52 Comments

1. chuck:

Yeah,

The Republican chattering classes are trying to excommunicate McCain. Fred, on the other hand, gets applause. I liked Fred, he’s the only one I’ve sent money too so far, but I didn’t think he would go far: no organization and inadequate desire. As far as I can tell, the Republican problem with McCain is that he is near the center of the political spectrum, a big no-no these days. I honestly think folks would throw Reagan out of the party too if he came back as he really was, but without the name recognition.

While I disagree with McCain about some things, on the things that count most for me, the war and fiscal responsibility, he comes near the top. Of course, when I say fiscal responsibility I mean something entirely different than those Republicans who seem to think it is synonymous with low taxes, high expenditures, and government deficits. As to immigration and McCain-Feingold, I don’t have strong feelings about the first and would like the second repealed. Neither issue would keep me from voting for McCain against either Hillary or Obama.

I remain a staunch ex-Democrat, my feelings of disgust for my old party increase daily. But the Republicans aren’t doing much to make themselves look good to me.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:18 am 2. exguru:

Eight more years my foot! She will appoint him to the Supreme Court and he will be around for 30 more years, legalizing all his perversions.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:22 am 3. Captain Hate:

As if I needed another reason to hate Slick, my fantasies of Gina Gershon are now officially kaput.

Jan 27, 2008 - 6:17 am 4. TomTom:

So Frank Rich, a true worm, feels good about McCain. I am so relieved.

Jan 27, 2008 - 6:53 am 5. Wellspring:

Look, we’re the GOP. I hate the whole party-tearing-itself apart thing too but it’s part of the process and we’ll all get together and be happy. McCain and Romney aren’t exactly thrilling me, but they’re perfectly adequate and will make good presidents. Either of them alone has more experience than the entire Democratic field put together.

I’d much rather have our squabbles, which are basically stands on principle, than the Democrats’, which have devolved down to appeals to the very worst in human nature. We almost had that in Huckabee, and I’m glad the GOP voters punished him for it.

Whomever we nominate will have a rough time of it this year. Clinton’s toxicity or Obama’s integrity are both challenging, albeit for different reasons. The economy is sliding; I know what the politicians say but the metrics seem pretty clear to me. Recessions happen about every 7-10 years no matter who is President, and we got hit by bad timing. Finally, even success in Iraq won’t help the GOP: wartime parties nearly always get voted out of office when the fighting ends. It’s just very unlikely we’ll win no matter who we elect.

And as for the rumors: she’s way too hot for him. Though I’d appreciate more pictures so we can get to the bottom of this.

Jan 27, 2008 - 7:03 am 6. David Thomson:

“I don’t even want to hear from Kennedys for their recommendations.”

Caroline Kennedy foolishly compares Barack Obama to her father. I am convinced that folks like James Pierson and myself have a much clearer understanding of John F. Kennedy’s thinking than even his own daughter. Caroline swallowed the nonsense of her mother that contended the assassinated president was something of left-wing political ideologue. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that JFK would be a Republican in our present era. He had far more in common with Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Jan 27, 2008 - 7:49 am 7. Curly Smith:

I doubt that we’ll ever see an end to “Dynasty Politics” because they make things so much easier for the Parties and the Media. The Parties have a well established system of patronage and a slew of upstarts would upset the pork-cart. The Media has already written the stories, opined to the ends of the earth, run the polls and declared the candidates to be “candidates”. You can’t actually expect the Parties to run legitimate campaigns that inform the voters, nor the Media to cover fresh young faces in the hinterlands, because it’s just too much work. The current system works fine and I have the opinion polls to prove it.

Jan 27, 2008 - 9:22 am 8. Ray Zacek:

Frank Rich, a true worm? Horrible horrible thought. If you cut Frank Rich in half, would you have two of him writing columns?

Jan 27, 2008 - 10:15 am 9. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

I thought Ms. Bundchen was hanging out with Pat’s quarterback Tom Brady…

I just can’t keep up.

Jamie Irons

Jan 27, 2008 - 10:23 am 10. Fausta:

We might as well bring back the Romanoffs.
Don’t give them any ideas, Roger, please!

Jan 27, 2008 - 10:28 am 11. Michael J. Totten:

Chuck: I remain a staunch ex-Democrat, my feelings of disgust for my old party increase daily. But the Republicans aren’t doing much to make themselves look good to me.

The right wing of the Republican Party is doing exactly the same thing to the McCain moderates that the left-wingers did to me several years ago.

It is not true that the right looks for converts while the left looks for heretics. I thought it might be true, but it’s not. Both look for heretics.

Most liberals think I am a conservative, but I’m a political moderate and cannot even come close to passing an ideological purity test on the right. (Not that I have any desire to pass such a test.) If McCain is a “liberal” because he “only” has an 83 percent conservative rating, then what am I? A communist?

Jan 27, 2008 - 10:39 am 12. G M Roper:

Fausta, could the Romanoffs be worse than the Clintons? I’m not so sure!

Michael J. Maybe you are a “realist?” As a conservative myself, I’m not seeing anything / anyone worth applauding.

Jan 27, 2008 - 10:43 am 13. David Thomson:

“The right wing of the Republican Party is doing exactly the same thing to the McCain moderates that the left-wingers did to me several years ago.”

John McCain is not being pushed out of the Republican Party. He simply is not my favorite candidate. Still, I will support him if he wins the nomination. Most Republicans will do likewise. McCain is right on target regarding the most important issue of our era: the threat of Islamic nihilism. Everything else is secondary.

James Piereson’s Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism is a must read. It will help everyone to more clearly understand Caroline Kennedy’s confusion concerning her father.

Jan 27, 2008 - 10:54 am 14. Bobbo Williams:

It looks like Vanity Fair magazine is the latest rat to jump off the ship:

http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/01/bruce-feirste-1.html

Jan 27, 2008 - 11:21 am 15. betsybounds:

I agree it’s time to do away with these quasi-dynasties, and the Clintons make me the sickest of all of them. But hey, give National Review a break. It may not be a desire for unattainable, ultra-pure conservatism that motivates them, I don’t think. In my mind, at least, the problem with McCain isn’t his “moderation” or “centrism” (whatever that is). It’s his obvious contempt for the First Amendment. McCain-Feingold is an undiluted attempt to dispose of the First Amendment in the area where it matters most: Political Speech. That’s not negotiable, and I’m sorry that he (and some of you here) seem to think that as long as he seems to support the other nine, he’s not a radical, just a “moderate.” How can you be “moderately” in favor of upholding the Constitution in its entirety? I call that a deal breaker, or a poison pill, or whatever other radical name you wish to assign to it.

Jan 27, 2008 - 11:24 am 16. Buddy Larsen:

Just don’t stay home on general election day, Betsy — you can always vote against someone if that’s your best option — and you know what that might mean re McCain. I’m already trying to accentuate the positive — of which there’s quite a bit (if not enough for support in these primaries).

Speaking of which, if Obama does nothing else, he deserves all our gratitude for reminding us, ahead of the general election, of what “Clintonism” actually means in practice.

Jan 27, 2008 - 11:52 am 17. ras:

Might as well pass a constitutional amendment banning 3rd parties while you’re at it; won’t change anything. I mean, if there’re no serious alternatives this year, then when?

Jan 27, 2008 - 11:54 am 18. vnjagvet:

I think McCain has a streak of idealism that is somewhat at odds with his 83% conservative rating. Hence McCain-Feingold.

That streak is also what attracts him to moderates, incidentally.

However, he couples his idealistic streak with basically conservative instincts and a pretty strong will.

Could be a good contrast to either Hillary! or BHObama.

Jan 27, 2008 - 11:55 am 19. Roger:

betsybounds, do you honestly believe that John McCain has “contempt” for the First Amendment? Seems a bit of hyperbole, no? Could it be he was worried about the excessive influence of money in politics in our heavily televised age? I would imagine so.

Now that doesn’t mean I support McCain-Feingold. As it happens, I don’t. Nor do I think John McCain is a perfect man. (Hard to find those.) But I do think your use of the word “contempt” is a good example of what I meant by the peculiar behavior on the National Review, which I would characterize as neurotic, rather than rational.

I’ll give you another example. One of the great privileges I’ve had as CEO of Pajamas Media is that I have had the chance to meet some extraordinary people. Two of the most extraordinary are Victor Davis Hanson and James Woolsey, both of whom I admire tremendously and both of whom are being thrown overboard by the clique at The Corner for supporting McCain. Neurotic or rational? You decide.

Jan 27, 2008 - 12:12 pm 20. Occam's Beard:

David Thomson, you’re 2/2 in my book.

I’ve also pointed out that JFK would be a Republican today, and people look at me as though I were crazy. Yet he ran on the platform that the Eisenhower Administration (and by implication, Nixon) had let our military strength decline (e.g., the “missle gap”) and thereby weakened our ability to fight communism!

His speeches would today have him ostracized as a right-wing lunatic because he was a stout Cold Warrior, and an unabashed promoter of freedom, democracy, and American ideals.

Boy, how times have changed…

Jan 27, 2008 - 12:33 pm 21. ms anne:

our political aristocrats suffer from the same decline shown by upper crust nobs historically; they are pampered, indulged, bowed to, isolated, and inbred till their chins recede along with their brains. Let them eat cake and send them offstage.

McCain is cut from different cloth. When he won a primary against Bush, I approached Norah O’Donnell in the press line. When I told her what I thought, she said, “Who are you?” “Nobody, just a citizen here.” She turned away. Here’s my point. Look at recent great leaders: Vaclav Havel, Ghandi, Sadat, and Mandala. They all spent years in jail, which concentrates the mind and either builds or destroys character. McCain’s prison organized his defiant, troublesome, and courageous nature into a steely character that understands honor, loyalty, leadership, and proportion. He can’t even raise his arms above his head–so there’s a reasoned humility in accepting adulation.

He can be the Teddy Roosevelt character who makes the transition between one century and another, promoting the best of the past and recognizing value in the future. He is passionate and volatile, in other words a human being, but he understands limits without being cut down by them–he uses them to build strength.

enough chattering classes. we need a president who can has proved his leadership in the intense personal, political, and military battlefield.

Jan 27, 2008 - 12:35 pm 22. Roger:

ms anne, you should be writing speeches for McCain.

Jan 27, 2008 - 12:48 pm 23. Maggie45:

Michael J Totten:

EXACTLY!!!!

Jan 27, 2008 - 12:51 pm 24. betsybounds:

vnjagvet: By what stretch of the imagination is McCain-Feingold an outgrowth of an “idealistic streak”? What sort of idealism is it that wants to decide what people in a free society should be permitted to say? And how does it dare to parade itself under the name of moderation?

Buddy: I don’t have much use for McCain, but I think the Clintons need to be stopped, and that’s my “bottom line.” In fact, I believe that strongly enough to have voted for Obama in the Democrat primary here in Tennessee (early voting)in an effort to stop them before the nominee is selected.

The truth is that if McCain is the Republican nominee, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. But I won’t like it (not that that’s too important), and I don’t think it’ll be anything to be proud of.

ras: I don’t think much of third parties. Even if there were a good choice available in such a movement, he couldn’t win. I voted for Perot in 1992 and, as part of nearly 20% of the electorate, helped put Clinton in the White House. I’ll not soon make that mistake again. A vote for a third party candidate is, generally, a vote for the person you like least. You might as well not vote at all, and as I indicated above, I can’t quite bring myself to do that.

Roger: I think “contempt” is not too strong a word. The attempt to control political speech in McCain-Feingold is blatant, and while anyone is free to think I’m wrong, I deny that I’m being hyperbolic. John McCain is a well-educated, politically experienced and savvy man, and to think that that bill was well-intended, idealistic naivete on his part is to underestimate him. You and I both know that money speaks, and has ever spoken, loudly in politics (but define “excessive,” if you please)–some things never change. McCain knows that, too. The object is to control it, and that’s what McCain-Feingold was and is about. To say that John McCain isn’t a perfect man is to damn him with faint praise because, as you say, there is none perfect–no, not one.

I think, further, that McCain is either pandering to the current political fashion or not paying enough attention to the science about global warming. I’m a geologist with advanced degrees both by training and vocation, and know a bit about the subject. But that’s, as they say, beyond the scope of this discussion!

While I have met neither James Woolsey nor Victor Davis Hanson, I admire both greatly, and have read a number of Hanson’s books. I wasn’t aware that he has been thrown over by the “clique” at The Corner. I do think that, just as there are good and valid reasons for supporting McCain, there are good and valid reasons for opposing him. We all have our own orthodoxy, do we not.

Jan 27, 2008 - 12:52 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:

Great post, betsy — between you and ms anne, the McCain debate is pretty much perfectly framed.

Agree Clintonism must be stopped — the left-wing agenda is not even the worst part of it — the corruption of our political (and otherwise) culture is.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:08 pm 26. betsybounds:

Incidentally, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at National Review Online as recently as 3 days ago. I’ve heard nothing about him being “thrown over” there.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:08 pm 27. Wellspring:

It’s a primary, people are supposed to be purists ideologically. And conservatives aren’t the only Republicans. Once we have a nominee, the party will close ranks and we’ll be a big happy family again.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:25 pm 28. Dr. Weevil:

Let’s give credit where credit is due. This is much more a problem on the Democratic side at the moment. In any list of the most qualified persons on the Republican side not running for president, Jeb Bush would rank high. A popular ex-governor of a large swing-state, with a Hispanic wife and a fair amount of charisma, he would very likely be in the race and doing well if his name were anything but Bush.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:42 pm 29. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

TOTTEN:

If McCain is a “liberal” because he “only” has an 83 percent conservative rating, then what am I? A communist?

NO. U R A DUPE. AND A LIB.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:46 pm 30. Jimmie:

Mr. Simon, the NRO crowd isn’t throwing Woolsey over the edge because he’s supporting McCain. Some people, but not all, on NRO are castigating Woolsey for propagating an outright falsehood about Mitt Romney. That’s different, is it not?

As for McCain/Feingold, there are two ways to tackle money in politics. First is to limit the speech that the First Amendment was explicitly written to protect. Second is to remove a good chunk of the money from politics itself. Is it any wonder that there are millions of dollars going to politicians when each member of Congress has control of several billion dollars of tax money? It’s a sign of McCain’s philosophy that he would rather restrict your right to speech than limit the size of government to make political contributions less lucrative.

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:52 pm 31. DanM:

“If McCain is a “liberal” because he “only” has an 83 percent conservative rating, then what am I? A communist?” – Michael J. Totten

The current political arena has been observed to be controlled by the “extremes” of the parties (inclusive). It seems that they have let the extreme right and left wings control the message, while awaiting a return to the middle. In this climate, anyone that is not an extreme view-point holder is whatever they want to label you.

As my History teacher wife surmises – “The Fall of Rome”. Not that I think she is right – I think she could be right.

I have not seen any standard bearers for the sensible right in recent times. But, wasn’t GWB considered too liberal for the Republicans?

Jan 27, 2008 - 2:09 pm 32. Rich Rostrom:

McCain is certainly not a liberal. He is sound in many areas. But he is also distinctly unsound in others: McCain-Feingold, ANWR, taxes, immigration. He led the “Gang of 14″ compromise that allowed Democrats to keep blocking many qualified judicial nominees in return for letting a few through.

More importantly, for all his combative “Straight Talk” image, he has been receptive to flattery from liberals in the press, and willing to trash other Republicans and Republican programs to retain that favor. There are some very unsettling connections from his senior staff and advisers to left-wing foundations and funders (via the Reform Institute).

I think he has conservative sentiments, but I don’t think he has real conservative principles. Nor does he have (IMO) the executive experience needed to carry through a program against institutional resistance. I expect him to get rolled.

Also, he’s 72 years old. That’s old. Old and stiff. Put him on a stage with Obama, and Obama just might eat him alive. I know that the “youth” vote is perennially oversold, but time passes and McCain is redolent of a past which a lot of even semi-young voters are tired of. Anyone who is under 40 was too young to vote for Reagan. For anyone under 50, the Vietnam War is ancient history.

Bob Dole in ‘96 was the last hurrah of the WW II generation; I believe the contrast between his antiquity and Clinton’s relative modernity did a lot to sink him.

I would of course vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama: better to be shot in the belly with a .22 short than in the head with a .44 magnum. But I’d rather have any of the other Republicans except Huckabee or Paul. (Damn Fred Thompson for blowing it!)

Jan 27, 2008 - 2:27 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

reliapundit, that’s a helluva way to appreciate a guy who’s been ducking bullets & bombs to bring you top-notch (& free) reportage from the war zone.

Jan 27, 2008 - 2:32 pm 34. VonBear:

It’s time to end the Divine Right of Kings in this country. That means no more Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Roosevelts, etc.

McCain is one of the bishops. An integral part of the pork, power and personal wealth building machine that is US politics today.

McCain should have been thrown out of the Senate for his disgraceful role in the Keating five bank scandals, which destroyed many innocent individuals. The Enron scandal of its day.

The real elephant in the room is McCainÔøΩs age and health. (canÔøΩt lift his hands over his head) The presidency ages the officeholder quicker than any other job on the planet. I believe the country needs a dynamic leader capable of eight years of transformational leadership during these dangerous and unpredictable times.

Jan 27, 2008 - 2:35 pm 35. PD Quig:

Look, the anti-McCain feelings really shouldn’t be that hard to understand. He’s a pretty arrogant bastard with a foul temper who also happens to get it wrong on a few important issues. Yes, he has been admirably stalwart on the war–and that buys him a lot of slack. But his 83% rating is fairly misleading: it’s the 17% that rankles.

McCain didn’t just support the Z-visa bill–he arrogantly tried to jam it down in the dark before anybody even knew what was in the POS. And when called on that, he basically told everybody to shut their pie holes and stop being nativists and racists.

McCain didn’t just support McCain-Feingold, obviously. This incumbant protection act is the first major breach of the 1st Amendment. It is directly counter to the main intent of that amendment: the protection of political speech.

McCain didn’t just vote with the Democrats against the tax cuts: he resorted to their same rhetoric that has proven such a crock of crap. The top quintile is the ONLY group paying a larger percentage of taxes after the tax cuts. the other 80% are all paying less. It is exactly opposite of the Dem/McCain mantra. Furthermore, McCain just recently asserted that he would vote the same way again. One has to ask, “Why’??

So, while others will rip him for his AGW stand, I will grant that at least that issue seems to cut across party lines. I think he is wrong, but I won’t bash him for it. Nor, will I bash him for the Gang of 14, even though I feel like it turned down the heat on an issue that was shaping up to go against the Democrats–with good reason. I won’t even bash him for flirting with John Kerry, although it is certainly instructive that he was in position to be courted at all by a guy whose voting record is to the left of Ted Kennedy’s.

I can see how McCain appeals to centrist folks, and I’m not one who would sit out 2008 rather than vote for him. On the other hand, his conservative detractors have many good points. Had conservatism not been so ill-served by the current occupants of the White House and GOP caucus, a conservative candidate might have a better chance. As it is, any solidly conservative candidate would be swimming up Niagara Falls. Get used to “President Hillary Clinton” folks.

Jan 27, 2008 - 2:40 pm 36. chuck:

McCain didn’t just vote with the Democrats against the tax cuts…

When the Republicans cut expenditures I will happily support cutting taxes. But at the moment they look more like a spendthrift child running through their inheritance. Not that the Democrats look any better, but someone has to be responsible. The issue is spending, not taxes.

Jan 27, 2008 - 3:00 pm 37. kparker:

G.M.,

could the Romanoffs be worse than the Clintons?

Oh my goodness yes! The Clintons, love them, hate them, or be indifferent about them, at least have a veneer of competency. Have you any idea what a galloping incompetent Tsar Nicholas was? I doubt it, so go read what Solzhenytsin (a true monarchist) has to say about him and his ridiculous extended family. Or just read ms anne’s first paragraph.

And Roger–though I’ll pull the (virtual) lever for McCain if he’s the R nominee in preference to any candidate still in the D race, I do not think “contempt” is an overstatement for McCain’s approach to the First Amendment. Is it really the case that all you need to do, to overturn a Constitutional Amendment, is to posit a “problem” that it keeps you from “solving”? Gack.

Jan 27, 2008 - 3:19 pm 38. kparker:

Oh, and not that Michael Totten needs anyone to rush to his defense, but good grief what is wrong with reliapundit?

Jan 27, 2008 - 3:22 pm 39. Captain Hate:

McCain should have been thrown out of the Senate for his disgraceful role in the Keating five bank scandals, which destroyed many innocent individuals. The Enron scandal of its day.
The S&L scandal was indeed a disgrace, as was the media’s coverage of it when suddenly became no big deal as it related to Whitewater. But McCain’s involvement was minimal compare to the other four; lowering the bar incrementally until a Republican was added.

Jan 27, 2008 - 3:29 pm 40. Michael J. Totten:

Buddy Larsen: reliapundit, that’s a helluva way to appreciate a guy who’s been ducking bullets & bombs to bring you top-notch (& free) reportage from the war zone.

He has called me much worse than a dupe and a liberal. He also thinks I’m anti-Semitic because I griped in my comments section that the Israelis detained me for five hours because of my passport stamps. When I suggested they Google me to verify what I was doing in Lebanon — that I was being truthful when I told them I am a journalist — they lied and said Ben Gurion airport has no Internet access.

Reliapundit also accused me of being a Hezbollah agent and defended the Israelis for holding me. At least he had the good sense to delete that libelous accusation from his terrible blog.

He still insists I hate Jews. I insist that he is an asshole.

Jan 27, 2008 - 4:22 pm 41. DanM:

“The real elephant in the room is McCain’s age and health. (can’t lift his hands over his head)” – VonBear

Are you aware of why he can’t raise his arms above his head? (Never thought I’d be here defending McCain….) Look it up… Haven’t got the time, nor the inclination to educate people….

Jan 27, 2008 - 5:00 pm 42. MikeD:

McCain is correct on the over-riding and defining issue of the age–Iraq, the surge, and Islamic fascism. As a conservative, however, I consider him wrong on almost every other issue–tax cuts, AGW, gang of 14, “torture”, immigration, McCain/Feingold, ANWR, and the list goes on. People say GWB is a dullard and not intellectually up to the office he holds but I suspect that McCain is not appreciably brighter and that, along with a certain idealism (if you will), and his self-righteous belligerency is why he stakes the positions he chooses. It is also why so many oppose him. If he is the nominee I will hold my nose and vote for him–he, quite frankly, will be the most acceptable Democrat in the race. But don’t expect me to rally to his support over the next four years should he ultimately win; he will have become the lesser of the available evils.

Jan 27, 2008 - 5:48 pm 43. VonBear:

Are you aware of why he can’t raise his arms above his head? (Never thought I’d be here defending McCain….) Look it up… Haven’t got the time, nor the inclination to educate people….

Of course I am aware of McCainÔøΩs extraordinary courage and of the sacrifice he made on behalf of us all. He is a true American hero.

That is beside the point. His wartime injuries are debilitating and persistent and he is old. I am of the same generation, in good shape and run a business but I can’t go 24/7 anymore.

Thomas Sowell has a compelling article this week on Townhall.com on this issue. Regardless of McCainÔøΩs prior war experiences, does the country need a 71 year old Senator as a leader in these dire times?

Jan 27, 2008 - 7:12 pm 44. JM Hanes:

McCain is virtually guaranteed to self-destruct before he ever reaches the Oval Office. I just hope he does it before he gets the nomination, not after.

Jan 27, 2008 - 7:46 pm 45. TomTom:

McCain’s left face is distorted because of resection at the Mayo for a recurrent and regionally metastatic melanoma. Medically he is at some risk for the eventual development of more widespread metastatic disease, especially the brain. Melanoma can have a long latency. So, beyond the issue of his age, we will be well advised to pay particular attention to his choice of running mate should he be nominated.

Remember Paul Tsongas? He ran after bone marrow transplantation for lymphoma, claimed he was cured. Nope, not how it played out.

Jan 27, 2008 - 9:00 pm 46. NikFromNYC:

“Unlike some people, I have *no* idea whether Jefferson and Adams would want to amend the Constitution today (playing dumb outloud = conviction). We are a democracy. No more DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Roosevelts, etc. My single vote doesn’t even want to hear about their policies. Enough of these DEMOCRATICALLY popular families. We might as well bring back Moonshine.”

I translated your diatribe into an immature rant, to make a point, one that was understood and discussed but not put into law for lack of either trust that the law wouldn’t backfire, or for mere naive trust in human nature. ALL modern “crazy” leaders of world-power status were democratically elected.

In fact, if you read ‘World on Fire’ you will delve into the fascinating story of say Zimbabwe, where with help from conquering outside forces, suddenly had DEMOCRACY. And some minor race/culture had been the million dollar merchants and farmers, who they either ran out of town (or in the Congo, de-limbed), and nobody knew how to fix a tractor, let alone how to drive one, so…and the leader finally admitted this to his credit, uh, “we are now f’d” and must invoke Plan B Brutality (or what happened after that, I forget).

There is a difference between DEMOCRACY, and you rant against it, and Constitutionally DEFINED (limited) Civil Societies that happen to be democratic.

“Direct Democracy” is bunk, since who has the time to sit around in meetings with civil planners and engineers and financiers etc. to plan where ten new bridges should be built/re-built over the next five years…and then onto the topic of that new strip club in the unzoned area nobody thought had any property value, but now has a parking lot the size of a small third world country.

Do we really want our first non-Reganite-small-gov’t BIBLE THUMPER in the White House either, one who would create a HUGE backlash in the other branches of gov’t?

Stop the drug war. Stop policing consensual “crimes in general” except child molestation, and DO NOT regulate people’s life decisions, unless you want coat hanger abortions and drug lords who build atomic stealth submarines that dig down under the mantel upon reaching the Gulf Coast, containing Cocainamia, a newly researched and industrially produced form of 10,000X potency white powder.

You self-contradict yourself, except you blame democracy. That sort of thing usually turns citizens into propaganda following robots, like pigs at a trough.

Civil Society is what is missing, but that wont kick in until the 78 year old Boomers who never saved up for retirement die off, since they are one-topic voters: FREE MEDICINE.

Do you see kids lining up to vote? For WHAT? What they don’t already have? Cheap pot? Two-pill morning after abortion pills, based on normal prescription “The Pill” dosages? More free music? A drug cartridge for their video game virtual reality box?

Jan 28, 2008 - 1:08 am 47. syn:

If McCain wants my vote he needs to clarify one important question, how can America fight The Long War if all her energy resources are restricted to dim light bulbs and corn?

I mean seriously, how can a jet fighter fly on corn?

Another example. the government has now banned Edison bulbs because Americans campaigned for ‘1 billion mercury bulbs in America’ and got it, now these same fine Americans pretend they had nothing to do with what the government provided them.

McCain voted against drilling in ANWAR yet Independents insist America must ween herself off foreign oil.

McCain is as bad as Gore is regarding the ‘backward Greenie’ issue, so his ‘tough on terror’ seems rather hallow.

I voted for a mayor who switched from Democrat to Republican because too many Dems were on the ticket, he campaigned, with Rudy Guiliani’s endorsement, on ‘tough on terror’ only to wind up telling me that ‘terrorism is no big deal and to get a life’ then, when he became a nanny-statist Greenie who bans people’s lifestyle choices he switches to Independent;
now how am I to believe an Independent politican when they act just like Socialist Democrat?

The Independent position is silly in an anal retentive way.

Jan 28, 2008 - 6:15 am 48. syn:

Thompson didn’t blow it, ’stuck on stupid’ Americans blew it.

Jan 28, 2008 - 6:18 am 49. ajacksonian:

As those in Congress have proven to be at the level of their incompetence, they have satisfied the Peter Principle and deserve no election to higher office: they are perfectly situated. Beyond that, Congress promised, up and down from their Halls Upon the Hill in 1986 to really, and for true, *do something* about their duties with regard to immigration as handed to them in Art. I, Sec. 8. That has proven out to be a lie for 22 years, thus as they are already incompetent and deceitful, no Congresscritter running for higher office will get my vote for anything. I have especial problems with HRC, John McCain, and Barack Obama beyond that, and each has demonstrated lack of accountability or acknowledging their roles in problems and addressing said problems openly.

I have found it strange that for many candidates running for President, the credentials that are presented as strengths turn out to have more than one instance of problematical views which, put at the National level, can cause harm. Without addressing such issues, which is not being done by the MSM, debates, web sites and such, and the amount of insulation that candidates put between themselves and the population, the ability to put any trust in such candidates is suspect. And I have little trust in political families to actually look out for the people in a democracy as that starts to look like mafia families looking out for their own, first. It speaks ill of our democracy and republic to have such failing political institutions that we need worry about such things…

But then my worries about democracy aren’t particularly modern in flavor… and we were warned about how such things go wrong over time.

Jan 28, 2008 - 7:18 am 50. Norm Conquest:

As H.L. Mencken once said regarding the Roosevelti: “Here in this Eden of clowns, with the highest rewards of clowning theoretically open to every poor boy – here in the very citadel of democracy we found and cherish a clown dynasty!”

Jan 28, 2008 - 7:35 am 51. dclydew:

Thompson didn’t blow it, ’stuck on stupid’ Americans blew it.

Wrong. a presidential candidate has to sell themselves… hard. Rudi and Fred are at the point they are because they are both inexperienced at national campaigns and they failed to sell themselves to America. It’s that simple.

Jan 28, 2008 - 9:48 am 52. Buddy Larsen:

True, dclydew, but you have to admit that Fred got a lot more conservative admiration than he did money & votes. Something went screwball somewhere.

Jan 28, 2008 - 2:34 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: