay for compliance before ADA lawsuits. (May 2002)
# Limit interstate class-action lawsuits to federal courts . (May 2002)
# Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
# Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

This is Hillary's record on taxes

# Freeze estate tax at 2009 level of $7 million per couple. (Oct 2007)
# Why cut off payroll contribution at $95,000? (Jun 2007)
# Cut alternative minimum tax, not billionaire tax cuts. (Mar 2007)
# End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good. (Oct 2006)
# NY share of federal taxes is too high. (Feb 2000)
# Just Say No to GOP tax plan. (Sep 1999)
# GOP tax plan would hurt New York鈥檚 students. (Aug 1999)
# Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
# Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
# Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
# Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
# Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
# Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
# Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
# Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
This is McCain's

# Voted against Bush tax cuts for not reining in spending. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
# Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
# Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
# Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
# Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
# Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
# Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
# Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
# Voted YES on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
# Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 199
# Rated 72% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 50% by CTJ, indicating a mixed record on progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
# Implement socially fair, broad-based tax cuts. (Sep 199


http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm



http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm



----

Now, you can find a decent amount of stuff in there to dislike about McCain.

McCain has done a lot of stuff to piss our side off over the years.

The guy can be a colossal dick.

You don't like the guy?  You hate the guy?  Cool.

But if anybody wants to avoid the "derangement" epithet, just repeat after me:

"McCain is not as liberal as Hillary"

No, he isn't.

I realize this is futile and I'm about to get my ass kicked in response, but he isn't.

This is not a ringing endorsement I realize - but, you're right - there is a difference between disliking McCain and derangement and this is it.

Posted by: AD at January 30, 2008 10:13 PM (vYzH/)

32 sorry for the phantom emoticons - not intentional

Posted by: AD at January 30, 2008 10:14 PM (vYzH/)

33 That stuff doesn't matter, AD. McCain isn't a TRUE conservative..
Besides, if I copy that list into a Word doc I can easily change all of
the no's to yes's and visa versa.



I won't do that because I want Mitt to win, so I'll just part by saying
that I would vote for Stalin before McCain, and you are either a
traitor, a retard, or a FAKE conservative.



See guys? Just doing my part to get old AD here to come over to our side.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 30, 2008 10:35 PM (o/KrO)

34

I realize this is futile and I'm about to get my ass kicked in response, but he isn't.

This is not a ringing endorsement I realize - but, you're right - there is a difference between disliking McCain and derangement and this is it.


but, but ... that can't be because McCain is the devil :-)


Posted by: Maetenloch at January 30, 2008 10:47 PM (pc3z1)

35 I figure that, but the general is all about turnout and telling a third
of the party that they are traitors, retards, and untrue conservatives
(Oooooooo!), during the primary doesn't bode well.


Uh huh. And what about telling two thirds of your party they are traitors, idiots, and nativist bigots? Does this relationship go in reverse, or is all the finger-shaking meant to be pointed at the majority?

Posted by: DoDoGuRu at January 31, 2008 02:42 AM (72nfo)

36
Posted by: AD at January 31, 2008 03:13 AM (vYzH/)


Let me suggest that what you've given is a voting record, which is flawed for a few reasons. It's true (to one degree or another) that McCain has a lifetime conservative rating of something near 80%, but the voting record is only a single facet, and an imperfect one at that.

1) McCain has voted conservative... but how has he not voted? How has McCain blocked issues outside of the Senate floor? How has McCain kept conservative issues from even reaching the table? How has McCain strategically abstained from voting? What kind of things did he kill in committee, dilute with amendments, or tacitly help filibuster? His voting record does not reflect these things.

2) McCain has voted conservative... but with McCain there is little reason to suspect that will be consistent, especially since he seems to be winning the nomination in spite of conservative opposition. Whenever his voting record is trotted out, it seems as though there is not account taken for the trend in his voting... and that trend is not towards the right.

3) McCain has voted conservative... but the vote does not make the man. I'm beginning to see McCain not as compared to Hillary, but as compared to Bush. McCain is almost just like Bush, except that Bush has more charm, has some grasp of conservative economics, and panders to his base. But McCain is Bush if you transformed Bush into an angry old man who rather openly resents his constituents. McCain has been very accommodating to people on his left, and very condescending to people on his right; a bizarre quality to have in a Republican nominee. The fact that he is so accommodating to our ideological adversaries, but so acerbic with us, his supposed allies, ought to say something about his character and it ought to augur for us the kind of presidency we can expect under McCain. If McCain can be ornery and patronizing with his party now, what does that say about how he will govern?

Posted by: DoDoGuRu at January 31, 2008 03:17 AM (72nfo)

37

Taunting and peer pressure got me into the voting booth in 2006. I felt like shit and we lost anyway.


Not again. Not this time. Not John McCain. This isn't wearing off.


Posted by: S. Weasel at January 31, 2008 03:46 AM (rasT+)

38

Everyone should read Victor Davis Hanson. 


All of our temper tantrums over McCain may cost us this election.


 


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 31, 2008 03:47 AM (UhmCj)

39

Damn right they will, RWS. We know that. That's the freaking point!


I don't think John McCain is fit to sit in the big leather chair and I won't be instrumental in putting him there. If it's a Hillary! or an Obama, let that hang around the Dems' neck.


Posted by: S. Weasel at January 31, 2008 03:51 AM (rasT+)

40 Gee, RWS, how could we not have realized that winning trumps all? Why didn't that occur to anyone?

Posted by: DoDoGuRu at January 31, 2008 03:57 AM (72nfo)

41 #8: isn't it Bush's
"self-righteousness and disdain of those who dare to disagree with him"
the same justification lefties use to justify their BDS?"

You have it absolutely backwards, guy.

I have never actually seen or heard any evidence that Bush has this ""self-righteousness and disdain of those who dare to disagree with him." Have you? Has he thrown temper tantrums and shouted at his opponents? When? Where? Prove it.

BDSers, claim or imply that Bush feels that way, and they do that without any evidence whatsoever. Hence the "derangement syndrome."

Posted by: qrstuv at January 31, 2008 05:02 AM (ZzZmQ)

42 RWS,
I'm confused of your use of the word "us" in your post #38 above.
I'm a conservative and therefore don't see John McCain as part of the "us" with which I associate.

Please advise.

Thanks in advance,
Mr. de Blog

Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 06:01 AM (wK2cX)

43

All of our temper tantrums over McCain may cost us this election.


It will cost us this election.


We know.


We weren't kidding.


We said he was unacceptable. Just all those evangelicals vote for Huck because 'he loves Jesus' and thata's just the way it is, many of us will not vote for McCain and that's just the way it is.


You don't have to fall in love with it, you just have to fall in line.


Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2008 06:34 AM (m6c4H)

44 RWS, it isn't a "tantrum" to reject an unacceptable candidate.  If anything costs us the election, it will be McCain's nomination and not the completely predictable response to it.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at January 31, 2008 07:00 AM (Z3AmO)

45 P.S., when we told you he would be a disastrous nominee, we really, really meant it.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at January 31, 2008 07:02 AM (Z3AmO)

46

We're supposed to line up behind McCain because he's a consistent pro-life vote, right? Besides that that isn't my biggest issue, what assurance has he given he will remain consistent there? What do we get if it turns out we were right all along, that he couldn't give two shits about the unborn? Will McCain supporters buy us a six-pack?


I'm pretty sympathetic to both sides here and I have to vote anyway because my congressman (Garrett) is top shelf. So I could I guess go ahead and flip the McCain/Snowe lever. But let's not mistake what you McCain supporters are asking us to do, which is to take a lot on faith against our best instincts.


Posted by: spongeworthy at January 31, 2008 07:41 AM (a00go)

47 All of our temper tantrums over McCain may cost us this election.

When Rudy was the presumptive nominee, you told his supporters it would be our fault for losing in the fall if we picked him, because so many people would stay home and to take that fact into consideration.

Now the question is on you and other McCain supporters.  Are you willing to risk it? Because I think a surprising number of conservatives are probably going to stay home if he's the nominee.

Personally, I'll vote for him, but that's about it.  If he's the nominee, he's going to be hobbled by the fact that a lot of us really can't stand him, and aren't going to be all that invested in his candidacy.  That means minimal cash, fewer volunteers and maybe a little less willingness to defend him against the DNC.

Posted by: Slublog at January 31, 2008 07:50 AM (R8+nJ)

48

Personally, I'm going to wait until November 5 to panic.


Posted by: klrtz1 at January 31, 2008 07:58 AM (9/MTp)

49 I won't vote for McCain and have had that position since 2000.  My refusal to vote for him is not as a protest but because I truly believe that he would be more harmful to the United States than either of the Democrat possibilities.  I believe his decision making abilities in combination with his arrogance is dangerous.  I believe we would be better served if we were focused as the minority opposition party to a democrat administration instead of a minority party with McCain in the WH where it would be harder to gather votes to block his anticipated democrat styled propositions.  It may be unfounded but I also fear him getting us into international problems which otherwise could be avoided based on his grating personality when he doesn't get his way.

Posted by: polynikes at January 31, 2008 08:02 AM (m2CN7)

50 I was wondering why I haven't seen a lot of love or support for McCain on the blogs, but now I've figured it out.

McCain sued the FEC in 2005 to make internet blog posts, e-mails, etc. (so even comments) treated as "in kind" contributions, requiring limitations, disclosure, etc. per CFR.

Now, admittedly that was overturned, but McCain supporters, out of love for the man, and respect for his wishes have avoided any possible conflict of interest by avoiding showing any support, and avoiding political topics for 30 days from an election .  To show support and solidarity with their candidate and his views.

I wish all of his supporters had this level of intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Gekkobear at January 31, 2008 09:20 AM (X0NX1)

51 I can understand people's dislike of McCain.  Hell, I think he is a tool, but I will vote for him come November.  I would like to see all of the "I will stay home before I vote for McCain" people take a pledge.  I want them to pledge that, when Hillary! or the Obamessiah is elected, they will keep their traps shut and not complain about the President for the duration of the term(s) of that office.  I think it is only fair.  If you are going to help put a candidate in office, you shouldn't be allowed to bitch about him later.

Posted by: Steve L. at January 31, 2008 09:40 AM (hpZf2)

52 No tantrums here.  My dislike of McCain is something that has grown over about 5-6 years.  The more I found out, the less I saw to like.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2008 09:42 AM (ERV3B)

53

It's funny, but in 2006 before the election, we were told to get in line and vote GOP or the Dems will win after many said they weren't voting GOP because they were acting like Dems. The GOP lost. And did they think about what we said? Now that's funny. Not only did they not listen, they're nominating a man who's a liberal Dem in RINO's clothing and we're supposed to fall in line?


We had to fight tooth and nail to get them to stop their amnesty program, and be called racist by GOP biggies to boot. We were called names because we didn't like an unqualified pick for the Supreme Court. And more!! 


Well, screw em all. I might vote for the lower ticket this year, but I'm not voting for President. I might even blow off voting at all as districts are so gerrymandered that voting is a waste of time.


Oh well, America had a good run. At least I got to own a Mustang GT convertible and a lot of cool guns before it fell.


Posted by: Veeshir at January 31, 2008 09:50 AM (zXUuJ)

54 McCain: He鈥檒l always reach across for the liberals, he鈥檒l occasionally reach around for the conservatives

Posted by: Hot'lanta Yank at January 31, 2008 10:35 AM (IRsCk)

55 DoDoGuRu:

Uh huh. And what about telling two thirds of your party they are
traitors, idiots, and nativist bigots? Does this relationship go in
reverse, or is all the finger-shaking meant to be pointed at the
majority?


McCain's insults are an excellent reason to criticize him and get people to support a different candidate that hasn't insulted so many of us. But doing the same thing to people that are supporting him for whatever reason is counterproductive.

Get it?

Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 10:42 AM (0n9wc)

Posted by: goooss at July 24, 2008 05:52 PM (aLTJ8)

Posted by: 出会い系 at August 11, 2008 05:36 PM (EcMKr)

58 DVD burner for Mac provides an easy and fast way to convert popular video formats (including AVI, MPEG, WMV, DivX, XviD, MP4, DV, VOB, ASF, 3GP, NUT, YUV, H.264/AVC, M4V files to DVD. The DVD Burner Mac could also burn DVD movie onto DVD disk that playable on portable or home DVD player and burn DVD folder or ISO files. No other Mac DVD burner can provide so many formats. DivX to DVD Converter for Mac can not only convert DivX to DVD Mac, but also support convert AVI to DVD, 3GP to DVD, MP4 to DVD, FLV to DVD, MPEG to DVD, WMV to DVD, etc. The DivX to DVD Converter Mac developed only for Mac OS (include Mac OS X 10.5 leopard) burning users. The DivX to DVD converter for Mac can convert all formats like MP4, M4V, MPA, MPG, MPEG, MOV,3GP, 3GP2, FLV, MOV,VOB, DAT, TS, TP, TRP, M2TS, DivX, DivX to DVD on Mac OS. AVI to DVD for Mac, a profeesional but easy-to-use DVD burn software for Mac users, can convert AVI to DVD format on Mac OS X perfectly and quickly. The AVI to DVD Mac not only supports converting AVI to DVD Mac but also supports other popular formats to DVD on Mac, such as MPA, ASF, DIF, H261, YUV, NUT and so on.With the AVI to DVD Mac, you can easily convert and burn AVI files to your DVD and play it on portable or home DVD player.

Posted by: amada at November 26, 2008 11:13 PM (53V9W)

59 good

Posted by: 労働問題 at December 16, 2008 06:30 PM (zV0Gm)

Posted by: 蜂胶 at December 24, 2008 07:57 PM (UnqYN)

61

Links of London silver is releasing new products which are of elegant shape and fashionable pattern.

Posted by: Michael at December 29, 2009 08:59 PM (1SZBI)

62 脡煤脣a:http://besttojp.com/zhongguotese/class44.html

Posted by: 生薬 at February 23, 2011 11:51 PM (lXTpy)

63 脰脨鹿煤虏猫:http://besttojp.com/chinatea/index.html

Posted by: 中国茶 at February 23, 2011 11:57 PM (lXTpy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
118kb generated in CPU 2.14, elapsed 4.7978 seconds.
62 queries taking 4.4051 seconds, 299 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.