205 Comments

1. Mark:

Romney always struck me as a vastly more intelligent version of John Kerry; willing to tack to any wind that would advance the Ship of Mitt, if you will.

As a moral entity, Mitt is nonetheless probably a better example the the junior senator from Massachusetts, but I still would have a hard time voting for him.

McCain’s (nearly) unpardonable sin remains for me McCain-Feingold. That sin actually has a part A and a part B. Part A is that it tramples the First Amendment, something I hold near and dear. Part B is that it bloody well doesn’t work. Evil and stupid is a baaaaad combination, and that is his pride and joy.

Not good.

Jan 29, 2008 - 11:12 pm 2. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Hi Roger,

I largely agree with you on the senselessness of McCain Derangement Syndrome (”McCDS?”), but…

I think by any rational comparison the importance of The Surge vs. waterboarding and Gitmo isn’t remotely close.

Try telling that to the people whose lives were saved by the information gained from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or Ramzi Binalshibh.

And regarding Gitmo, the senator cares too much about the opinions of the Europeans and MSM, and he’s wholly misreading the Geneva Conventions. Give him all the credit in the world for being an early and firm backer of the surge, but it is legitimate to criticize him on these two issues.

That said, it does worry me that so many conservative Republicans seem to be demanding ideological purity, taking a “small tent” approach. It reminds of something I used to hear Reagan say (paraphrased): “Do you want 50% of what you want or 100% of nothing?”

If McCain is the nominee and the McCDS sufferers stay home, we could easily wind up with 100% of nothing.

Jan 29, 2008 - 11:21 pm 3. Michael J. Totten:

It will be interesting to see if this continues after McCain officially wins the nomination (assuming he does).

Some Republicans obviously like him, or he wouldn’t be winning even in a closed Republican primary.

I had a real epiphany about Republicans a few years ago when I realized that Rush Limbaugh is not actually typical. I had to take them more seriously then because Rush is such an easily dismissable jackass. And if he isn’t typical, then the party is less easily dimissable.

The current war within the Republican Party might actually be good for the party if McCain indeed wins and the likes of Rush don’t relent. Then everyone will know he and his ilk are not typical.

Jan 29, 2008 - 11:23 pm 4. Godzilla:

Roger, I think you’ve got this totally wrong. The angst about McCain runs deep and long. It’s not an overnight thing.

I’m curious about something. Does anyone know if McCain has picked up any endorsements from his fellow Republican senators? I really don’t know. I haven’t heard of any, and that seems a little strange (if in fact he doesn’t have any), considering the outsiders he’s running against. There are have been reports that McCain has had some big dustups with his party members. Rommney had a late add that encapulated about ten of them, with quotes. If McCain is picking up some senatorial endorsements, I’d feel a little easier about him becoming president. Personally, having him in control of the military scares the shit out of me.

Jan 29, 2008 - 11:49 pm 5. davis,br:

McCain-Feingold. Problem One.

My many issues with McCain are with McCain’s **positions** – not his fashion choices, or his haircut Roger – and go back many years.

…wanna try this one again.

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:19 am 6. Patrick Tyson:

Current United States Senators who have endorsed McCain:

Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)
Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.)
Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)
Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.)
Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Sen. John Warner (Va.)

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:28 am 7. jedrury:

It should be the time when the conservatives of
the GOP [they don't seem to be anywhere else]
decide that keeping the White House is preferable
to handing over all structures of power in DC to the Democrats. How does Hillary, Harry and Nancy sound?
Liberal enough for you? No, then how about Barack, Harry and Nancy?

Jan 30, 2008 - 4:45 am 8. D Anghelone:

McCain Estrangement Syndrome.

Jan 30, 2008 - 4:53 am 9. Webutante:

As a Southern conservative, McCain was neither my first nor second choice. On top of all his positions that offended me–immigration, McCain-Feingold, lack of support for the Bush tax cuts (I could go on)–John is known to have fierce temper tantrums when out-of-sorts. He’s burned bridges and made some enemies as a result. That gives me pause when thinking of nuclear stuff.

Neverthenless, I’m in the process of adjusting my attitude to what seems to be the reality of McCain. And I will absolutely support him if it comes to that. Because like you Roger, the mythic Obama and the worn-out Clintons just aren’t an option.

So neither is McCain Derangement. It is a monumental self-indulgence that we cannot afford at this time in our history.

Jan 30, 2008 - 5:03 am 10. Pierre Legrand:

McCain is a no-sale for me. I had committed to a $150.00 donation to the Republican Party but right about the time I got the envelope McCain won his first primary. That envelope is still sitting on the secretary and it will remain there unless McCain is defeated.

McCain will sign the Fairness Doctraine. After all strangling the 1st Amendment is what he does best.

Under McCain’s watch the border with Mexico will disappear.

Tax Cuts…quit dreaming.

Dangerous temper…

And the promise that he would nominate the Roberts and Alito style judges is pap he is throwing to conservatives. He would never nominate judges that would immediately dismantle his signature accomplishment in the Senate, McCain Feingold.

McCain is a liar and I simply cannot tolerate having a Republican be blamed for the mess he will create.

Jan 30, 2008 - 5:58 am 11. David C:

I can understand a lot of the dissatisfaction with McCain, and even agree with a lot of it. My main reason for supporting him is that next to Win The War, I consider *all* the issues to be trivia. (Or to put it another way, if we screw up tax policy, that’s something that can eventually be corrected. If we screw up a world war, it’s a lot harder to pick up the pieces later.)

But what gets me is how so many people are unwilling to give McCain credit for *anything* – saying he’s “just another liberal Democrat” or something!

For instance, wasn’t the accepted storyline of 2006 that the GOP lost because the Republican congress had become just as addicted to spending and pork as the Democrats ever were? Doesn’t McCain deserve at least some grudging admission that whatever else he is, he’s *not* that?

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:04 am 12. Billy Hollis:

Roger, I really think you’re missing the point on those who detest McCain. For the other examples you mentioned, it was almost entirely people from the opposing party exhibiting disgust. Now it’s those that are nominally on the same side. That ought to tell you that this problem is deeper and different from the ones you named.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:15 am 13. TomTom:

Hugh Hewitt said it best: McCain is a great American, a lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican.
Romney is a compromise in the best political tradition. But McCain is for the misguided, like Roger, who care only about anti-jihadism, and will happily let McCain flush domestics down the toilet. Sure, he’ll build a border fence, you bet….eventually, out of chicken wire, covering 100 yards, so it won’t impede the jaguar’s northern excusions. Lookit who his Hispanic advisor is. Sheesh!

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:21 am 14. SWLiP:

McCain has certainly done some things with which conservatives have a legitimate beef, and I agree that he can be prickly and arrogant. I strongly disagreed with his approach to immigration, and think that McCain-Feingold was a stupid usurpation of the 1st Amendment (and let’s not forget who signed it into law).

But we are in an existential fight with people who will gladly destroy us, and we need a CIC who can stare down our enemies and have the respect of our military men and women. We have unfinished business with Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Do you really think it’s worth putting Hillary or Obama in charge of those issues, just to make your point about McCain? Good Lord.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:25 am 15. MarkD:

I oppose McCain-Feingold on principle. I believe waterboarding is not torture; we do it to our own military in training. I believe we need enforcement first before amnesty and I’m married to an immigrant. I think the Republicans should have forced all judicial nominees to be submitted to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. I was for the Bush tax cuts on the basis that much discretionary Federal spending is a waste and the less money the government has to waste, the better. I oppose the government funding embryonic stem cell research on ethical and fiscal grounds. Let private investment fund it if it’s such a good deal. I think it’s pretty stupid to have $100 oil and be sitting on 36 billion barrels in ANWR and more off the coast of Florida that you won’t drill for.

I have a derangement syndrome? Look, if McCain’s the nominee, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. Clinton is corrupt. Obama is a cipher – at best dangerously naieve. McCain is right on the need to win the war and wrong about most other issues. My reservations about McCain are pretty much the same as my reservations about Bush. At least with Bush, we got taxes and some judges along with the bad. With McCain, we might not even get that.

Maybe this will fracture the Republican party. I don’t know, but I do know that that there isn’t much room left for a fiscal conservative anymore.

If that’s derangement, commit me now. Console yourselves with the knowledge of how well the government involvement in education and healthcare are working. Tell yourselves Social Security will be OK. Congratulate the next policeman you see about how well the war on drugs is going. Learn Spanish so you can survive in the US. That bilingual thing worked out for Canada, right?

Nobody could possibly think McCain’s judgement and temprament make him a poor choice. We couldn’t oppose him on principle. We’re deranged. Well, that’s better than racist, I guess.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:28 am 16. popcontest:

My main problem boils down to a single issue (despite the polls on the front of Drudge today).

I don’t think McCain stands a chance in hell against either Obama or Hillary. I’m not sure Mitt would stand a chance either, but this is Bob Dole 2.0 waiting to happen.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:34 am 17. Wellspring:

Look, I take issue with some of McCain’s positions, especially the first amendment. But there’s a hell of a distance between “not perfect” and “terrible”.

Yes, I supported other conservatives first. I don’t plan on voting for him in the primary. But once it’s all over we need to step back, take a deep breath, and say, “this guy will do”. We hold primaries for a reason, and the Republicans have spoken.

John McCain will make a fine president. As as war leader, he’ll be superb.

Let’s get our $%#( together and focus on stopping Hillary.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:37 am 18. The Great Satan:

what about those of us who have loathed the creep for over a decade? McCain was never to be trusted, not now, not ever. This should be the wake up call the GOP needs, alas, I thought that during the 2006 debacle.

Sadly there are really no viable 3rd party options, and the looters and moochers who run the DNC are far worse.

Lets face it, there is a growing segment of the population who has zero representation in Washington. Someday, I pray they wake up and do something about it.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:45 am 19. markus:

Trying to think like a (neo)conservative, I would assume McCain is a very solid bet to: 1) keep us in Iraq at full military force; 2) be tough with North Korea and Iran; 3) make “cutting spending” a big issue, lots of veto threats; 4) do nothing on health care reform.

The only things I would be concerned with are a (small) tax increase on the very, very, very, very rich. And an immigration bill, with both amnesty and a wall.

Pierre – as a Dem I want to keep people like you discouraged from voting for McCain in the fall. Who scares or disgusts you more, Clinton or Obama?

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:46 am 20. BD:

Roger:

Why so many on the Right detest McCain ought not be that tough a mystery to crack – they’re returning the bile he’s spewed in our direction for years.

McCain argues against tax cuts using “class warfare” rhetoric.

McCain gives Democrats cover for accusing the Bush Administration of “torture” with his very public posturing about waterboarding (this after we all know waterboarding broke KSM, by the way).

McCain tries to ram his immigration bill through over conservative objections & associates himself with that lil’ puke Graham, who calls us bigots.

McCain snatches defeat from the jaws of victory with his “Gang of 14″ deal. (It broke the logjam for a select few – Bush nominees are still being stalled – and took an issue where we had the high ground off the table.)

McCain provides cover for Democrats on “McCain / Feingold” – if he doesn’t know Democrats will use it as a political weapon against Republicans when they get the chance, if he can’t recognize how it enhances the influence of a media hostile to our interests, he’s a fool.

McCain’s harshest rhetoric, etc. is directed at “other” Republicans – find me criticism of Kennedy, Feingold, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, etc. that matches the temper & tone of what he’s said about Romney on Iraq.

McCain’s no party builder. He has no respect for anyone on “our side” who doesn’t agree with him (it’s almost as if he gives Democrats a pass because they’re in the “other army”). He grandstands constantly.

McCain v. Hillary or Obama is a tough vote for me. I don’t know how it comes out – - – - as the day draws nearer, I suppose I’ll think a lot about just how much damage I think the Democrat could do. Maybe it’ll be enough to convince me to fill in the “McCain / _______” bubble on the ballot.

But make no mistake – if that happens, it won’t be a vote “for” McCain.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:46 am 21. popcontest:

My main problem boils down to a single issue (despite the polls on the front of Drudge today).

I don’t think McCain stands a chance in hell against either Obama or Hillary. I’m not sure Mitt would stand a chance either, but this is Bob Dole 2.0 waiting to happen.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:49 am 22. exhelodrvr:

Stunning that a conservative would rather have Hillary/Obama win than McCain. Actually, childish is a better word.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:50 am 23. Cecil Turner:

Give him all the credit in the world for being an early and firm backer of the surge, but it is legitimate to criticize him on these two issues.

It certainly is. For those of us looking for an aggressive stance on the War on Terror, there are only two real options: 1) a forward strategy; or, 2) harsh tactical measures against terrorists. The current Administration chose both, and is being roundly castigated in the court of public opinion on each choice. Regrettably, Sen McCain has helped lead the charge.

Supporting the surge when he did (at a critical juncture) was praiseworthy. It showed considerable political courage, and headed off a series of defeatist efforts. But, in the larger sense, the shift in strategy (and especially adopting Petraeus’s COIN approach) was already made . . . McCain’s “more troops” were critical to implementing the strategy, but should not be confused with the strategy shift itself.

On Gitmo and harsh interrogation measures, he’s just plain wrong. Al Qaeda types captured on the battlefield are not entitled to POW protections under Geneva, and their treatment should by rights be less comfortable in order to discourage their flouting of the laws of war. But in any event, they may be held until the end of hostilities without charge or trial, and could be even if they were lawful combatants. There is some room for arguing which particular measure is proper, but the idea that terrorists are entitled to hands-off POW treatment (which doesn’t translate into better treatment for our POWs anyway, as Sen McCain can attest) is simply incorrect.

That said, he’s light years ahead of the closest Democratic candidate on any defense issue, and that’ll probably be the decider . . . at least for me.

Jan 30, 2008 - 7:56 am 24. Charlie (Colorado):

“To the ego, illusions are safety devices.”

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:04 am 25. TomB:

McCain-Feingold is a stupid law. But remember, it was George Bush who signed it.

McCain’s not my first choice, but I will support him if he’s the nominee. Notwithstanding his endorsements from the NY Times and Rudy Guliani.

But can he win against Hillabama? That’s the key question. Between McCain and Romney, it’s tough to predict a general election winner.

Is McCain really Dole 2.0? That’s my biggest worry. I’m not worried about what he’ll do if he gets elected — it’ll be so much better than Hillary or Obama.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:07 am 26. Korla Pundit:

The problems with McCain go beyond his liberalness. This is not a contest to choose a President. It is to choose the Republican candidate. And Republicans were betrayed by McCain when push came to shove in the Senate, when he not only sided with Democrats against the President, but was in fact the ringleader.

His Gang of 14 was not only a betrayal of party, but a thumb in the face of the Constitution which does not stipulate that a self-appointed clique of elite Senators get to be the gatekeepers for judicial nominees for the federal bench and the Supreme Court.

His bill on election “reform” was a slap at the First Amendment, not to mention common sense.

His opposition to taxcuts is a deal-killer in itself. If not for those cuts, the economy would have tanked years ago, and we would still be in a Carteresque depression.

But most of all, his push to bestow Constitutional rights on foreign terrorists, captured on foreign battlefields, held on foreign soil, would be a disaster, would make it impossible to combat terror, and would destroy the whole idea of citizenship to begin with. The enemy is sure not bending over backwards to give us any rights.

Finally, the despicable behavior of democrats and “independents” who were allowed to sabotage the primary votes of legitimate Republican voters is, quite literally, criminal. Why is this ignored and allowed to go on? It’s bad enough to make armpit states like Iowa and New Hampshire so influential in the choice of the next leader of the free world, but to then have this process further bastardized by cheaters and saboteurs from the other party just makes the whole election process a sham.

So on to the future, or what there is left of it.

Now I will have to vote for Romney in New York. Feh.

But regardless of all this, if McCain wins the nomination, I will end up voting for him assuming Rudy is his running mate, which is likely. (Not if he chooses Schmuckabee; then I would sit it out.) Either Clinton or Obama would probably allow our cities to be destroyed again, and that’s a little worse than choosing one or two bad judges and raising taxes.

I have to console myself with the thought that that’s how Teddy Roosevelt got into the White House. And McCain doesn’t look that healthy.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:08 am 27. dsinope:

Under another Clinton administration, we’ll be sold out to the Chinese (again.) Under McCain, we’ll be sold out to Mexico.

Differences? Mexico wants to bankrupt us by absorbing us – send us 100 million mostly illiterate Spanish speakers, who’ll fill the schools, hospitals and prisons, increase other social spending by an order of magnitude and guarantee a permanent Democrat government.

China wants to crush us in the international arena. Out compete us as a supplier AND as a consumer, bring countries out of our sphere of influence and into theirs.

For me it’s a tossup.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:15 am 28. AlanC:

Roger, you’re falling into the typical trap that anyone who disagrees is evil or insane. There are many reasons to strongly dislike and distrust McCain.

McCain gets a good mark on the war but not an A.
He is too publicly critical of the US / Bush administration to get an A. And yes, he was a war hero.

On every other issue of importance to me he gets an F.

Immigration? His Hispanic advisor swore an oath of allegiance to Mexico and says that immigrants should not assimilate.

Freedom (Free Speech in particular)? McCain/Feingold anyone? Roger, I want to buy an ad in PJ media that runs in October to support a candidate. Going to take my money?

Earmarks? How’s he doing with the Pork Busters?

AGW?

Taxes, spending, etc….

McCain would be easily and gladly guided by the left-wing on every other issue. I actually think that Hillary (not that I’d ever vote for her) might wind up better on more issues than McCain.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:16 am 29. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Roger L. Simon, et al.
RE: It’s Not….

….repeat NOT a derangement syndrome.

I’m a Republican. I’m co-chair of my precinct in my county. We’ll hold our caucus next Tuesday.

I’m also a retired Army officer of infantry.

I’m adamantly opposed to McCain as the Republican nominee for the presidency.

Why?

Something to do with an oath he and I both took when we took on our responsibilities as officers of the United States Armed Forces.

That oath reads….

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Now, McCain served US well in his early years. Up to and including his tour of duty in the infamous Hanoi Hilton.

However, since he became a US Senator, he has broken his original oath, in as much as he has sponsored an effort to break the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. A concept he originally swore to uphold and defend against ALL enemies; foreign AND domestic.

I’m talking about McCain-Feingold 2002.

I cannot accept someone who would break their oath in such an egregious manner as the chief executive of this land.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
LTC, IN, USAR (Ret.)

[God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:33 am 30. Fritz:

I do not like McCain. I do not trust McCain. In fact, I even went so far–in a fit of rage–as to say I would never vote for him. However, reality has a way of setting in. When I look at his likely opponents, I will have no choice except to vote for him, or rather against his opponents. My one caveat, if he picks Huckabee as a running mate I will not vote Republican, period. I consider Huckabee only slightly better than Ron Paul, and I don’t want either of them close to the White House.

It is not that I am unwilling to concede that McCain has some good points and he has been very right on a number of issues, but he has also been very wrong–in my opinion–on other issues. I could even forgive him McCain-Feingold were he willing to admit it was a mistake, but to listen to his tortured explanation of why it should not be thrown out is an exorcise in frustration. His explanation makes no sense and brings into question his reasoning processes. By the time he finishes his explanation all I can do is wonder what part of the term “Free Speech,” is it that he does not understand. I am still far from convinced that he understands the illegal immigration problem and is willing to try to solve it. And there are a number of other places where I question his understanding of how the government is supposed to work as laid forth in our Constitution and By-Laws, but, and this is the killer, the two main Democrats have even less understanding of those same issues. So while I will shudder and gag if he is the nominee, I will vote for him unless he picks Huckabee as Veep, or unless the Democrats come up with someone not yet in sight that I can tolerate.

Understand it is not that I expect a candidate to have only positions with which I agree. Giuliani has a number of positions with which I vehemently disagree, but I would accept him because I trust him to stand by his beliefs whereas I don’t feel the same way about McCain. In short, McCain’s only redeeming feature is his understanding of the War on Terror, and that is why I will very reluctantly vote for him if nominated. Huckabee is a deal breaker because even though I consider myself a Christian, I do not want religion mixing with government. One only needs look at the Middle East to see how well that works. Lord deliver me from religious zealots. And while I lean libertarian in some ways, Paul is flat-out loony in my opinion. In fact, if one only reads Paul’s website he sounds pretty good, but then he opens his mouth and starts explaining his positions.

Ah well, another election cycle and once again I am likely faced with the evils of two lessors. Depending on the Veep selections, it could go as high as four lessors. Can you imagine a Clinton or Obama ticket with Edwards as Veep, versus McCain and Huckabee. Arrghh.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:34 am 31. submandave:

I think there is a very real and important distinction between being vocally and even stridently opposed to a candidate’s statued positions and past performance, as the vast majority of McCain’e detractors are, and concluding that all actions of an individual are the result of a deep set wrongness and evil of the individual, as those sufferers of BDS seem to be. To say that I disagree in the strongest way with the McCain-Kenedy immigration bill that, thankfully, got tanked is no where near to the same as those who castigate Bush for “lying” or claiming that he sends our boys off to die for his enjoyment.

There will always be those at the extreme, but generally the slams against McCain are against his policy positions and not him as a man.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:35 am 32. Chuck Pelto:

TO: submandave
RE: About the Individual

“There will always be those at the extreme, but generally the slams against McCain are against his policy positions and not him as a man.” — submandave

Better re-read my comment (above).

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Character matters.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:40 am 33. DANEgerus:

Hillary-Obama-McCain, all three supported by George Soros money.

McCain doesn’t work with the moderate (D)emocrats to ‘compromise’, he runs to the most radical Leftists and drags a couple of (R-INOs) with him.

I won’t list the many examples beyond mentioning attacking the 1st Amendment with McCain-Feingold, granting Amnesty with McCain-Kennedy, undermining judicial appointments with the Gang-of 14.

Do you really think McCain will appoint the type of judges that will overturn his own legislative sellouts?

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:40 am 34. Pierre Legrand:

“There will always be those at the extreme, but generally the slams against McCain are against his policy positions and not him as a man.” — submandave

McCain is dishonorable because he is a liar.

Juan Hernandez has been a part of the Reform Institute for a while. McCain started that institute to hide his campaign workers from the election laws he created.

Roger being called deranged is ok. Principles matter…McCain has none except the corrupt principle that anything goes to achieve the Presidency. I would sooner vote for Hillary than McCain. And since I cannot support that I will sit home this November.

I would rather a Democrat be blamed for what is about to occur than a republican.

McCain is dishonorable and I have had enough of that from Republicans. It is expected from Democrats. Besides Hillary won’t lose the war on terror. Hell maybe she might have enough balls to stop calling the war a war against a tactic? This is not a war against “terror” it is a war against Islam.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:52 am 35. BarCodeKing:

I don’t dislike John McCain personally. What I dislike are his policies, especially McCain-Feingold’s assault on the First Amendment and McCain-Kennedy’s amnesty plan. His bringing in Juan Hernandez as his “volunteer” Hispanic outreach person was the last straw for me. I voted for Romney yesterday in the Florida primary, and I’m disappointed that he didn’t win.

If McCain is the Republican party nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him as the lesser of two evils. I know that the path that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would lead our country down would likely be far worse than anything McCain is likely to do. But I sure as hell wish that Fred Thompson had started his race earlier, because he was the candidate whose views most closely matched my own. Thompson and Giuliani have proven that it’s a losing strategy to not play retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire at least a year in advance.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:07 am 36. Memomachine:

Hmmmmm.

“On the other hand, he was one of the earliest, strongest and most influential backers of The Surge.”

Sorry but I’ve read this repeatedly but nobody so far has offered any proof of this.

Is there proof?

Or is this another example of blogger speculation becoming fact?

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:13 am 37. Sheryl:

I’m not a Republican or a Democrat anymore, so I know many here will completely disregard what I’m saying, but… For those who worry that McCain is a loser against Clinton or Obama, an ‘08 Dole as some fear, check out the national polls. He is the ONLY candidate who beats both, and by substantial margins right now. Granted, we’re not in the general election yet, but it is obvious that he is the only Republican who stands a chance.
The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election. They will be the ones who hand it to the Democrats. The fact that there is a pro-war candidate who is more popular with the general electorate than those who want to pull out, when the war has been hugely unpopular, is astoundingly fortunate for our country . It speaks volumes about the American people, and about McCain’s ability to communicate and lead.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:15 am 38. Godzilla:

“Pierre – as a Dem I want to keep people like you discouraged from voting for McCain in the fall. Who scares or disgusts you more, Clinton or Obama?”

Markus, the answer to this question does not resolve itself into an anti-McCain vote. Republicans are probably more inclined to vote for McCain when they focus on Clinton or Obama.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:17 am 39. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Sheryl
RE: Indeed

“The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election. They will be the ones who hand it to the Democrats.” — Sheryl

That would defeat a McCain candidacy. And, I suspect, that is EXACTLY what would happen.

Better an unknown like Obama than a known oath-breaker would be their rational. Others might write in Thompson. Or, if Hillary is the Democrat’s nominee, sit it out, like you suggest.

They’d probably think along the lines of Emperor Claudius…..

“Let all of the poisons of the Earth hatch out.”

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:21 am 40. Korla Pundit:

> The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election.

Well, that’s what happened in the ‘06 elections, and the GOP is not learning from what was at heart a protest non-vote from disheartened Republicans. Then, as it is now, people could not bring themselves to vote for those who were pushing the shamnesty bill and tons of pork and caving on defense.

So why shoult ‘08 be any different, just because the election is for the Presidency instead of “just” Congress?

Sad times.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:22 am 41. Bruno Behrend:

I will likely support McCain in Nov. but the McCain Feingold legislation is a bitter pill to swallow.

Just for fun – I’m a radio host afterall – I wrote a parody song about McCain.

Enjoy
http://www.extremewisdom.com/?p=974

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:23 am 42. Korla Pundit:

> The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election.

Well, that’s what happened in the ‘06 elections, and the GOP is not learning from what was at heart a protest non-vote from disheartened Republicans. Then, as it is now, people could not bring themselves to vote for those who were pushing the shamnesty bill and tons of pork and caving on defense.

So why shoult ‘08 be any different, just because the election is for the Presidency instead of “just” Congress?

Sad times.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:23 am 43. Korla Pundit:

> The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election.

Well, that’s what happened in the ‘06 elections, and the GOP is not learning from what was at heart a protest non-vote from disheartened Republicans. Then, as it is now, people could not bring themselves to vote for those who were pushing the shamnesty bill and tons of pork and caving on defense.

So why should ‘08 be any different, just because the election is for the Presidency instead of “just” Congress?

Sad times.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:24 am 44. Korla Pundit:

Something wrong with the comment form…

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:27 am 45. Ken:

Roger:

Its important to note that anger of McCain didn’t just surface when he started winning primaries. Its been there because of two important historical events: 1. The formation of the Gang of 14 and 2. the conservative smackdown effort known as the CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform).

After the CIR debacle, I decided that I would never support any effort to elect McCain president. I simply will not vote for him in the general election.

The commentators make some good points on why conservative Republicans should hold their nose and vote for him anyway. I disagree. The GWOT will not end with a McCain (or a Clinton) presidency. To think that only McCain could protect the US is nonsense. There comes a time when you must vote on principle. For me, now is that time.

The Republican party has left the conservative base. If they feel they can win without that base, more power to them. We shall see.

Ken

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:30 am 46. kisrum:

Roger,
Hewitt has said repeatedly and clearly that he will support McCain if he is nominated. What else would you like to hear? I think you’re straw-manning here.

As a “credentialed” media person, McCain-Feingold will not affect you, but it does the rest of us.

McCain is a narcissist but, unlike our last narcissist president, Clinton, he enjoys insulting those he most needs.

But he won’t win. He’ll do worse than Dole. The New York Times already has dirt on him. They’ll unveil it when it’s most advantageous to Clinton-Obama. Then they’ll remember his age, his melanoma, his divorce, Keating, etc, etc, etc,. Hillary will get to the right of him on immigration.

This is not derangement.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:38 am 47. Charlie (Colorado):

The problems with McCain go beyond his liberalness. This is not a contest to choose a President. It is to choose the Republican candidate.

That is very possibly the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week. And it’s been a really dumb week.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:40 am 48. Mick Stockinger:

I think you have to understand that politicians aren’t people, they’re symbols, and derangement syndrome, whether for Clinton, Bush or McCain, is a reflection of a groups disdain for what that candidate symbolizes.

McCain represents a betrayal of massive proportions and every conservative knows it. Since you’re not a conservative, you’re shrugging your shoulders wondering what the fuss is all about.

We will not go softly into that good night. McCain will be opposed resolutely not as John McCain, former POW, but as a stalking horse for the liberal-left agenda.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:44 am 49. Michael Mealling:

I have to agree with the rest of the posts here, I’ll support McCain but I’ll do it the same way I supported Bush: I held my nose while I voted (i.e. clothespin Republican) and I supported him on the War but that’s it.

Is there a way that we can tell McCain all of this in some formal way that he has to see it? I’m fearful that McCain is going to think his nomination is un-qualified and that we all agree with him. I’d like to see a letter or something from those like me telling McCain that, while we will vote for him in November and we support him on the War, that our support is conditional and that there WILL be consequences. Its not McCain Derangement Syndrome so much as a coordinated way of keeping a leash on him. If we had something like that with Bush we might not have ended up with McCain/Feingold, NCLB, prescription drug benefits, etc. I don’t think anyone in the party can stand another presidency based on “compassionate conservatism”.

-MM

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:46 am 50. Kelly:

I can’t even listen to Rush anymore because of his rage at McCain. I don’t understand it. I disagree with McCain on some things, but I thought as an adult you go with the candidate that is closest to you in your beliefs. If we all held out for the perfect candidate no one would ever get elected to anything.

By the way, I’ve heard the same caller on the Medved show who says McCain is no war hero. I think it was a male calling in though, but sounds like the same talking points.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:49 am 51. Korla Pundit:

>That is very possibly the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week. And it’s been a really dumb week.

No, I think that Republicans as a party should be allowed to choose their own candidate that they feel most closely represents their point of view, without this selection being hijacked by “independents” and anti-democratic partisans (bad enough when it’s just the press and intraparty dirty tricks).

If the party primaries are going to be general elections where everybody can vote, then why have both? Just have one giant election and be done with it.

This is why we always end up with two lousy candidates: because the selection of each of those candidates is sabotaged by those who want the opposing party to choose the worst possible candidate. And congratulations to everybody, that’s what we will now be getting.

If there are going to be rules for voting, then by gum they should be enforced. And they should be consistent.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:50 am 52. Korla Pundit:

By the way, is McCain on some kind of steroids or something? He looked very weird last night.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:56 am 53. stu:

Republicans are lumped into the following categories:
1.Social Conservatives-Who do we stand a better chance with when it comes to judges, McCain or Clinton/Obama.
2.National Security types-Who better appreciates the threat and will act decisively regardless of the political fall-out, McCain or Clinton/Obama?
3. Economic Conservatives- Who is most likely to fight for the continuation of the Bush tax-cuts,McCain or Clinton/Obama?
You can sit on the sidelines,but don’t complain if the socialist/securalist/defeatist party controls all the levers of government.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:58 am 54. Lightnin' Hopkins:

I am hardly a typical Republican. I voted for Rudy in the Michigan Primary (part of that powerful 3% coalition!). Like yourself, Roger, my views have changed exponentially since 9/11 (really since the 2000 rhubarb and the endless whining my former party has engaged in since; See: BDS). John McCain is no doubt a war hero, and I am definitely on the same page with him on the GWOT – beyond that, I have many of the same problems with his candidacy as mentioned in the previous comments. He strikes me as bitter, dismissive, extremely tempermental, and a little long in the tooth. While my personal fears of him may be allayed as the process moves forward, my opposition to many of his policy positions remain. This does not make me “deranged” any more than Rush Limbaugh’s opposition makes him an “easily dismissable jackass” (I’ve enjoyed much of your writing, Michael J. Totten, but that “jackass” has done much – and given much, much more – to support our military than most people you could name).

Time will tell. One thing’s for sure: If McCain becomes President, the people who you think are deranged will mostly, if grudgingly, fall in line and quietly support him. Meanwhile, the same people who burst into irrational anger at the mere mention of Bush’s name will find a new “World’s #1 Terrorist” to blame all of society’s ills on. In fact, you may just be a year early in diagnosing the syndrome, and need to re-check the name-tag on the patient…it ain’t me, babe.

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:58 am 55. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Roger L. Simon, et al.
RE: Speaking of ‘Derangement’…

…you should read Bruce Catton’s Civil War Centennial series. Especially the first of the trilogy; The Coming Fury.

I’m reminded, a LOT, of ‘derangement’ as I’m reading the first few chapters.

The Southern States, prior-to and during the early phases of secession, were behaving very similar to the way the people who DO suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome behave.

They would not listen to reason.
They would not read the writings of the man they so adamantly opposed.
They only wanted to fight….and lie about their reasons to do so.

Very informative.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:11 am 56. brandon davis:

…there are some of us who very specifically do not think that a Huey Long grafter is a worse (or more dangerous) choice than a person who apparently practices a de facto belief that he is above the Constitution.

Unlike the BSD’ers of the Left, we have solid, rational, ideological grounds for not voting for McCain as the Republican choice. Or even voting *for* Hilary.

Your attempt to draw the analogy is too shallow by half.

phobos, kerdos, doxa …

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:30 am 57. Godzilla:

I wish my main concern with McCain dealt only with issues. But at the moment I am more worried about a deepening suspicion that McCain becomes psychologically unhinged when he is confronted or opposed. Here is the ad by Rommney this past Monday that focused my attention on his :

Rommney’s anti-McCain ad

I don’t think Rommney is desperate or dishonest enough to lie about these incidents. I admit I have not fact checked them. I find them alarming, and for some reason they make me think of that weird crack that McCain made in a previous debate, about how he had more scars than Frankenstein. I thought then that that was a strange remark to make in a national debate, because it seemed to come out of nowhere, and is perhaps another indication that he lacks control and has questionable thinking processes.

Considering his years in the Hanoi prison, I wonder if he is psycholigically fit to be in as stressful a postion as POTUS. As I said in the earlier comment, the thought of him being in charge of the military actually scares me. That really surprises me, because I am very pro-military and gung ho on the war on terror. I hear time and time again about people who are voting for McCain simply because they think that only he can beat Hillary. This reasoning process might actually end up letting a full-fledged Godzilla into the house just to keep a measley little werewolf from getting in.

In the runup to the Florida primary McCain began to accuse Rommney of being soft on the war on terror, claiming that Rommney wanted a timetable like Hillary. This was a flat out lie. He was called on it by the press, and he kept lying about it. When I look back at what I’ve written here, I see that it is all about McCain’s character, personality, and judgment. I would feel much much better if my concern was only about the issues.

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:37 am 58. Michael Smith:

The Democrats are set to push for three things:

1) Tax increases (by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as well as passing additional taxes)

2) Socialized medicine

3) Global warming “emissions restrictions”.

Taken together, these three measures will be an economic disaster.

Trouble is , McCain is on board for all three — at least in the sense that he will not fight hard against any of them.

Roger, you say you are a “one issue” voter, and I understand that, but if we wreck our economy, that will have consequences for our ability to fight the WOT.

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:48 am 59. Greg D:

Hi Roger,

I’m a Republican. John McCain runs under the Republican label, but isn’t one. He’s a “McCainiac.”

It is not just that when his interests differ from those of the Republican party he favors himself over his party. It is that he has chosen to set things up so that his interests differ from those of his party.

John McCain has gotten the press to “love” him by repeatedly screwing over Republicans (see “Gang of 14″). How the hell is “President McCain” going to complain when the Democrats filibuster his nominees? After all, he’s the one who organized Republican Senators to make sure that Democrat Senators could continue to filibuster Bush’s nominees.

As for the Surge et al. Oh great, he’s in favor of fighting al Qaeda. So are Obama and Hillary. The problem is that all three of them are opposed to doing what’s necessary to get the information to fight them effectively.

Which makes the willingness useless.

Besides, this is all just fantasy. The MSM’s love for McCain will disappear the moment he becomes the R nominee. And he will lose in a landslide. because w/o the MSM, he’s nothing.

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:56 am 60. chuck:

Unlike the BSD’ers of the Left, we have solid, rational, ideological grounds for not voting for McCain as the Republican choice. Or even voting *for* Hilary.

Snicker. Derangement is an emotional state, not a rational state. When the Republican chatterati calm down and address the issues — rather than calling McCain a left wing, phony war hero who hates the 1’st amendment and wants to sink the economy — I might give them the benefit of the doubt. But at the moment it looks and sounds like a tantrum.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:01 am 61. Korla Pundit:

In a nutshell, McCain has proven himself to be in the Democratic camp, and he is a compulsive liar and self-righteous rage-a-holic.

But the main problem psychologically with McCain is that he wants everybody to like him. Not only “journalists” who reveal national security secrets. Not only leftists in Congress who want to dismantle the Constitution and give away our sovereignty. Not only foreigners who hate our form of government and capitalism, whose latest attack on our economy is the global warming scam.

But he also wants to be admired and respected by our enemies who want us dead. He’s addicted to flattery to the extent that he’s willing to give Al Qaeda Constitutional privileges and access to our court system.

It’s pathological.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:04 am 62. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: Heh….

“Snicker. Derangement is an emotional state, not a rational state. When the Republican chatterati calm down and address the issues — rather than calling McCain a left wing, phony war hero who hates the 1’st amendment and wants to sink the economy — I might give them the benefit of the doubt.” — chuck

You better go back and read some of the comments above, chuckie. You’re reminding me of the people Bruce Catton describes. See my comment on what amounted to Lincoln Derangement Syndrome, as manifested in the Southern States in 1860.

Pay particular attention to item #2 in the list.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is none so blind as he who will not read.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:25 am 63. chuck:

In a nutshell, McCain has proven himself to be in the Democratic camp, and he is a compulsive liar and self-righteous rage-a-holic.

See what I mean? All the self-righteous rage-a-holics are coming out of the closet.

But he also wants to be admired and respected by our enemies who want us dead. He’s addicted to flattery to the extent that he’s willing to give Al Qaeda Constitutional privileges and access to our court system.

And he probably plays golf with Bin Laden on Sundays.

It’s pathological.

Absolutely.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:27 am 64. jimmy mack:

John McCain’s ‘hispanic advisor’ has a name…

Juan Hernandez.

A very dangerous man, who quite frankly makes my skin crawl. Americans thinking about supporting Mr. McCain for president would be wise to check this character out.

Senator McCain is an American hero who has served his country with great pride, however, he will ‘never’ get my vote as long as he has Mr. Hernandez as part of his ‘advisory team’

In the words of Teddy Roosevelt,

“There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people”.

Juan Hernandez makes no bones about the fact his loyalty is first and foremost to Mexico.

Mr. McCain should ‘wise up and cut this man loose’ ASAP.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:29 am 65. David C:

I love the way comments arguing against blog posts like Roger’s inevitably prove the original author’s point.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:29 am 66. Michael J. Totten:

All this talk of McCain “betraying” the Republican Party is creepy and more than a little off-putting. I had this same crap thrown at me for “betraying” the Democratic Party when I supported the war in Iraq. I have since left the Democratic Party since that is how I am perceived.

A senator and president owes loyalty to country, not party, far more than a mere writer like me does.

It is not the job of a senator to promote the interest of his or her party. It is the job of a senator to promote the interests of his or her state, which includes huge numbers of people from both major parties.

It is especially not the job of a president to promote the interests of his or her party. The president of the United States is the president of all of us and owes his or allegiance to the country far more than to his or her “base.”

Too much “dissing” of the base can make a person unelectable, and a candidate owes at least some allegiance to the base for that practical reason, but McCain hasn’t had that problem so far. Quite the opposite, in fact. He cannot, by definition, be betraying his party if his party picks him as its leader.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:41 am 67. Lem:

When push comes to shove… If you all antimacaniats really feel that way…

There is no way any of you are voting for Hillary.

I wouldn’t be surprise if many anti McCain posters here are really Hillary supporters.

You know who you are.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:53 am 68. Laura:

I have loathed McCain for MANY years for all the reason folks have stated above (open borders with Mexico, opposing tax cuts, undermining Bush’s judicial appointments with the Gang of 14, undermining the President during a time of war by falsely accusing him of torture and seeking to allow the enemy to defeat us using our own court system [by giving them access to it as if the were American citizens]), but I can assure you, Roger, that my hatred of McCain starting many years ago with his most heinous act of all– McCain/Feingold. McCain OUTLAWED political free speech at the time citizens need it the most– near an election.

This is nothing less that a repeal of the First Amendment, and it frightens me how few people take this as seriously as they should. Would you even consider voting for President a man who had gotten passed a bill that allowed the State to shut down newspapers that criticized the government because such criticism is too “divisive”? Would you even consider electing voting for a man who had gotten a law passed declaring all religions but Protestant Christianity to be illegal, since religious differences are the cause of so much strife in the world?

If the answer is no, the why do you believe free speech is somehow less of a right than freedom of the press and freedom of religion? All three are in the First Amemdment. Are some civil rights more equal than others?

Finally, I’d like to address all of the above commenters who said they’d hold their noses and vote for McCain if he were the Republican nominee, as well as those commenters who feel it would be silly and “childish” to sit it out or even vote Democrat just because the Republican nominee was so antithetical to conservative beliefs:

George Will himself (hardly a wild-eyed demagogue, Roger) wrote yesterday that there is almost no difference between the Clintons and McCain.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will012808.php3

Think about everything bad that you’re afraid a Democrat would do if elected. Give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants? We know McCain would too; heck, he TRIED. Raise taxes (repeal the tax cuts)? McCain would too. Appoint liberal, make-it-up-as-you-go-along judges to the Supreme Court? McCain already said publically that he wouldn’t have appointed Alito, because he “wore his conservative credentials on his sleeve.” Belittle and accuse bad faith of those that disagree with him/her? McCain has done that repeatedly, accusing fellow Republicans of being racist for opposing his amnesty plan, deliberately misquoting Romney by claiming Romney wanted a timetable to withdraw the troops when Romney in fact said the opposite, and using the language of class warfare and scorning private business owners who seek profit (as if that were something shameful).

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012908/content/01125108.member.html.member.html

The only different characteristic McCain might have from the Democrat nominee is the War on Terror. For all you single-issue voters (and btw, I agree that this is of extreme importantance), two things:

One, once a Democrat is in the White House, the Mainstream Media will finally start seeing lots and lots of progress in Iraq (the same way the papers lauded Bill Clinton’s fantastic economy but ignored or outright lied about Bush’s better one). With a Democrat in charge, it would be easier to stay in Iraq longer, because the Dems and their friends in the MSM will talk about how much better thing are now. Yes, that improvement will have bee due to Bush and Petraeus, not the Democrat suddenly in the White House, but as The Gipper himself said, “You can get anything you want done as long as you don’t care who gets the credit.”

So, especially now that the momentum in Iraq is in our favor, I see no difference between the policies of a President McCain and a President Hillary/Obama. BUT! Here is the REAL difference– if President Hillary/Obama tried to raise taxes, or pass an amnesty bill, or take us out of Iraq too early, the Republicans in the House and Senate would FIGHT it. There would be OPPOSITION. The Republican party would assert its conservative ideals and try to get the votes and the support AGAINST that President’s bad plans.

But, as we have seen with George W. Bush, Republicans in the House and Senate will simply not go against the President if he too is a Republican, no matter how bad, expensive, or unconservative those ideas might be. Remember Congress passing McCain/Feingold when the president looked like he’d sign it. Remember the intrusive and expensive new government programs like No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug program, and the Department of Homeland Defense, just to name a few.

Under Bush, the Republican Party as a whole got dragged to the left because it wouldn’t oppose the lefty ideas of a Republican President. But if the President were a member of the OPPOSITION PARTY, the Republican Party and the Republicans in Congress would do everything they could to OPPOSE that President’s lefty ideas, the result being A) the lefty ideas have less chance of becoming popular and passing; and B) the Republican Party STOPS moving left and starts rediscovering its conservative principles, now that it no longer feels obligated to support a Republican President.

In conclusion (and bless you if you stayed with me this long), I, as a conservative, truly believe a Democrat President would be better for the WOT, the Constitution, and the economy than a President McCain.

The “deranged” hatred for McCain, Roger, hardly appeared suddenly when McCain became potentially powerful; the vast majority of McCain’s Republican angry opposition that you’re referring to has come from conservatives who are terrified and disgusted that this man, whom we have rightfully detested for many years, appears to be in the position of representing the Republican Party… and might even acheive the power of the President of the United States.

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:54 am 69. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David C
RE: Soooo…..

“I love the way comments arguing against blog posts like Roger’s inevitably prove the original author’s point.” — David C

….are we to understand that you are opposed to the Bill of Rights?

That you support McCain-Feingold 2002 and that one cannot say critical thinks about incumbent members of Congress?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jan 30, 2008 - 11:59 am 70. Chris:

“I think by any rational comparison the importance of The Surge vs. waterboarding and Gitmo isn’t remotely close.”

A rational comparison can’t be attempted for they are all inseparably linked on the war on terror.

Consider any single one changed to Juan McCain’s demand and the fatal influence it will have on all three.

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:00 pm 71. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Micheal J. Totten
RE: On the Nosey

“A senator and president owes loyalty to country, not party, far more than a mere writer like me does.” — Michael J. Totten

Hence my distress at McCain’s involvement with an act of Congress that strikes at the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Especially looking at it from the perspective of a professional military officer.

It is, as we would say in the military, a ‘key indicator’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Keep up the good work over there…..

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:05 pm 72. Right Wing Nutter:

I’ve got problems with McCain, all covered above.

I’ve got problems with Romney, all covered above.

That’s it for the GOP, none of the others have a chance at the nomination. If I could assemble a Frankenstein monster presidential candidate there would be pieces of all the GOP guys who took a shot at the job (except Dr. Paul).

I’ll vote for Mitt on Super Tuesday. My bottom line is that I’d rather have McCain in the White House than either Clinton or Obama. I’ll hold my nose and vote GOP in November rather than sit it out.

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:13 pm 73. Michael Smith:

I think Laura has a good point. Earlier, I pointed to the three major legislative pushes we can expect from the Democrats after the 2008 election:

1) Tax increases (by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as well as passing additional taxes)

2) Socialized medicine

3) Global warming “emissions restrictions”.

If these measures are proposed by a President Clinton or a President Obama, we can expect the Republicans in congress to fight them. However, if these measures are proposed by the Democrats in congress while McCain is president, McCain will react the same way Bush did: he will either offer no opposition or will suggest a compromise that gives the Democrats most of what they want.

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:37 pm 74. chuck:

I’ll vote for Mitt on Super Tuesday. My bottom line is that I’d rather have McCain in the White House than either Clinton or Obama. I’ll hold my nose and vote GOP in November rather than sit it out.

By any objective measure based on executive experience, Mitt is the most qualified of all the candidates, Republican or Democratic. So the question is, why hasn’t he done better? And I guess the answer is, that politics and business are very different occupations. In politics, the “change” rhetoric of an Obama can work wonders, no one is going to ask for a business plan. After party, I think what motivates voters is the “feel” of the man or woman. Nor do I think that is necessarily shallow: the complexities of picking the best on objective criterion probably makes the task impossible. And I suspect Wilson and Hoover would both rate highly by such criterion, but they were perhaps not the best of presidents.

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:42 pm 75. jburack:

I agree with Roger. I emailed the following earlier this morning to some friends.

My view.

Very relieved McCain beat Romney, given that Giuliani was imploding anyway. Mccain appears now to be on his way to wrapping this up. I must say again, however, it boggles my mind how “conservatives” in the party have been indulging in their McCain hate-fest.

Take the immigration issue. First, even assuming McCain really is for “amnesty,” does he truly plan to amnesty more illegals than conservative hero Ronald Reagan actually did in 1986? Reagan was every bit as much a pragmatist and compromiser as the right ideologues now trash McCain for being. Phony Reagan idolatry irritates me these days almost as much as the hyper-ventilating against McCain. In any case, since NO ONE is EVER going to deport any of the illegals already here, the issue for conservatives is, first, how to tighten the border, and second, how to strengthen the assimilation process. It is not and never will be how to kick these people out.

But strengthening the assimilation process would require conservatives to learn, finally, how to take on the grievance-identity industry intelligently enough to actually change institutional practices and cultures, rather than posture in exactly the same way the left likes to do. Much harder work.

On this very ground, Bill and Hillary have offered the Republicans an unbelievable golden opportunity, one which only McCain (and absolutely not Romney) can possibly capitalize on. By angering blacks, the Clintons have put that rock-solid constituency in play in a way it has not been for a long time. And by Hillary’s banking on a racist appeal to Hispanics, the Democrats have given Republicans a chance to appeal to that constituency on conservative and assimilationist grounds rather than in the left-reactionary way the Democrats now must, assuming Hillary is their candidate.

Do conservatives realize that McCain gives them a real shot at cracking apart the heart of the Democratic coalition? Apparently not. My biggest disappointment with Bush has been the failure to go after blacks in forthright terms blacks could understand. To do this now, conservatives will have to have the courage of their own true conservative principles and get over the guilt-flinching and the defensiveness that liberals have learned to provoke in them in order to freeze conservatives out and keep them from a true engagement with blacks. With McCain they also have the chance to do exactly the same with Hispanics. That is, instead of either pompously railing against them, or pandering and promising and flinching before them, a chance to make a tough-love DEAL with them. We help you if you agree to help yourselves.

I despair of this happening, however, even though the open door is there beckoning as never before. Will our infantile rightists grow up, or only take over from the infantile leftists who have so nicely marginalized the Democrats all these years?

Jon

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:50 pm 76. dclydew:

I really don’t understand a couple things.

1. Mitt’s political record is consistently liberal. Only his current rhetoric is conservative. He wanted to pull troops out of Iraq and then later lied about it. He’s been pro-gay marriage, not anti-abortion, pretty liberal in his general policies… and McCain, has on occasion compromised with liberals, while his general record appears rather conservative. Why is McCain’s record worse that Mitt’s?

2. Why is McCain-Feingold a slap at free speech? I just went through the entire thing and while its not very good legislation, it doesn’t seem to impact the First Amendment at all. Everything I can find in the Constitution references the Individual citizen, not a corporation. We certianly don’t extend all of the other rights to corporations, do we? Do corporations have the right to bear arms, or do individuals within the corporation have a right to bear arms? Does a corporation get a vote in the election, or do individuals in a corporation have the right to vote? Are Corporations brought before a jury of their peers? Are corporations named in search warrants? Are corporations read Miranda Rights? Is bail ever set for a corporation? And the tenth amendment says that rights are assigned to the People (not a fictional entity run by people).

Consider this, the reason that corporations exist is to limit the liability of the individuals within the corporation. If an individual accidentally causes a loss, they are limited in how much liability they personally have. To paraphrase Spiderman’s Uncle, “With Limited Responsibility, comes limited power.”

Boston vs Bellotti, the Supreme court case that decided corporations were protected under the amendment was a 5/4 split with most conservatives on the side of “No”. Here’s what Justice Rehnquist said when the decision was handed down (he dissented): “It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere. Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist.”

So, while I respect those who are of the opinion that corporations have freedom of speech, I think, at least, we should all be able to agree that this is murky water at best. McCain may be right or wrong in limiting the free speech of corporations (which is what McCain-Feingold tried to do), but this isn’t clear cut, it isn’t a trouncing of the first amendment, its not a slap in the face or failing to uphold the constitution…

From my perspective, Judge Rehnquist was right. Corporations don’t need political expression and the fact that a multi-billion dollar corporation could throw its weight behind a candidate can.. and has caused problems. Consider, for example, that most of the money earned by a corporation is earned by all members of that corporation, that is, from the factory floor to the CEO’s office, everyone contributes to the bottom line. However, the use of those funds are controlled by a few people. Thus, those few people could use money earned by everyone to back a candidate that none of the employees particularly like. The corporation, in this case, is not expressing free speech. Rather, the board of directors are using corporate money to back their personally favored candidate.

McCain Feingold has problems, some of the FEC implementations have left much to be desired. However, thats how our nation works, a law gets put in place, it gets tested and hopefully improved. MF needs improved and clarified, or maybe even repealed. BUT, it is not a clear cut example of evil, it can in no sane way be seen as McCain stomping on Free Speech, the issue is far more complex than that.

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:54 pm 77. TeachESL:

None of the current GOP candidates really appeal to me. I saw McCain on one of the debates and he was stammering all over the place! But there is a person who has recently declared his candidacy. His name is Jerry Curry. Please go to http://www.curryforamerica.com and take a look. I’m sure you’ll like what you see!

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:54 pm 78. Paul:

So let’s see, serious and specifically enumerated policy differences and easily verifiable character flaws for McCain equals Bush is worse than Hitler, is the world’s biggest terrorist, and thrills at the thought of soldiers heads being blown off.

Waterboarding equals blowtorchs and power tools.

Terrorists hiding behind women and children equal uniformed soldiers and thus should be subject to the same Geneva convention rights.

Rush Limbaugh equals Daily Kos and DU.

The new “moderate” platform!

Jan 30, 2008 - 12:57 pm 79. Gregor:

Only one problem with your theory.

Conservatives have hated John McCain for years, long before it was even thought of that he could possibly be the Republican nominee for President.

It has absolutely nothing to do with his current position of power. It’s simply the fact that he’s an absolutely pathetic fraud who’s repeatedly sold out and insulted conservatives.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:01 pm 80. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Gregor
RE: Another Problem…

“Only one problem with your theory.

Conservatives have hated John McCain for years…” — Gregor

…and I think this is another ‘key indicator’….

…it’s not ‘hate’.

The ‘deranged’ do that; hate.

I don’t hate McCain. I didn’t hate Bill Clinton.

I just think the latter was one of the worst presidents in American history. [Note: And in the fullness of time, I'm confident my opinion will be borne out as accurate.]

I think the former has presented himself as lacking the necessary backbone to support the Constitution of the United States. He’s proven that in 2002. In the military, if you deal with such simple things as the mail, it’s referred to as ‘moral turpitude’.

Or….’would you hire a felon to enforce the law’?

[Note: Admittedly, the District of Columbia, doesn't seem to mind that last bit. But then again, they've got SOOOOO many unsolved 'murders' surrounding political figures....Foster, Mahoney, Levy. I'm sure with a little more work I could come up with more instances. But I'm confident even you can get the 'drift'.]

There is no ‘hate’ involved. Just rational, self-interest, vis-a-vis the chief executive of the land.

Hope that helps….but I have my doubts….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime does not pay...as well as politics.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:18 pm 81. chuck:

It has absolutely nothing to do with his current position of power. It’s simply the fact that he’s an absolutely pathetic fraud who’s repeatedly sold out and insulted conservatives.

I must say that nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such. I don’t regard this sort of rhetoric as conservative, I regard it as freaking nuts. And I’m not having any, thank you.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:19 pm 82. Lem:

Romney’s big dig was supposed to cost tax payers around 2 billion dollars. In the end we picked up a tab of over 14 billion dollars.

Romney presided over one, if not the worst, mismanaged construction projects in the history of the United States.

McCain may be flawed, but Romney is no saint.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:21 pm 83. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Gregor
RE: Another Problem…

“Only one problem with your theory.

Conservatives have hated John McCain for years…” — Gregor

…and I think this is another ‘key indicator’….

…it’s not ‘hate’.

The ‘deranged’ do that; hate.

I don’t hate McCain. I didn’t hate Bill Clinton.

I just think the latter was one of the worst presidents in American history. [Note: And in the fullness of time, I'm confident my opinion will be borne out as accurate.]

I think the former has presented himself as lacking the necessary backbone to support the Constitution of the United States. He’s proven that in 2002. In the military, if you deal with such simple things as the mail, it’s referred to as ‘moral turpitude’.

Or….’would you hire a felon to enforce the law’?

[Note: Admittedly, the District of Columbia, doesn't seem to mind that last bit. But then again, they've got SOOOOO many unsolved 'murders' surrounding political figures....Foster, Mahoney, Levy. I'm sure with a little more work I could come up with more instances. But I'm confident even you can get the 'drift'.]

There is no ‘hate’ involved. Just rational, self-interest, vis-a-vis the chief executive of the land.

Hope that helps….but I have my doubts….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime does not pay...as well as politics.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:23 pm 84. dclydew:

So let’s see, serious and specifically enumerated policy differences and easily verifiable character flaws for McCain equals Bush is worse than Hitler, is the world’s biggest terrorist, and thrills at the thought of soldiers heads being blown off.

I agree that this is an insane statement and blown far out of proportion.

Waterboarding equals blowtorchs and power tools.

I don’t think that anyone has stated that. I think Mr. McCain has stated only that waterboarding was torture and should be illegal. Since we tried Japanese soldiers from WWII for War Crimes for waterboarding… I can see his point. You may not agree, but in this instance I would say that you are making an insane statement blown out of proportion.

Terrorists hiding behind women and children equal uniformed soldiers and thus should be subject to the same Geneva convention rights.

Well, at least this time you tried to include some emotion to sway people. However, the basic statement is one I agree with. All fighters should be tried under the GC. Simply because today’s fighters are not like the ones we fought in the past, doesn’t mean they aren’t fighters, nor does it mean we should lower our own moral standards in dealing with them. Terrorism and Insurgency are part of modern Fourth Gen warfare and they will be from here on out if you listen to any military expert. The British thought Revolutionaries in the US weren’t soldiers (because we refused to wear those silly costumes and stand in line waiting our turn to shoot or be shot), but it was simply because they were behind in the ways of war. Get with the times, or you’ll be left behind.

Rush Limbaugh equals Daily Kos and DU.

The difference I see between the two is the medium they use to spread their partisan bullshit. You may not like it and DK’s readers might not like it… but that doesn’t really matter in the end. Blowhards and blowhards and I see little difference between Richard Dawkins, Rush Limbaugh, Kos, Fred Phelps and any other individual too full of their own shit to consider that they might be wrong or in need of an enema.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:24 pm 85. Steven Mitchell:

I’m pretty sure McCain has it sewn up. I can’t stand the man, personally, ethically, politically, etc. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that I will be voting for him in November. And I don’t mean in the, “maybe if I feel like voting that day,” sense either. I’ll walk through tornado weather, if necessary.

Voting for McCain is like voting for Nixon. It’s a bad choice, but still the correct one–despite knowing that McCain being president will come with some bad effects that you can predict, and probably more that you cannot. This is true *even if* McCain does to the Republican party what Nixon did. Merely because a sizable fringe of the Democrats will take political advantage of Republicans doing the heavy lifting, it does not remove the thinking citizens’ obligations.

This situation isn’t the Republicans’ fault. It is certainly not conservatives’ fault. It’s not even McCain’s fault. In 1968, when the Democrats decided that they were no longer interested in nominating grownups, they ceded the grownup vote to the Republican primary. With only one party to pick from, the chances that we will get a quality center-right to true conservative candidate ever year are very slight, especially when we consider that we have to take into account all the liberal and moderate grownups that don’t have anywhere else to go. This stinks, but that is the way things are–and it is the way things will stay until the Democrats spend so long in the wilderness that they have no choice but to acknowledge it.

I will admit that the brief window where Huckabee appeared to be a credible threat for the nomination concentrated my mind greatly. It pushed into perspective all reservations I had with McCain and the other credible Republican nominees. I will always vote for the candidate I consider the best for the country, no matter how much it hurts. In a Huckabee/Clinton contest, I’d be hard pressed to decide between two people with teenage maturity. Whatever else is wrong with him, McCain is a grownup.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:26 pm 86. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Lem
RE: Last Person….

“McCain may be flawed, but Romney is no saint.” — Lem

….I know of who was ‘perfect’, got nailed to a tree for it.

By politicians, too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Are we learning yet? -- Young John Conner, Terminator 2]

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:27 pm 87. chuck:

It has absolutely nothing to do with his current position of power. It’s simply the fact that he’s an absolutely pathetic fraud who’s repeatedly sold out and insulted conservatives.

I must say that nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such. I don’t regard this sort of rhetoric as conservative, I regard it as freaking nuts. And I’m not having any, thank you.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:27 pm 88. dclydew:

….I know of who was ‘perfect’, got nailed to a tree for it.

By politicians, too.

Politicans? Well, maybe they helped, but it was the conservative religious leaders of the Jewish system that put the crowd into a frenzy… Pilate just gave them what they asked for (Barabbas free, Jesus dead). I mean, if you believe the story in the Bible, that is. Yet more examples of Religion+Politics = Great Wrong.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:31 pm 89. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: Really?

“I must say that nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such.” — chuck

Funny.

I think I’ve seen the so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ doing that more than the conservatives.

Case in point….

A couple years ago, there was this liberal/progressive confab in either Tennessee or Kentucky.

During the event the feminists stormed out because the PETA-types put on a fashion show. Or something like that.

Please show us where the alleged ‘conservatives’ are so overly-sensitive.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. What was I saying about ‘derangement’ vis-a-vis 1860?

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:31 pm 90. dclydew:

Chuck, your last post didn’t seem to make much sense, could you reword it? Currently it looks like you’re providing an example that has nothing to do with the quote.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:34 pm 91. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Still and All….

“Politicans? Well, maybe they helped, but it was the conservative religious leaders of the Jewish system that put the crowd into a frenzy…” — dclydew

…they WERE ‘politicians’. The LEADERS of their day.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[How quickly we forget....]

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:36 pm 92. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Last Post

“Chuck, your last post didn’t seem to make much sense, could you reword it? Currently it looks like you’re providing an example that has nothing to do with the quote.” — dclydew

Maybe you could pay more attention to Life as it goes by.

In truth, the item was not addressed to you, but since you expressed an interest, I AM providing an example. One of how the liberals/progressives turn on each other at the drop of the proverbial ‘hat[e]‘. Much more so than so-called ‘conservatives’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In politics stupidity is not a handicap.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:40 pm 93. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Then again, this site seems to have some interesting site-affects, i.e., weirdness in displaying text.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:47 pm 94. Korla Pundit:

>All fighters should be tried under the GC. Simply because today’s fighters are not like the ones we fought in the past, doesn’t mean they aren’t fighters, nor does it mean we should lower our own moral standards in dealing with them.

The Geneva Convention does in fact describe our current foes as illegal combatants. They do not receive the same protections as uniformed military.

But beyond all the legal mumbo-jumbo, what motivates somebody like McCain to give so much of a crap about how distressed Khalid Sheik Mohammed was when we made him think he was drowning? Is this murderer’s comfort more important than getting him to spill the beans on ongoing plots that were disrupted thanks to waterboarding?

Dems (including McCain) don’t have their priorities straight. Safety of Americans first. Comfort and relaxation for Al Qaeda terrorists comes dead last.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:50 pm 95. dclydew:

TO: dclydew

…they WERE ‘politicians’. The LEADERS of their day.

Err, yes and they were religious leaders as well. Sorry if that point was clear enough…

Maybe you could pay more attention to Life as it goes by.

Ummm, sure.

In truth, the item was not addressed to you, but since you expressed an interest, I AM providing an example.

I replied to it because I was interested in what you were saying, but it didn’t make sense to me. You seem a bit hostile, did I piss you off over something?

One of how the liberals/progressives turn on each other at the drop of the proverbial ‘hat[e]‘. Much more so than so-called ‘conservatives’.

But, that has nothing to do with what Chuck stated. He said “nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such.”

He didn’t say Conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat each other up. He was saying that conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat on conservatives.

Your example plotted two extreme Left-Wing groups, considered crazy by the majority of Americans and the majority of Dems. Femminazis and PETA? That’s like hauling Fred Phelps out and using his attacks on the military as an example of conservative fighting. Your example was poorly chosen for your point… and your point still seems unrelated in any meaningful way to the quote.

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:51 pm 96. Paul:

dclydew

“Well, at least this time you tried to include some emotion to sway people. However, the basic statement is one I agree with. All fighters should be tried under the GC. Simply because today’s fighters are not like the ones we fought in the past, doesn’t mean they aren’t fighters, nor does it mean we should lower our own moral standards in dealing with them. Terrorism and Insurgency are part of modern Fourth Gen warfare and they will be from here on out if you listen to any military expert. The British thought Revolutionaries in the US weren’t soldiers (because we refused to wear those silly costumes and stand in line waiting our turn to shoot or be shot), but it was simply because they were behind in the ways of war. Get with the times, or you’ll be left behind.”

You REALLY need to read this.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

Jan 30, 2008 - 1:57 pm 97. Chuck Pelto:

TO:
RE: Conservative-on-Conservative Bashing

“He didn’t say Conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat each other up. He was saying that conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat on conservatives.” — dclydew

And I didn’t say he didn’t.

I just pointed out that the so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ are more apt to beat up on each other than are the conservatives.

As for the idea that conservatives beat on each other more, show me your proof….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Especially if there is not supporting evidence they can cite.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:04 pm 98. dclydew:

The Geneva Convention does in fact describe our current foes as illegal combatants. They do not receive the same protections as uniformed military

I thought maybe I was wrong, so I just checked the document and it doesn’t contain the word illegal or combatant anywhere. In fact the term doesn’t seem to appear in any treaty. I do recall that one of the International Tribunals (Yugoslavia?) basically said that either the person was a soldier and thus a POW and covered by the GC, or they were a civillian and covered by the GC. The ruling clearly stated that there is no intermediate state.

But beyond all the legal mumbo-jumbo, what motivates somebody like McCain to give so much of a crap about how distressed Khalid Sheik Mohammed was when we made him think he was drowning? Is this murderer’s comfort more important than getting him to spill the beans on ongoing plots that were disrupted thanks to waterboarding?

I disagree completely and I think I might resent what you just stated. I disagree with waterboarding because I find it morally repugnant. It has nothing to do with the comfort of the prisoner. In fact, I would just as soon have them tried and shot, which we could do if they were POW’s.

Also, I don’t think the safety of Americans comes first. If we place the safety of Americans in one instance above a compromise of our moral position, or legal position and our word as given to the International community, we will have done far more harm to every American than even another 9/11.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:07 pm 99. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Fred Phelps and Company

“That’s like hauling Fred Phelps out and using his attacks on the military as an example of conservative fighting.” — dclydew

I can ‘handle’ Fred AND all his congregation.

I have the ‘equipment’. I have the ’spirit’. And ‘hate’ has nothing to do with it.

Real christians don’t do that thing.

However, the so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ hate all to readily. And therein lies the proverbial difference.

Seriously….

….watch them. All you have to do is ‘disagree’ with them and they will ‘hate’ you for it.

And, heaven forefend, you should be able to prove your point in a cogent manner. Why….they’ll hate you all the more. And, if they have it in their power, they WILL ‘kill’ you. Either figuratively, i.e., kick/ban/kill you on their web-site, or…in due time, literally.

I don’t hear of many incidents of Democrat Party offices being shot at or the tires on their vehicles slashed. Not nearly as much as I hear of Republican [read that as 'conservative'] Party offices having such done.

There’s another ‘example’ for you to chew on.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Military Intelligence is not an oxymoron...except to true morons.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:13 pm 100. chuck:

He didn’t say Conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat each other up. He was saying that conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat on conservatives.

What I was saying was that in my mind conservatives should have the following characteristics: maturity, consideration, cool judgment, perspective, pragmatism, acceptance of life’s imperfections, suspicion of miraculous cures, and the ability to compromise when needed to achieve larger ends. Hot headed rhetoric and demonizing doesn’t fit my view of conservative.

I think the example of feminists storming out on PETA (if such happened), is a good example of non-conservative behavior, but not too different from what is going on with regards to McCain right now. Conservatism is a larger concept than a set of check boxes in a list of beliefs, I think it also encompasses attitude and behavior.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:16 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Okay….

“I do recall that one of the International Tribunals (Yugoslavia?) basically said that either the person was a soldier and thus a POW and covered by the GC, or they were a civillian and covered by the GC.” — dclydew

Show me in the Convention where it describes people engaged in combat operations without the use of uniforms and/or insignia.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:17 pm 102. dclydew:

You REALLY need to read this.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

While I appreciate the authors emotion, their facts are not right. This isn’t some unhead of military tactic, insurgencies without uniforms aren’t some magical new thing. I agree with everything stated about the despicable nature of such an insurgency. I agree that it makes the situation much more difficult for our soldiers and I also agree that it shows a near inhuman feeling for their fellow citizens that get tagged in the process.

However, and this is the real sticking point. The US signed a treaty. We gave our word. The treaty doesn’t have an option for unlawful combatants. And as I mentioned earlier, existing case law makes clear that a prisoner is either a soldier and therefore a POW and covered under GC 3, or they are a citizen and covered under GC 4. That’s it. There is no Unlawful Combatant options in the treaty we signed. Either our word can be trusted, or it can’t. I personally do my best to always keep my word (it is better not to swear and do, than swear and not do).

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:17 pm 103. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: The ‘Ability’?

“….and the ability to compromise when needed to achieve larger ends.” — chuck

I can compromise. On some thinks.

However, on such thinks as Freedom of Speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights, I am not all that willing.

Hows ’bout you?

You willing to give up your right to express yourself?

If so…please sign on the dotted line….below….

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I don’t care if someone puts duct tape over my mouth and ties my fingers together while taking away my computer-internet access…..

Signed:……………………….., a.k.a., bozo.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:21 pm 104. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. According to Catton….

President-Elect Lincoln was ALL FOR ‘compromise’.

But the Southern States seceded before he even got into office.

Talk about ‘derangement syndrome’. They were the FIRST and the grandest.

Too bad that 600,000 young men died trying to overcome their ‘derangement’….while freeing the blacks/negroes/african-americans from slavery.

All done at the ‘hands’ and by the blood of a nation lead by….heaven forefend….a Republican administration.

And what reward did he get? A bullet in the head by another ‘Derangement Syndrome’ afficianado.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:28 pm 105. chuck:

I don’t care if someone puts duct tape over my mouth and ties my fingers together while taking away my computer-internet access…..

Signed:……………………….., a.k.a., bozo.

Thanks for illustrating my point. Calling folks you don’t know “bozo” and putting words in their mouth is at best childish. But in no sense is it conservative.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:29 pm 106. dclydew:

Chuck(le),

There’s another ‘example’ for you to chew on.

Err… Yeah, there are some real crazies on the left. Overall, they’re much more violent than the crazies on the right. However, the crazies on either side are not the norm (which was my point).

In the end, your example still has nothing to do with what Chuck stated.

Show me in the Convention where it describes people engaged in combat operations without the use of uniforms and/or insignia.

Err, I think you may be confused. There are four Conventions that make up the overall GC. The US has signed all of them. AQ and terrorists don’t match the current standards for a normal POW (though I would wager that this will change or the GC will become irrelevant as war continues to evolve into distributed insurgencies… heck, what do we do with a Chinese hacker that takes out the DoD network during an attack?)

However, the fourth convention is basically a catch all… if you don’t fit in the POW group, then you are a civilian. There is NO wording that supports the concept of unlawful combatants being OK for torture.

Even if we were to place GC 4 aside for some reason, there is still the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The US has ratified both of these and they explicitly cover ALL people in custody under all circumstances. There are several other International agreements that the US has signed which make very clear that ANY torture, of ANY sort is not allowed on ANY prisoner, be they POW or civilian. There is NO treaty that I have found anywhere that even mentions the concept of Unlawful Combatant.

Are you actually holding these opinions, or are you just trolling the site?

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:31 pm 107. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Not Paying Attention?

“However, and this is the real sticking point.” — dclydew

Where does the Convention address people engaged in combat without using uniforms or some other form of insignia?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[That's two....]

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:32 pm 108. dclydew:

Where does the Convention address people engaged in combat without using uniforms or some other form of insignia?

Article 4.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:34 pm 109. dclydew:

And in return, where in the convention or any other signed treaty do the words Unlawful Combatant appear, or is the concept of unlawful combatant stated?

Where, in any signed agreement between the US an other parties, is torture permitted?

Where, in any signed agreement between the US and other parties is indefinate detention permitted?

Where, in any US law (if we say fuck the international community), is torture stated as being OK… EVER?

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:38 pm 110. Paul:

I’m just a simple and practical man. To refuse to waterboard someone in order to save one American life, let alone thousands, is an act of extreme puritanism that I find as breathtakingly woodenheaded and immoral as just about anything I can imagine. If there was cosmic justice holders of such views would be subjected to the consequences of such views on a very personal level. Unfortunately that is not the case.

I think it was Mark Twain who said, “The greatest weakness of all is the weakness of virtue untested.” As far as I’m concerned you’re in the same general category as all puritanical zealots who are a danger to free peoples everywhere. I just wonder how “pure” you would remain if you had to choose between waterboarding a psychopath or seeing your family tortured and killed.

I’m done here. This used to be a good blog but it’s become the place of a new kind of narrow minded and ignorant hard liners that purport to be “moderates”.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:38 pm 111. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Try….

“Are you actually holding these opinions, or are you just trolling the site?” — dclydew

…not to be too obtuse.

You can observe my comments here being corroborated at http://www.comensaration.info.

RE: Try….

“Err, I think you may be confused. There are four Conventions that make up the overall GC. The US has signed all of them. AQ and terrorists don’t match the current standards for a normal POW (though I would wager that this will change or the GC will become irrelevant as war continues to evolve into distributed insurgencies… heck, what do we do with a Chinese hacker that takes out the DoD network during an attack?)” — dclydew

….not to be too obfuscating.

I asked you a simple question. Something akin I asked all military/government bureaucrats whenever they made such broad statements as you have here about some matter or other….

….SHOW ME….book/chapter/verse….in your regulations/ordinances/statutes/laws where it says such.

In this case….where does the Geneva Convention address people who engage in combat operations while not wearing a uniform or other distinctive insignia.

You’ve been asked that twice before. And, now, all you do is evasion.

This, on your part, is not indicative of someone who is trying to carry on an honest discussion.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[That's three......]

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:40 pm 112. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: Aaaahhhh

“Thanks for illustrating my point. Calling folks you don’t know “bozo” and putting words in their mouth is at best childish. But in no sense is it conservative.” — chuck

But I’m not calling you a ‘bozo’. I’m offering you the opportunity to sign a document that says you agree that the Bill of Rights is stupid.

You can choose to agree with that or not. If you agree….sign on the dotted line. Don’t obfuscate. Be proud of your hatred for everything so many millions of men and women have died for….just so you can say their sacrifice was ‘worthless’.

Come on! Be a ‘man’. For ONCE in your life….stand for SOMETHING….ANYTHING….even if it is horribly wrong.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Greater love hath no man than this....that he lay down his life for a friend. -- some Wag, around 2000 years ago.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:44 pm 113. Korla Pundit:

> Also, I don’t think the safety of Americans comes first.

That’s why you, and John McCain, have no business being the President of the United States.

The end.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:45 pm 114. dclydew:

Paul,

I understand your position. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it and I see it as rational. My argument here isn’t that my position IS the right position. Simply put, I don’t Know what the right answer is, its a damned complicated issue. So is Campaign finance reform, so is illegal immigration.

All of this hating on McCain is over stuff that isn’t cut and dried. it’s not straightforward. Unlawful Combatant is a non-existant thing… but there’s something to be said for trying to save American lives. While the finance reform package is a cumbersome and “Work Needed” sort of thing, its not an outright slap at the first amendment. While McCain isn’t trying to send all the illegals back to Mexico, he’s not a Democrat either.

I fled the Democratic side of the aisle, because people couldn’t seperate real issues from opinion. EVERY argument presented here against John McCain, has two sides and both sides have arguments that are well founded and pro-American. Is the Republican side also so closed minded that we must all march to a dogmatic chant of Right and Wrong, or is there still room in at least one political party for a disagreement without mud slingling and hate?

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:46 pm 115. Peter G.:

OK, got it – the refusal to waterboard is immoral.

Which is followed up by calling others “narrow minded and ignorant hard liners.”

Of course you’ll never prove that waterboarding has ever saved one American life.

I’m not pro or con waterboarding myself.

It seems like old times around here, with the posts going up over 100 (those pre-Pajamas days).

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:46 pm 116. dclydew:

Korla,

Well, you can have a safe nation, I’d prefer a free one with at least a few morals still attached.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:50 pm 117. chuck:

But I’m not calling you a ‘bozo’. I’m offering you the opportunity to sign a document that says you agree that the Bill of Rights is stupid.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:50 pm 118. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Article 4?

“Article 4.” — dclydew

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? [Note: The answer is 42.]

Please cite the text.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Just so we ALL can see and study it.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:50 pm 119. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: Weeeeeellll….

….is the Bill of Rights stupid or not?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:52 pm 120. Roger:

“It seems like old times around here, with the posts going up over 100 (those pre-Pajamas days).”

Interesting, Peter G, because for the last few days, page views at PJM have been over 100,000 daily. So everything is out of whack… or maybe we’re getting dangerously popular.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:52 pm 121. dclydew:

For starters:

Article V of GC III:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Thus, ALL of the captured combatants are to be treated as POW’s until their status has been reviewed by a tribunal. If you will recall, we held combatants for years as ‘Unlawful Combatants’ BEFORE a tribunal was held. Thus we violated this article of the GC.

Now, please answer my questions.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:57 pm 122. dclydew:

Also, note that the only options in the tribunal would be lawful combatant (and thus POW) OR civilian and thus covered under GC IV.

Jan 30, 2008 - 2:59 pm 123. chuck:

“Article 4.” — dclydew

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? [Note: The answer is 42.]

Please cite the text.

Because both numbers contain 4, I suppose. How very clever. But I think dclydew is taking advantage of the fact that you don’t care enough to look it up. And I must say, I think he has made a shrewd play.

TO: chuck
RE: Weeeeeellll….

….is the Bill of Rights stupid or not?

Regards,

As I said, don’t be stupid.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:00 pm 124. Korla Pundit:

> Well, you can have a safe nation, I’d prefer a free one with at least a few morals still attached.

I’m sure you’d also prefer a world full of peace and love, man, and pretty flowers and birds chirping.

Glib generalities and hippy slogans are not luxuries a commander in chief can afford when literally millions of lives are at stake.

Where are your mighty “morals” when a thousand people are killed because you refuse to scare KSM. Not even talking about causing any physical harm to the mass murderer. Just putting a scare into him. How about three thousand you could have saved and refused?

Or how about even just one? Imagine Bush could have rescued Daniel Pearl, but blew it off because KSM in your perfect universe should never even be made the least bit uncomfortable. Is that death not then on Bush’s head? Where’s the morality in making that kind of decision about who dies and who is left cozy and protected by a cadre of lawyers?

Your definition of what constitutes morality is mired in ’70s Superman storylines.

It’s people like you, and McCain, who can’t be trusted with national defense.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:01 pm 125. dclydew:

It’s people like you, and McCain, who can’t be trusted with national defense.

If that requires being willing to throw away morals, trust, freedom and all the other values that this nation was founded on… then I don’t want the job.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:05 pm 126. Korla Pundit:

> If that requires being willing to throw away morals, trust, freedom and all the other values that this nation was founded on… then I don’t want the job.

Good. If only McCain would see it that way.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:09 pm 127. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: That Ever-So-Fine Line

“I’d prefer a free one with at least a few morals still attached.” — dclydew

It’s hard to decide where to draw the line.
However, freedom is not free. One has to do something to maintain it.

And all our laws are based on morality; of one form or another.

Where to draw the line between ‘freedom’ and ’security’ is always the problem.

I suggest that freedom of expression is the quintessential basis of ALL freedom. But it must be buttressed with the freedom to defend oneself…against ALL oppressors; illegal or governmental.

Whomever says the Bill of Rights is wrong or moves in such a manner as to destroy it is, technically speaking, an ‘enemy’ of everything that every man and woman who has sworn the oath of the Armed Forces of the United States has stood in defense of.

That includes elected members of Congress.

And we need to address them in accordance with our oath.

This does not mean we use violence. It means we stand in defense of everything we swore to uphold and defend….against ALL enemies….foreign AND domestic.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And I stand AGAINST McCain, on this account.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:09 pm 128. Korla Pundit:

P.S. You’re confusing “morals” with pacifism and dereliction of duty.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:10 pm 129. dclydew:

Korla,

Of course, I also wouldn’t want to live in a nation that was willing to sacrifice morals, trust, freedom and American values for the possibility that some crazy Arab might, maybe tell us something useful.

He did tell us something useful right? I mean, surely if we risked breaking international law and potentially compromised our moral integrity… we would make sure that people knew EXACTLY how much valuable information we got right? How many people were saved, yes?

Could you possibly quote that info for me? I seem to be having trouble finding it with Google.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:12 pm 130. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: Stupid?

“….is the Bill of Rights stupid or not?

Regards,

As I said, don’t be stupid.” — chuck

Better than evasive.

Why don’t you simple answer the question….Yes or No.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Oh what tangled webs we weave when we first practice to deceive.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:12 pm 131. dclydew:

P.S. You’re confusing “morals” with pacifism and dereliction of duty.

No, you seem to be confusing morals with “whatever position seems convenient at the moment”. I’m not a pacifist in any way shape or form and ‘dereliction of duty’ is about as dead a canard as anything else that’s been posted here today.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:14 pm 132. chuck:

Why don’t you simple answer the question….Yes or No.

Don’t be stupid.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:14 pm 133. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Obfuscation? YOU?!??!?!?!

“Article V of GC III:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” — dclydew

First you say Article 4. Now you’re citing another article??!?!?

Which is it, man??!??!?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:15 pm 134. dclydew:

Ok, I’m out for the night. Enough sparring of words, I’ve got 42″ of Italian steel to fence with tonight.

Good night everyone.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:16 pm 135. Larry J:

Like Chuck Pelto above, I took the same oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. Unlike McCain, I meant it. Even if all the other things he has done didn’t happen, that alone would be enough for me to oppose McCain.

To me, overlooking all the crap that McCain has pulled over the years is like the bad joke, “Other that that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”

I would prefer to vote for someone instead of voting against someone. McCain gives me nothing to vote for. About the only thing in his favor is that the other side would probably suck even worse. If he was the nominee, I don’t think I can find it in me to give him my vote.

That isn’t derangement, Roger. It’s just my honest opinion.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:16 pm 136. Chuck Pelto:

TO: chuck
RE: Hmmmm….

“Don’t be stupid.” — chuck

You’re repeating yourself.

And it makes you look like you’re ‘projecting’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ll take it you are in the affirmative to my question about the Bill of Rights.

After all, English Common Law says silence is to be accepted as the ‘affirmative’, and your obtuse/obfuscational response can be taken as ’silence’.

So you hate the Bill of Rights.

I’ll remind you of that, from time-to-time, should we cross paths again.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:19 pm 137. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dwl
RE: Fencing, Anyone?

“Ok, I’m out for the night. Enough sparring of words, I’ve got 42″ of Italian steel to fence with tonight.” — dclydew

I don’t know about the quality of ‘Italian steel’, but I prefer the epee or the katana or….

….a fully loaded Bradley IFV with a squad of 1-22 Infantry. Or, God grant it, a platoon of paras from 1-508 Infantry.

Enjoy,

Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:23 pm 138. dclydew:

whoops, before I take off.

Chuckle,

Article Five of the Third Genevea Convention is what I quoted. the Fourth Convention is what I meant to say rather than fourth article before.

So to be clear:

Article 5 of the third geneva convention states that if there is ANY question as to your status, then you are to be treated as a POW until a competent tribunal can determine your status. The tribunal (according to the GC and actual case law as quoted earlier) provides only for the options POW or Civilian.

POW’s are covered under the Third Genovea Convention. Civilians are covered under the Fourth Convention (not article as Chuckles has pointed out).

So, do you have answers (with quotes) for the questions I raised, or do you just spout whatever nonsense you hear on talk radio?

Now, I am off to sidesword practice.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:23 pm 139. chuck:

P.S. I’ll take it you are in the affirmative to my question about the Bill of Rights.

After all, English Common Law says silence is to be accepted as the ‘affirmative’, and your obtuse/obfuscational response can be taken as ’silence’.

So you hate the Bill of Rights.

Don’t be stupid.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:26 pm 140. dclydew:

[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]

LOL troof there.

As for epee, its not even the same sort of toy. I’m using a 42″ tapered sidesword blade with a one inch blade at the hilt. I work mostly with the Morozzo school of fighting, wich can include dagger in the off hand, which is nice. Also, throws, tosses, pommel to the face sort of stuff is fun too

As for a katana… I was in San Francisco and some guy started in on how great the katana was against anything… However, it seems that the katana isn’t designed for a quick single thrust to the chest… over and over and over again LOL

Though, depending on the enemy… I think your final preference is one I’d agree on.

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:28 pm 141. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Personal Weapons

“I work mostly with the Morozzo school of fighting, wich can include dagger in the off hand, which is nice. Also, throws, tosses, pommel to the face sort of stuff is fun too ” — dclydew

I prefer the M1911A1 ACP. I was second place in an infantry-heavy brigade pistol competition.

Epees and katanas are very ‘romantic’. And provide for wonderful exercise.

However, if you have the necessary tools and the ‘necessity’ there is nothing like an M1911 and a short-barrel semi-automatic shotgun for ‘house cleaning’ purposes.

But even so, it is a good think to have good steel easily at hand.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There are no such things as 'obsolete' weapons.]

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:35 pm 142. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Enough!!!!….

….of this gay banter.

Off the the Planning and Zoning Commission, on which I sit.

Later,

Chuck(le)
[Government. Can't live without it. Can't live with it. It's a blessing as well as a drag....]

Jan 30, 2008 - 3:39 pm 143. Buddy Larsen:

good thread — lots of energy & good debate — me, I’m trying to learn to like Sen McCain ”well enough”. Still a Romney fan, tho i be losing heart.

Jan 30, 2008 - 4:32 pm 144. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad:

Yes, McCain Derangement Syndrome, among Reps, has already started.

Too bad. It looks like Huckabee Derangement Syndrome is already so pervasive among the commenterati that the #3 Rep nominee is being dismissed.

The Dems on the economy won’t be so much worse than the Reps — both sides are too eager to be porkers. McCain’s endorsement by Sen. Tom Coburn, the leading anti-pork Senator (I wanted him as the nominee last year), should allow those who were annoyed at McCain’s opposition to deficit-increasing tax cuts. But the economy is #3, only, tho the MSM will try to make it #1.

McCain is pro-victory in Iraq. That’s #1. Far better than either Dem.

McCain is pro-life, with a solid voting record. That’s half of #2. Which judges he’d support is the other half, but that’s unknown. Likely far more pro-life than any Dem.

That’s on issues as issues, but for most anti-Dem Republicans, there’s also super-issue #0 *** can he win in November ???

McCain can, and a little heat from disgruntled “purity police” Reps actually helps, altho too much anti-McCain hurts.

Finally, most veterans are strongly pro-McCain. I think most Christians prefer McCain over Romney (tho if Romney were more genuine they wouldn’t); the evangelicals certainly like Huckabee more, but the Catholics probably McCain.

McCain – Huckabee 2008? With Huckabee’s job being to get the pro-life voters to support the ticket and vote against an inspiring Barack Obama (most likely, Hillary’s looking at major big Tuesday disappointment).

Those small-gov’t Libertarian types have utterly and totally failed at: 1) keeping the Rep Congress honest, and 2) changing the culture to be more willing to reduce gov’t spending.

Support Term Limits.

Jan 30, 2008 - 4:33 pm 145. JM Hanes:

Roger:

If you read your own comment thread, you’ll see a long list of substantive reasons for widespread Republican antipathy to McCain. What you will not read, and what you yourself do not proffer, is a long list of reasons for supporting him. Indeed, as far as I can tell, that list contains precisely two items: He’s a war hero who supported the surge and he’s ostensibly electable.

The first item tells you very lttle about what sort of a Commander in Chief McCain might actually make and virtually nothing useful on the foreign policy front or on the appropriate role of our armed forces. Almost any Republican could walk away with the pro-Iraq vote; events on the ground will determine whether claiming personal ownership of the surge will prove a plus or minus. The second item is almost entirely speculative. Given the pivotal importance of energizing your own base, it may well prove myopic to boot.

In other words, when it comes to winning the election, McCain’s position on the surge is actually the least important factor, except as a potential negative. His positions on everything else are what will win or lose him the necessary votes. Unfortunately, the fact that you’re left dismissing passionate opposition to the Senator — on everything from 1st amendment issues (including the ICC!), immigration, and voodoo greenhouse economics — as deranged, suggests you’ve got nothing else to argue.

The folks on the McCain side of the putative derangement divide apparently believe that insulting the people whose votes you need is sound political practice. McCain, himself, seems to confuse campaigning with throwing spitballs, so please, let’s not pretend he represents the grown-ups here.

Jan 30, 2008 - 6:01 pm 146. Steven Mitchell:

“Too bad. It looks like Huckabee Derangement Syndrome is already so pervasive among the commenterati that the #3 Rep nominee is being dismissed.”

I’m a Southern Baptist. I’m very familiar with two common types of ministers. 1. The ones that are looking for a career in televangelism, or the closest approximation they can manage. 2. The good ones. Huckabee is a pro-life Jimmy Carter with more charm, which puts him solidly in camp #1, as far as I’m concerned.

If McCain picks him as the veep, I guess that will fit into Huckabee’s first job–because I’ll swallow the bile and pull the level for McCain anyway–and then pray for his health nightly.

“McCain, himself, seems to confuse campaigning with throwing spitballs, so please, let’s not pretend he represents the grown-ups here.”

Grown up — To the degree that the person has any clue about how the world actually work. With regards to a president, especially important in the area of foreign policy. Nastiness or other bad habits optional. Approximate ages of the candidates (pardon for any left out):

Grown: McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Biden.

Stuck at 18, still trying to lock up all the “Best” awards for the yearbook: Clinton.

15 and just got the driver’s permit (though that yield/stop sign question was tough): Huckabee, Obama.

Seven, moment before the first front baby tooth comes out: Edwards.

Two going on 65: Paul, Kusinich.

Jan 30, 2008 - 6:23 pm 147. HopefulCynic68:

The above list of Senators who have endorsed McCain is itself one of the reasons so many conservatives recoil from him:

Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)
Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.)
Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)
Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.)
Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Sen. John Warner (Va.)

(I’m assuming it’s accurate.)

Amid this list are several of the major RINOS of the U.S. Senate. Warner, Snowe, Collins, and Warner, especially, are simply not trusted and respected by conservatives. Lieberman, oddly enough, is an exception, he carries more respect among conservatives than people like Snowe.

The fundamental problem conservatives have with McCain boils down to an issue of trust. They simply don’t _trust_ him, and it’s not entirely irrational. No question, he’s better than Hillary or Obama, but they don’t trust him at all.

Jan 30, 2008 - 6:26 pm 148. VonBear:

An entire generation has known nothing but two family rule. This can’t be good.

Now our choice is to keep on with the banana republic dynasties or a 71 year old geezer with a tainted past and who I for one don’t trust.

For Republicans Obama is a clear choice. He would no doubt be another Carter clearing the way for future Republican victories.

Jan 30, 2008 - 8:10 pm 149. kamil:

Enemy combatants should be a military tribunal that determines their status.

However.

Since when is the US which signed a treaty subject have subject itself to foreign “international” interpretation and case law when
that interpretation disagrees with the the meaning of the convention when it was signed.
Specially when the people doing the interpretation have an agenda.

The GC is like the school ground rules boys have for clean fighting.

1)The GC applies only wars between signatories.
2)If one party covered by the convention breaks the
rules, the GC has rules about how reprisals can be carried out.
Ex) Executing innocent uniformed POWs because the other party has done so.

Give the above how can it be said that A prisoner who belongs to a non GC signatory,
Non Govermantal Organization, which engages in acts of war and does not follow the rules of war
or the GC, who and personly does not have any insignea and therfore violates the laws of
war must be either a POW or a civilan under the GC?

Is this interpreation because everyones rights must be protected under international law,
and the GC does not address the situation above therefore the most strict rules
protecting human rights apply?
Has the US signed any treaty agreeing to this interpretation?
Or is it because this ties US hand the most that such a interpreation is pushed?

Jan 30, 2008 - 9:43 pm 150. gekkobear:

From an FEC Commissioner, circa 2005:

Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we have to regulate the Internet, that we have to regulate e-mail. They sued us in court over this and they won.

http://www.news.com/The-coming-crackdown-on-blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html

So, your post here is is clear violation of what McCain wanted. In being approving of Senator McCain on this blog, you have clearly made an in-kind donation without reporting this to either the FEC or to his campaign.

What is this worth? I dunno, you’d have to ask the FEC, but I’m sure it’s worth something.

Fortunately for you (and everyone really) McCain lost that lawsuit. But if you think Gitmo is the only (or major) reason people dislike McCain, you’ve missed the boat.

But, in support of McCain and his ideals; I recommend you stop blogging on Political topics altogether to show solidarity with his views on blogging. Or at least pay the fines that would otherwise have been issued for your illegal political speech near an election.

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:05 pm 151. Charlie (Colorado):

Chuck(le): I’ve known both you and CHuck for some long time, and I’m certainly sympathetic to anyone who tried to cope with the country government in My Old Home Town. So please understand that I’m both sincere and serious when I point out that you’re in someone else’s on line home, and you’re behavior is rapidly approaching the point where, were it my home, you would be leaving it. With hands at collar and seat of pants if necessary.

dd, it happens I’ve fought japanese sword against rapier-like weapons, and I can tell you you’re making one mistaken assumption: that you would actually get the opportunity for more than one thrust to the chest, In fact Japanese sword fighting — not sport kendo, which is as formalized and artificial in its way as foil — includes the traditional beat-riposte. With the difference being that a japanese fighter, following the beat with a riposte, leaves the opponent in two or more poorly-related pieces.

Jan 30, 2008 - 10:16 pm 152. Jim Rockford:

Others have noted McCain’s abysmal record. His RINO-ism. His long courting of the Press. His habit of betraying the Base over and over again to gain approval of the Media and Dems. How wrong he is on Gitmo, “torture” and water-boarding, the ICC, Kyoto, Global Warming, Amnesty and Open Borders, and many other things.

I want to talk about why McCain as a man is ill-suited to the Presidency.

We’ve seen how in GWB a man who will not fight the permanent bureaucracy gets rolled. How it’s important to fight back at critical junctures against the Dems and Media. How selecting a team and demanding results is the key to accomplishing goals.

McCain did heroically well in doing one thing: resisting NVA torture in Hanoi, along with a small group of men. However what served him well in that regard is disaster in a President. He’s impulsive, self-righteous, stubborn, and never changes course. It got him through the Hanoi Hilton and promises total disaster as President.

McCain’s weakness is his desire for the Press and Dems to love him. He’ll do anything for their approval. He’s never run a large organization, particularly one in crisis, with a resistant culture and people who can tell him to go to hell. Romney has btw in the Olympics and MA. McCain disdains numbers and statistics, and has no record of firing non-performers since he’s never been in that leadership position. He admits he knows nothing about the Economy and is disdainful of business (like many/most Democrats).

The President will face some unknown crisis. People who are not performing will have to be replaced, quickly. The bureaucracy will have to be forced into his agenda. Tactics and personnel will have to be continuously evaluated and adjusted to meet strategic goals of the President even if it means dealing with opponents or firing people or changing course in some way. The President will have to communicate clearly and enforce his will on the Federal Government on a number of key objectives and make sure everyone in it gets up in the morning knowing what they’re supposed to do and the consequences for not doing it.

McCain has no ability to do that. As a Senator he’s been in the Ego Echo Chamber (like Kerry, Clinton, Obama, etc.) which feeds his sense of being a demi-god instead of being shown a mortal as most managers do (because managers end up failing sometimes when people can’t/won’t execute). He’s still thinking that hey, he got people who were physically and emotionally close to him in the Hanoi Hilton to go along, why can’t it work with the Presidency? That’s a disaster in the works.

Romney understands that to a large degree how effective he is depends on how he can motivate people he’ll never meet to carry out his plan. Hillary *might* have an understanding of that from the White House. Obama does not. Huckabee by all accounts does not (and was not an effective Governor in Arkansas).

Selecting a President is as much about the Man as anything else. While McCain was indeed a hero, in the Hanoi Hilton, his very nature disqualifies him from the Presidency. Randy “Duke” Cunningham was also a Vietnam War Hero (last American Ace — he fought in appalling odds). He ended his career as a corrupt pol and went to jail.

On a personal note, Romney is sharp and polite, and would match up well against Obama or Hillary in debates and on TV. McCain looks and acts like a crusty old Grandpa and has “senior moments” when puzzled by questions. Against Obama he’s toast and against Hillary an uphill battle.

Bob Dole was a war hero of McCain’s stature. He lost to Bill Clinton. “Where’s the outrage.” SNL made fun of Dole and his physical limitations. SNL also made fun of McCain and the “tiger cage” back in 2000. With Romney there is little to make fun of other than the Mormon thing and that’s got PC limits.

Jan 31, 2008 - 1:19 am 153. dclydew:

dd, it happens I’ve fought japanese sword against rapier-like weapons, and I can tell you you’re making one mistaken assumption: that you would actually get the opportunity for more than one thrust to the chest, In fact Japanese sword fighting — not sport kendo, which is as formalized and artificial in its way as foil — includes the traditional beat-riposte. With the difference being that a japanese fighter, following the beat with a riposte, leaves the opponent in two or more poorly-related pieces.

I’ve been in a few matches with this pairing myself and I’ve seen other people play it as well… In general, it really seems to boil down to a couple things:

Does the Katana fighter understand a rapier? If not, then the speed and reach usually catch them off guard, since a rapier moving forward in a straight line is less visible, faster and much longer than expected. If the rapier fighter has never fought cut and thrust, and the Katana fighter does pull off the beat parry, then it will probably end the fight as you said. Another possibility is a sniping attack with the rapier, where the fighter stays well out of his opponents measure, and pricks/stabs etc his fingers, hands, feet etc. leaving him unable to wield the weapon.

All of that would be true for a Di Grassi, Capo Ferro, etc. If they studied Morozzo, (using the pre-rapier weapons like sidesword) the it would be a much different fight and I would guess that the rapier fighter would die. He would have a light c&t, the katana would have a heavier c&t… that would suck for the European

In the end the weapons are really not suited to each other. Someone wielding a Katana, would likely be armored which would place the more civilian rapier in a bad position. Of course, after being unarmored and drinking in a tavern then wandering into the narrow back alley, where swinging becomes difficult… the fight may be even more interesting.

On an unrelated note, some of the most fierce Viking recreators I’ve seen were a band of Japanese guys, I met. Their entire camp was a perfect replica, their fighting styles had been well trained… but a 5′3″ Viking with dark hair and no beard is… odd.

Jan 31, 2008 - 6:14 am 154. Korla Pundit:

He did tell us something useful right? I mean, surely if we risked breaking international law and potentially compromised our moral integrity… we would make sure that people knew EXACTLY how much valuable information we got right? How many people were saved, yes?

Could you possibly quote that info for me? I seem to be having trouble finding it with Google.

Waterboarding of Abu Zubayda led him to give up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, the guy who personally cut the head off of Daniel Pearl, and the guy in charge of continuing plots to kill thousands of Americans.

He also gave information that foiled hijackings and bombings, as did Mohammed when he was captured.

Now you can claim in your ignorance that there were no plots, and waterboarding didn’t actually save lives, but only because you want to crawl back into your pre-9/11 dreamworld where terrorists should all get the same rights as an American citizen who steals an apple.

You really expect the details of these plots to be released now? Maybe they would be if the New York Times got their hands on the data; they’ll leak anything harmful to the war effort.

We haven’t been hit on American soil in the 6+ years since 9/11. This harmless interrogation technique you are so afraid of is part of what kept us from being successfully attacked, along with the Patriot Act, the wiretapping of foreign terrorists whose calls get routed through American lines (like most phone calls), and Gitmo.

McCain and his Dem minions want to strip us of all of these tools. All of them. And leave us with very weak defenses.

Your childish fantasies about the “foiled plots” being made up by Bush are just that. And childish trantrum throwers, like McCain and Hillary, should never be President.

Unfortunately, we will now be stuck with one or the other.

Maybe we can get Mark Levin to run as an independent.

Jan 31, 2008 - 7:45 am 155. dclydew:

Korla,

We haven’t been hit on American soil in the 6+ years since 9/11.

Well, we weren’t hit for 8 years after ‘93. So is this due to waterboarding, or due to the fact that terrorists don’t launch regular and continuing attacks, but rather plan occasional attacks in various places to cause terror?

I have no problem with your decision to to support waterboarding. It’s not really clear cut, but your posts are rather nutty exaggerations and screeching nonsense. For example:

all get the same rights as an American citizen who steals an apple.

FALSE. All that McCain or I have said, is to follow the international treaties we signed. That’s it (unless they are an American citizen). They don’t need a nice visit to Judge Whopner. They need to be tried before a competent tribunal and labeled either POW and held as such, or Civilian and held as such (note: Civilian would make them agents of an enemy and thus could be sentenced to death).

I have no desire to make things nice for them. I have no illusions about the world we live in (in fact, at security conferences I was talking about terrorism threats in 99 and 2000 while everyone else wanted a missle defense shield. Post-9/11 is only that Americans suddenly woke up to a world that already existed.

But, believe what you want.

Jan 31, 2008 - 8:21 am 156. Korla Pundit:

>FALSE. All that McCain or I have said, is to follow the international treaties we signed.

No. He wanted to specifically bestow American Constitutional rights on the foreign terrorists at Gitmo.

But it’s okay if you don’t want to talk about McCain’s actual statements and record, because he won’t either.

Jan 31, 2008 - 8:34 am 157. dclydew:

Korla,

quote?

Jan 31, 2008 - 8:55 am 158. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Charlie (Colorado)
RE: Really?

“So please understand that I’m both sincere and serious when I point out that you’re in someone else’s on line home, and you’re behavior is rapidly approaching the point where, were it my home, you would be leaving it. With hands at collar and seat of pants if necessary.” — Charlie (Colorado)

For what?

Have I used abusive language? Called anyone 57 varieties of MoFo? Lied? Cheated? Stole?

Or is it because I asked a simple question that chuck refused to answer and, in true military form, ‘maintained the objective’?

Or is it something else?

What is it you would give me the bum’s rush over here? Were it in your power….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Discussion: A method of confirming others in their errors. -- Ambrose Beirce]

Jan 31, 2008 - 9:05 am 159. Korla Pundit:

quote?

“They [al Qaeda detainees] may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I’m concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.”
–John McCain

(Really? Well, to quote dclydew; “quote?” What treaty was that, Mr. McCain?

“No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”
–McCain Amendment

(See, he even wants to ban us from “punishment.” “Degrading treatment?” That could be interpreted any which way, and if these murderers were allowed to have access to U.S. courts, that language would be used to set every terrorist free.)

BTW, next time you want quotes and references, do your own damn homework.

Jan 31, 2008 - 10:28 am 160. dclydew:

“They [al Qaeda detainees] may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I’m concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.”
–John McCain

I disagree with McCain as per the GC (as I stated above) but I have no problem with his statement.

(Really? Well, to quote dclydew; “quote?” What treaty was that, Mr. McCain?

I think he was probably referring to (from an earlier post I made): International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Even if I am wrong and they are not covered under tge GC (and I may be wrong!!!), the US has ratified both of these and they explicitly cover ALL people in custody under all circumstances. There are several other International agreements that the US has signed which make very clear that ANY torture, of ANY sort is not allowed on ANY prisoner, be they POW or civilian.

And, this quote still comes nowhere near “the same rights as an American citizen who steals an apple” which I believe was what you stated.

(See, he even wants to ban us from “punishment.” “Degrading treatment?” That could be interpreted any which way, and if these murderers were allowed to have access to U.S. courts, that language would be used to set every terrorist free.)

Ummm, please use reading comprehension skills, particularly if you plan on being a pundit.

“No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Note that again, you’re either confused, exaggerating, or lying I dunno which. the amendment says NOTHING about not punishing them… only that treatment or punishment should not be cruel, inhuman or degrading. I agree entirely with this position.

BTW, next time you want quotes and references, do your own damn homework.

I suppose I’ll have to. Obviously I can’t trust that you have anythiong of substance to discuss.

Jan 31, 2008 - 10:39 am 161. Korla Pundit:

Degrading?

I guess that means they can’t be forced to read your posts.

Jan 31, 2008 - 10:58 am 162. dclydew:

Ah Korla Pundit, rather than discuss substance, you resort to little more than poo-flinging mammalian behavior. Sorta to the main point of Roger’s post, eh?

All that ranting about Republicans being a Big Tent when the Liberman fiasco was going on… was it true, or was it wistful thinking? I wonder.

On the upside, if your level of debate is an indicator of what McCain will have to face, I think he’ll sail through the November.

I think perhaps you should work on debate skills before attaching pundit to your name. Or at the very least, try to stay away from personal insults and stick to the topic at hand.

Big difference between a pundit and a blowhard that parrots pundits.

Jan 31, 2008 - 11:04 am 163. Korla Pundit:

What debate? The guy hasn’t faced any serious debate, and dodges all references to his shamnesty plans (still active, btw).

Don’t worry; Romney won’t bring up Keating. McCain doesn’t have to face that kind of debate, you know, the kind where some uncomfortable facts are put in front of you and you have to explain.

That is, until the Dems bring it up in the general election. Fun for everybody!

Jan 31, 2008 - 12:04 pm 164. dclydew:

Well, I was commenting on the level of debate you’ve shown thus far, not the non-debate that’s been happening on the national stage.

As for the Keating Five scandal… yeah, its a problem. John McCain fubar’d on campaign financing and pulled an unethical stunt. He was investigated, the special counsel recommended that he and Glenn be dropped from the investigation… Congressional Democrats stopped that from happening. In the end, McCain and Glenn were considered “the least blameworthy” and stated that McCain was guilty of nothing more than poor judgement. In fact they stated that his actions were not “improper nor attended with gross negligence.”

McCain gave all the money Keating had raised for him to the US Treasury.

Yeah, I think it would be great to hear about that in debate. Here we have a senator that claims to have made a mistake, then worked on legislation to make sure that mistake never happened again. That sounds like incompetence to me… or not.

Now some in his party can’t seem to determine if he’s evil for taking campaign contributions, or evil for trying to clean up the ethics issues around campaign contributions. Yeah, no derangement there…

Jan 31, 2008 - 12:46 pm 165. Buddy Larsen:

Mark Levin weighs in:

Jan 31, 2008 - 12:49 pm 166. dclydew:

Buddy,

I don’t disagree with much of what Levin said. McCain is not more of the same kind of Conservative. If the conservative block wants to stay in the 80’s with the Gipper, they can… but all indications seem to point to the general attitude of conservatives changing.

McCain’s positions are no secret, he’s conservative on most things, liberal on some things and in-between on a couple issues. Yet, in general, particularly noting Florida, McCain is getting the backing of ‘conservatives’…. Those Conservatives apparently think that moving into the 21st century is a good idea. I tend to agree.

The only real disagreement I have with his post was the conclusion. As far as I can tell, all polls indicate much higher support for McCain among Independents, Liberal hawks and (according to the primaries) conservatives, than for Mitt. Now, I think only a fool would believe that the White House will be an easy grab for the GOP this time around. To win, the GOP candidate will have to get the Middle, and right leaning Left on his side. The only one of the two viable candidates I see that meets that is McCain, not Mitt as his article concludes.

I really have some strong doubts about McCain getting in, but I think he has a better shot than Mitt. At the end of the day, this may all be academic and we may have a Democrat controlled government, universal health care, draconian green laws and more government that will never go away. Meanwhile, it may be the Hillster that has her ear to our phone lines and control over detaining ’subjects of interest’. Hell, I’d almost, but not quite, prefer another four years of Bush to that!

So, for me, after all of this pointless bullshitting here… is this:

McCain is no angel, he not a far right conservative, he’s imperfect and has made some serious mistakes. However, he is not the second coming of the anti-christ (or even the anti-gipper), he is conservative, he is a hawk and he is willing and he has proven that he’s able to work with Democrats (and the next President will likely have a Dem controlled House and Senate)… best yet, he has an actual chance at winning in November.

Mitt is a liberal, he’s passed liberal laws, has held liberal viewpoints (until he decided to run for President) has little appeal among Indies and none among hawkish dems (at least not according to any polls I’ve seen)… oh and no foreign policy/military experience. As far as I can tell, his chances at winning in November are substantially lower than McCain’s.

IMO only.

Jan 31, 2008 - 1:25 pm 167. Buddy Larsen:

yep — between you and Levin’s flags lies the field of battle. I can blink twice and flip to either position. just dunno. Mitt has the goods, I think — but the question is can he sell them.

Jan 31, 2008 - 2:05 pm 168. Buddy Larsen:

Don’t get me wrong — I could be just as anti-McCain as Korla is above — I’m just trying to bite my lip and face the reality of all these flooding JM endorsements. Gotta know when to hold ‘em, & when to fold ‘em.

Jan 31, 2008 - 2:12 pm 169. dclydew:

I dunno Buddy, if you and I end up backing the same person, there could be some end of the world scenario

Jan 31, 2008 - 2:31 pm 170. Buddy Larsen:

ha ha — right you are — a duckbill platypus candidate we need.

Jan 31, 2008 - 2:39 pm 171. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: [OT] Geneva Convention

“Ummm, please use reading comprehension skills, particularly if you plan on being a pundit.

“No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”" — dclydew

Beauty, cruelty, inhumanity and torture are, literally, in the eye of the proverbial beholder.

Cases in point….

[1] In World War II Imperial Japanese who captured American soldiers who had surrendered treated them VERY rudely. It was part of their society to do such to soldiers who did not have the bushido spirit and had surrendered instead of dying with honor.

[2] I was personally incensed by the image of the guy at Abu Ghraib wearing a hood, standing on a crate and wired for ’sound’. I thought the guards were holding an impromptu and totally unauthorized Prop-Blast Ceremony. As a member of that august and blasted group, having passed that initiation in ‘77, I was VERY disappointed in their honoring an captive enemy in such a manner.

Hopefully that puts things into perspective.

It’s all a matter of who is deciding what.

For the Islamists, it is perfectly okay to behead a captive enemy….with a dull knife. Ask Daniel Pearl, when you meet him.

If it is so abusive to keep an enemy captive in a hotel resort in the Caribbean then someone is obviously leading too jaded a life.

As for shackles, manacles and hoods…most people familiar with managing potentially violent prisoners would find that perfectly alright.

By the by….are you familiar with the events at Koji Do, during the Korean War?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jan 31, 2008 - 3:08 pm 172. davis,br:

Far be it from me to intrude in somebody else’s fight, but as per the stupid discussion on the Geneva conventions:

“The explanation is simple: the Hague Regulations codify the laws and customs of war and are intended above all to serve as a guide to the armed forces, whereas the Fourth Convention aims principally at the protection of civilians.”

But not, umm, terrorists dressed as civilians? Ya think?

“Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers and civilians carrying out their mission openly, entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy’s army”

Hmm. And how does one determine whether a combatant is a soldier? Don’t terrorists seek to blend into the civilian population …with their intent actually the increase of civilian casualties (by an increase in what is euphemistically called collateral damage for the purpose of, well, terror) …which would seem to fall under ….

“Such military action, which has the sole purpose of inflicting civilian casualties is illegal under modern rules of war, and may be considered a war crime or crime against humanity”

The Hague Regulations, and the latter Geneva Conventions were meant to codify formal war between signatories; that is, between people who agreed to follow the rules. It’s weird when you think about, but the West tried to make rules about war to diminish some of the horrors of war …which can make war harder to wage …if you pay attention to the rules.

It seems pretty clear to me that the winner in said war is going to have to the last say in who did what to whom and whether someone ought not to have done that though.

It also seems pretty clear to me that the frickin’ Islamofascist in Gitmo is guilty of war crimes at the least (by definition), can probably be considered a spy under the aegis of the convention (by definition), and as such are subject to summary execution (and whatever in the hell else we feel the need to do to them).

“These examples of the laws of war address declaration of war, (the UN charter (1945) Art 2, and some other Arts in the charter, curtails the right of member states to declare war; as does the older and toothless Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 for those nations who ratified it but used against Germany in the Nuremberg War Trials), acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy’s uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.”

Which pretty much puts paid to McCain’s position.

And Chuck? – I ain’t so sure about your “expert use of Google” either. Game over, man …game over.

Chuck(le) – you can handle this from here on, I’m sure. Carry on.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:05 am 173. chame1eon:

McCain Endorsement Syndrome

As helpful as endorsements probably are – let’s be real. This is nothing more than establishment supporting ‘establishment’ (someone they know, someone who may return the favor, etc.)

I haven’t been an active supporter of any candidate, but McCain has lost my support over the past few days.

His debate performances are horrible – both in his lack of command (and abuse) of the facts and in his temperament. After obviously mis-representing Romney’s position on Iraq – he looked completely smug in just laughing about what a bad position that put Romney in. Pretty immature, in my view.

And to continually make reference to Romney’s wealth and private sector success as something negative, or even predatory is absurd. Since when is legitimate capitalism and company-building not a conservative (or American) value?

For as much history as Romney has in the private sector – not one negative story has surfaced. No shady dealings… no questionable transactions… no bad press anywhere. (compare that to Obama’s dealings with Rescoe).

In summary, McCain’s recent behavior has really called into question whether he has the character to be President, let alone represent the Republican Party.

I am not impressed.

Feb 1, 2008 - 5:21 am 174. chame1eon:

McCain Endorsement Syndrome

As helpful as endorsements probably are – let’s be real. This is nothing more than establishment supporting ‘establishment’ (someone they know, someone who may return the favor, etc.)

I haven’t been an active supporter of any candidate, but McCain has lost my support over the past few days.

His debate performances are horrible – both in his lack of command (and abuse) of the facts and in his temperament. After obviously mis-representing Romney’s position on Iraq – he looked completely smug in just laughing about what a bad position that put Romney in. Pretty immature, in my view.

And to continually make reference to Romney’s wealth and private sector success as something negative, or even predatory is absurd. Since when is legitimate capitalism and company-building not a conservative (or American) value?

For as much history as Romney has in the private sector – not one negative story has surfaced. No shady dealings… no questionable transactions… no bad press anywhere. (compare that to Obama’s dealings with Rescoe).

In summary, McCain’s recent behavior has really called into question whether he has the character to be President, let alone represent the Republican Party.

I am not impressed.

Feb 1, 2008 - 5:25 am 175. Chuck Pelto:

TO: davis,br
RE: Thanks….

“It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy’s uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.” — davis,br

….for the research. I downloaded the 1948 iteration of the GC in PDF yesterday, but due to programming requirements had not delved into it.

It IS interesting that all the annual instruction on the GC and the Law of Land Warfare I’d received in 27 years in the infantry, is borne out by your quotation. Especially the part I was trying to impart to dclydew.

“Chuck(le) – you can handle this from here on, I’m sure. Carry on.” — davis, br

You can bet your sweet bippie, compadre….

Thanks for passing the ammo.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Peace through superior firepower....er....information.]

Feb 1, 2008 - 9:42 am 176. cbs:

Great article, Roger Simon! As a former Republican who left because the tent was getting a tetch tooooo sanctimonious, I have to agree with Webutante’s comments. This anti-McCain sentiment from the likes of Dobson and Limbaugh will be self-defeating for the GOP. I must confess to reading the the venomous comments from the right with a ridiculous glee. Your bloggers whip out words like “betrayal” (speaking of party members who stood AGAINST any policy promulgated by Bushie and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse). Betrayal! Such vehemence. It’s sad to see the party splinter into paroxysms of spittle-sputtering anger over issues such as who has more right to be an American, or (this is my favorite), who is more patriotic.
Last time I checked, every time a country has started implementing purity checks on anything besides grocery items, people have ended up dying in droves (see the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, take your pick). And to think that James Dobson is such a big Christian. He clearly missed the love message somewhere.
By the way, Chuckle, don’t think that you have the market cornered on retired military officer opinions. I too am a veteran, married to a currently serving officer with an Iraq tour under his belt–and though it would seem you like to bully people with your “listen to me, grasshopper, I am the expert on military things” routine, your manner is insulting and close-minded. Not to mention wrong.

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:31 am 177. Godzilla:

If McCain is the GOP nominee, my non-expert prediction is for a Republican disaster come November. The MSM will tear McCain a new asshole, it’ll be the only thing on him that won’t have wrinkles. The source that would usually counter the MSM is talk radio. With the exception of a smattering of hosts, like Medved, and more recently, Dennis Miller, all of talk radio is solidly against McCain and behind Rommney. Hewitt says that he will support McCain if McCain is the nominee. Just how fervent and sincere is that support going to be? i.e. “McCain will make a lousy president but he’ll be better than…” That’ll be real convincing, huh? I can’t even imagine Limbaugh supporting McCain. Hell, Coulter has just written an article declaring that she’ll vote for Hillary. (Paraprasing: “better to have disastrous president without the blame than to have one and take the blame.”)

I don’t think the people who over the years have felt betrayed by McCain, i.e. conservatives, will pull the lever for him, not enough of them anyway.

If Rommney gets the nominee, he would have talk radio behind him, but than what would the Hucksterists, pro-immigrationists, anti-businessists do, anti-waterboardists, terroists-in-the-civilian courtroomists go, and big-governmentists do? Who knows? But I’m wondering what the hell these people are doing in the Republican party in the first place. The main thing that “had” always attracted me to the Republican parts, besides the inclination for promoting a strong defense, was the principles of limited government, low taxes, with an emphasis on individual freedom to pursue one’s goals, and to be responsible for the success or failure of them, as the case may be.

That is not the Republican party anymore.

So I think that the election will be a Republican disaster no matter what, because of the fracture.

I don’t know where true blue conservatives go from here. Limited government, low taxes, and an emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility are the core principles that I need to see in any politican that wants my support. I haven’t thought, really thought about this for years, perhaps because I too was focused only on the war on terror.

I think the Republican party is broke, or the parts of it that was always there has suddenly grown so large that its notice is unavoidable. Like a cancer.

Anyone feel like starting up a new party…the Conservative Party? How’s this for core principles?

1. Limited government.
2. Low taxes.
3. Strong defense.
4. Legalize marriage for gays and lesbians. (Corollary to the personal freedom core principle)
5. Privatize social security.

For starters.

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:43 am 178. Godzilla:

6. Leave Roe vs Wade alone (corollary to the Personal freedom core principle)
7. Organized religions lose tax-exempt status.

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:49 am 179. cbs:

Godzilla,

I couldn’t agree with you more!

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:08 am 180. Buddy Larsen:

Start ‘er up, Godzilla — i’ll drop by & read your literature, fer sher.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:32 am 181. dclydew:

It IS interesting that all the annual instruction on the GC and the Law of Land Warfare I’d received in 27 years in the infantry, is borne out by your quotation. Especially the part I was trying to impart to dclydew.

I don’t disagree that the terrorists are thugs, who are abusing the existing standards of conduct. However, your statement above might easily have been uttered by a millitary man in 1776 sitting at home in London…. The rules of engagement were clear and guerilla warfare ala American Revolutionaries was simply unacceptable as a standard of war.

Times change… and we must as well. If you want to argue that they are no combatants, fine… I can see merit in that argument (I think that this loophole is here, only because war has outpaced treaties again). If you want to forbid 4th GC as well since they don’t count as civilians, then OK… that’s not what courts have stated in the past, but ok… we’ll go with that (particularly since I don’t think civilians should be lumped in with savages that would strap bombs to mentally handicapped women). I will go as far as to say that I may be wrong and the Genoeva Convention is straight out the window. That still leaves us with several signed treaties which explicitly state that we will not torture ANYONE in our custody. In fact, Mr. Bush has stated that we do not torture at all.

So now the question becomes, does waterboarding and other measures equate torture?

That seems to be the $23,000 question. There seem to be many views, but basically I think it boils down to three:

1) There is a line between torture and not torture, waterboarding, morally, is torture.

2) There is a line between torture and not torture, waterboarding, morally, isn’t torture, since there’s not much chance of death.

3) There is a line between torture and not torture, waterboarding seems too close to the edge to feel morally acceptable.

I can see the point of all three arguments, but I find myself much closer to the third than the second. In retrospect, I think I might say that I agree with John McCain that torture is unacceptable and that anyone who tortured a prisoner should be tried for it. The answer I don’t know, is if waterboarding meets that criteria. Everyone I’ve heard from who has experienced it seems to think it is, some psychologists seem to think it is, others don’t. America post-WWII seemed to think it was (and convicted Japanese soldiers for it)… but now, at least some seem to think it isn’t.

I am more than happy to say that I don’t know for sure what the answer to this mess is… but I think that this discussion has, at least, provided a lot of data which shows the issue to be far more complex than “Give all the terrorists the same rights as an American that steals an apple” which I believe was stated earlier by someone.

So look that up in your Funk&Wagnals.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:08 pm 182. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: [OT] Make Up My Mind!

First we’re talking Geneva Convention and then we’re talking some Londoner fuss-bucket sitting around a fire in the mid-18th Century.

RE: Torture….

….as I said, is in the eye of the beholder. You apparently don’t care about that.

To some people listening to Hillary Clinton is ‘torture’. Then again playing Tiny Tim’s Tiptoe Through the Tulips, over and over again would qualify.

I would suggest that anything less than what the Islamo-terror-fascists do to their prisoners provides us with a good deal of latitude.

And, anyone captured without a uniform or some other distinctive insignia is not, repeat NOT, protected by the Geneva Convention. ESPECIALLY if their ‘organization’ is not a signator of said convention.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:23 pm 183. brandon davis:

Mentally retarded women used in bombings
(link is for news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq in case the href won’t cut through)

John McCain (to paraphrase the essence of an argument he, in particular, makes): “It would just be so wrong and immoral to have used the heinous technique of waterboarding employed at Gitmo to have had the possibility of preventing strapping bombs on these mentally retarded women and using them to kill even more women and children. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even to terrorists. We’re better than that. And as your CIC, I will put a stop to it.”

When you put it into a daily real-world context, with real-world consequences, I’m not so sure I’d want to run with that morality argument thing if I were you, dclydew. In re: the stark contrast between a taking some vacuous feel-good, pseudo-ethics position, and the torn body parts of dismembered innocents lying scattered in some blood-soaked street in a corner of Iraq somewhere (or anywhere) today!

To reiterate the GC: “[action] …which has the sole purpose of inflicting civilian casualties is illegal under modern rules of war, and may be considered a war crime or crime against humanity”

Which, to my way of thinking, makes such animals mere game, and subject to The Hunt …and so no longer accorded the customs of a [no-longer] shared humanity which they have chosen to renounce by their acts.

“To the victor go the spoils” is the only “moral” outcome in war. Whether you wanted to fight one or not is irrelevant: EVERY TIME someone throws a war, EVERYONE participates (to paraphrase an especially idiotic old hippy solipsist phrase of the 1960’s).

Maybe you – and Senator McCain – see yours as the “moral” position. I don’t. Actually, I’m deeply unimpressed by your stated AND your unstated rationale. And the logical outcome of your position is, well read the headline. Welcome to reality. Sucks to be us.

And. The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact bud’.

Just sayin’.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:28 pm 184. Chuck Pelto:

TO: cbs
RE: And….

“By the way, Chuckle, don’t think that you have the market cornered on retired military officer opinions. I too am a veteran, married to a currently serving officer with an Iraq tour under his belt–and though it would seem you like to bully people with your “listen to me, grasshopper, I am the expert on military things” routine, your manner is insulting and close-minded. Not to mention wrong.” — cbs

…your point here is….what?

Just because I have an opinion, I’m wrong? How very ‘open-minded’ of you.

Indeed, I suspect you’re projecting about that.

RE: Military Service

So….

…you’re a ‘vet’ eh?

You know….

….I’ve encountered a LOT of people, on-line, who make the same claim. However, for some strange reason, I’d say about 60% of them don’t and/or can’t substantiate it.

Not that you fall into that group. But, I tend to hold my evaluation of such claims, especially when followed by what you posted later, until I’ve seen some more evidence and/or indications.

But enough of that falderal. Time will tell, one way or the other.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I don’t care whether or not you’ve served in the Armed Forces. If you have, good on you. And may your experiences and learnings there assist us in our discussions here.

I do care whether or not you’re being honest.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:28 pm 185. Chuck Pelto:

TO: cbs
RE: Back ON the Off-Topic….

…..The Geneva Convention and the Treatment of, if you’ll pardon the term, ‘Illegal Combatants’

While you were in the military, did you ever receive any training on the Law of Land Warfare?

If so, what did it involve?

As for your spouse. Could you ask her to provide us with the instruction she is receiving on this matter?

It could prove very useful.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It ain't train'n if it ain't rain'n. -- Some Army Platoon Sergeant]

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:32 pm 186. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Errata….

“Could you ask HER….” should read….

“Could you ask HIM….”

Apologies for my misreading your earlier comment, vis-a-vis your spouse.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:38 pm 187. dclydew:

First we’re talking Geneva Convention and then we’re talking some Londoner fuss-bucket sitting around a fire in the mid-18th Century.

Err, actually no, the other treaties signed are actually much more recent than the GC, not mid-18th century (or Londoner come to think of it).

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

….as I said, is in the eye of the beholder. You apparently don’t care about that.

Actually I agreed with you… those three positions would be variations on torture, based on the perception of the individual. However, torture as defined in the international agreements we have signed… is less free form.

I would suggest that anything less than what the Islamo-terror-fascists do to their prisoners provides us with a good deal of latitude.

Because if they act like amoral psychopaths, its ok if we just act like amoral sociopaths?

And, anyone captured without a uniform or some other distinctive insignia is not, repeat NOT, protected by the Geneva Convention. ESPECIALLY if their ‘organization’ is not a signator of said convention.

Yes, I admitted that you may be right… my position was based on existing court decisions over the issue and I fully admit that the decision may have been wrong and should not apply (but that still doesn’t free us of our other, more recent treaties).

“Varrie Inter-resting”

———–

Which, to my way of thinking, makes such animals mere game, and subject to The Hunt …and so no longer accorded the customs of a [no-longer] shared humanity which they have chosen to renounce by their acts.

So let me get this straight… if they act in an amoral inhumane way, they become animals which we are then free to treat in an amoral, inhumane way… did I surmise your position correctly?

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:45 pm 188. dclydew:

Maybe the Pyrite Rule?

“So in everything Do Unto Others As They Do Unto Others, for this sums up the Hawks and the NeoCons.”

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:56 pm 189. brandon davis:

dclydew – Does the repulsive term moral equivalency have any meaning at all to you?

If by using vacuous moral equivalence arguments – and not merely being flippant – you’re seriously suggesting that a judge in a case who sentences a criminal – tried by a jury of peers and found guilty of murder – to the sentence required by law, is himself guilty of the same transgression should said sentence be meted out to the guilty …you are arguing – if that’s what you’d like to think of it as – way, way out of your league.

Or if the man protecting his family from armed invaders seeking to kill his loved ones, but who rather kills said invaders is – in your eyes and to the best of your ethics – as guilty in defending his home as those who have sought to kill him and his loved ones …again, you are arguing way out of your league.

And if you’re suggesting that somehow the executioner of those animals – yes, animals – who strapped bombs on those helpless women today, and used such innocents to kill other innocents in a senseless act of slaughter is to be somehow morally constrained – according to your specious and ludicrous lack of intellectual seriousness – to not respond in kind, and if he does, is as guilty as those beasts …you are not only arguing way out of your league: you appear unable to reason at all.

Stunning.

…and you seemed for a minute there as rational. What a pity that I’ve wasted my time with a such a pathetic argument.

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:34 pm 190. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: [OT] Getting Closer

“Because if they act like amoral psychopaths, its ok if we just act like amoral sociopaths?” — dclydew

You touch on the Christ with this….(1) love thy enemies and (2) threat thy neighbor as you would yourself.

It is a conundrum.

As Ambrose Beirce described it, in The Devil’s Dictionary….

Neighbor, n., One we are required to love, but does their utmost to make us disobedient.

So….

….what do YOU propose we do with these people who do such utter evil?

RE: Those ‘Courts’

“Yes, I admitted that you may be right… my position was based on existing court decisions over the issue and I fully admit that the decision may have been wrong and should not apply (but that still doesn’t free us of our other, more recent treaties).” — dclydew

Let me say this about those august Men In Black….

Such people decided that Blacks were not really Human Beings. And we killed 600,000 of our own over that decision; a.k.a., known as the Civil War, vis-a-vis the Dred Scott Decision.

Courts are not, repeat NOT, always right. If we’re stupid enough to elect people who will put politically correct decision makers into the courts, we need to be smart enough to recognize when they are totally off their proverbial rocker.

RE: Proper ‘Treatment’

“So let me get this straight… if they act in an amoral inhumane way, they become animals which we are then free to treat in an amoral, inhumane way… did I surmise your position correctly?” — dclydew

As I said (above)….we touch on the Christ. And we are faced with a dilemma. How do we deal with them?

We have a number of options:

[1] We let them go and allow them to kill some more.
[2] We surrender to them and all become either Muslims, Dhimmis or dead; depending on your paternity, religious beliefs and personal fortitude.
[3] We torture them for the information they have that might help us preserve ourselves.
[4] We kill them…outright; wherever we find them.
[5] We capture them, if possible, and kill them on video, stuff their bodies into sacks made from pigs hide and burn them in bacon fat and show what happens to them if they continue.

Some of these options are rather dramatic. But I wanted to cover what I considered the gamut, as far and wide as I could think of it. However, if you’ve some other optionsóother than those I’ve suggestedóI’d like to hear them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Sooner or later this off-topic discussion is going to bore Roger.

If and when….

….here’s a link to a blog I operate where we can continue this interesting discussion of how to deal with, if you’ll forgive the phrase, ‘illegal combatants’….

http://www.comensarations.info/index.php/weblog/a_modest_proposal/

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:47 pm 191. dclydew:

Brandon, I think your zeal may have influenced how you perceived what I wrote.

If a man mass murders 30 people through torture and the State puts him to death in the electric chair, I find that acceptable. If a man is defending himself from a home invasion and he shoots the invader, I see no fault with him.

If we were to capture the insane assholes that strapped bombs to those women… I would fully support stringing them up, gutting them, shooting them in the head etc. However, I wouldn’t support the use of torture on them, and by this I mean real torture (since I’m still up in the air over water boarding and stress positions etc).

They may torture, they may mame and they may have no respect for the life given to them or anyone else. But, thats what makes them scum. Too argue that we get the right to lower our standards because they have no morals, or apparently, souls seems like a very bad argument indeed.

I find it unlikely that anything we would do would match their level of inhumanity… but then you don’t need to be at -$10,000 to be in the red.

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:48 pm 192. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Before you jot me down as a completely psychopathic racist….know this….

….my brother-in-law is an Iranian.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:02 pm 193. dclydew:

You touch on the Christ with this….(1) love thy enemies and (2) threat thy neighbor as you would yourself. It is a conundrum.

Yeah, it is. Which is really what I think I’ve been trying to say all along… its not clear cut, or easily answered.

….what do YOU propose we do with these people who do such utter evil?

1. Kill them on the battlefield.
2. Capture survivors, stick them in front of a competent tribunal. The tribunal would weed out any innocents caught up in the battle, could provide POW status to those who were unwilling or conscripted fighters and could label all the others as independent agents operating outside law.
3. Innocents go directly home with some compensation for their inconvenience. POW and Independent Agents are questioned (using whatever means short of torture are available) POW’s are held until the end of hostilities (which in this case may be the rest of their lives), but held according to GC. Independent Agents once questioned… are shot… we can ask them what they would like on their Tombstone (pep and sausage maybe?).

Seems like it would be cheaper than GitMo and all the bad press. I mean other than the cost of bullets and pizzas.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:09 pm 194. dclydew:

Chuck,

You haven’t come across as a racist yet to me… I think you might want to refine your posts a little, but that’s more etiquette than anything else.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:12 pm 195. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: [OT] Speaking of MIBs

Here’s a current-time example of the egregious, politically correct decisions such people hand down from their lofty bench….

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327590,00.html

The situation we’re dealing with vis-a-vis ‘illegal combatants’, is similar in nature.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Feb 1, 2008 - 4:26 pm 196. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Etiquette, Anyone

“I think you might want to refine your posts a little, but that’s more etiquette than anything else. ” — dclydew

What!??!?!?! You’d have me be different than I am??!??!?!!!!!

Where is the celebration of ‘diversity’, here?

Or, as one superior officer once said….

….”His sense of tact is best described as ‘He attacked’.”

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ride hard, shoot straight and ALWAYS tell the truth. -- Cyrus the Great]

Feb 1, 2008 - 4:32 pm 197. dclydew:

What!??!?!?! You’d have me be different than I am??!??!?!!!!!,/i>

Ha, not at all. The Internet provides a very limited way of perceiving someone and due to that, misperceptions can be quite easily had. If scientists are to be believed, almost 80% of human communication is body language. Here, we only get a subset of the 20% left and sometimes how you present your argument will have as much bearing on the effect as what you’re arguing.

Charlie from Colorado said something earlier about your behavior… in truth, I thought he was overreacting a little, but his statements were because it was easy to have a perception that you’re an asshole with nothing useful to say. I decided to poke at your brain a bit more and found a rather reasonable person. If I hadn’t been bored at work today (and rather interested in the topics we’ve bantered about) I would have written you off and not responded to anything you wrote.

Now, you should present yourself however you want… but if you want to be considered for what you say, then you might want to work on how you say it. Communication between you and a commanding officer is different than communication between you and your peers in the mess hall, which is different still than how you communicate with a civilian boss and civilian co-workers and different yet again (I hope) than you communicate with your wife and kids. Communication on the Internet is also slightly different…

You could approach all of those people in exactly the same way, I dunno… maybe you do. But, I think that would be an exception to the general behavior of humans.

Feb 1, 2008 - 4:54 pm 198. Cobb:

Robert Novak sums it up like this:

McCain as the Republican nominee would need those “very conservative” voters. He will encounter some of them at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington Feb. 7-9. His campaign Wednesday asked for McCain to speak there after rejecting an invitation to last year’s meeting. At CPAC, he might well consider providing “straight talk” about Samuel Alito and promising to veto any tax increase by a Democratic Congress.

Novak speaks of ‘very conservative’ voters in Florida, who were by the count I saw at the NYT were 27%. In SC they were 5%. So let’s call these guys the Super Conservatives. Are they the base of the party? They are the *energized* base of the party, and that is primarily because Karl Rove decided to make them that and because Ann Coulter has so much airtime. But they are not the majority of Republicans and that is what I’ve been struggling with all these years. It is why McCain’s candidacy, which in some ways I might have rather had Rudy, is very important to me.

I am rather shocked to see how Patterico has crawled deep into the Romney foxhole and is tossing bombs towards McCain, but I’m willing to categorically deal with the complaints against McCain. I think they’re all red herrings but I am willing to check to see exactly how red they are.

Herring One: McCain Feingold
I haven’t heard one cogent explanation on exactly how McCain Feingold operates to restrain free speech. This one just passes through conservative lips without going through the proper brain channels, rather like ‘Halliburton’ in liberal throats. Bloody Red Herring

Herring Two: Immigration
There is no immigration bill. So who has the best idea that can actually pass Congress is an open question. But what people who blame McCain for this seem to forget that his is the direction that the President wanted. So you can’t say McCain was out in left field about this. Today he is willing to split this into separate parts which is the practical route. Secure the border first. This is his mantra and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that there is no fence on the border is not McCain’s fault any more than it’s Duncan Hunter’s fault. It’s a national security issue.

As for the Z Visa. Well it’s reasonable to say that the jury is out on all of those immigration provisions. Nobody came up with a solution, and everybody has to be aware of that. I’m not sure that Republicans should be mad at McCain for going with the president. But this is an issue I’m certainly willing to get into the weeds on. The problem is that there’s only so much you can make an issue over dead legislation. Nothing happened. Because nothing happened, he changed his mind. You can’t ask more of a principled man. Slightly Pink Herring.

Herring Three: Keating Five
No indictment. No conviction. No problem. Red herring.

Herring Four: Dissing Alito
Who the hell is Alito, and who knew or cared about him before his name was proffered? This is clearly a litmus test and an example of the degree of unanimity (read groupthink) that the Super Conservatives require in order to succeed.

Feb 1, 2008 - 7:47 pm 199. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: Actually…

“You could approach all of those people in exactly the same way, I dunno… maybe you do. ” — dclydew

….I do.

I treat all people, essentially the same. And, on occasion, I get the sort of result that Charlie (Colorado) was threatening me with.

Case in point….

…..a year ago, I was attending a Board of Directors meeting of an organization I belong to.

During the course of the meeting, the president of this board started dropping the F-bomb as part of his ‘management style’.

I said, loud and clear, “I don’t think that kind of language is appropriate.”

At this point the president of the organization, jumped to his feet and attempted to do what Charlie (Colorado) was threatening.

I managed to capture part of his failed efforts to assault me and give me the bum’s rush with my cell-phone camcorder. It is rather humorous.

It would have been much more ‘humorous’, if friends of his and mine had not blocked him as he ran back back and forth trying to get around the tables to me.

It would have been much more ‘interesting’ if he had succeeded….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive, and Airborne-Ranger qualified. And so am I.]

P.S. Some guy in another venue was trying to do the same, much more recently. All because I stood up for the neighborhoods in my community against government mis-management and big business rapine interests.

I might be shocked by the latter, if it weren’t for the fact that, in Congress, one member almost thrashed another to death with his cane.

[Politics is never REALLY 'cordial'. Polite, maybe, never cordial.]

Feb 2, 2008 - 8:37 am 200. Chuck Pelto:

TO: dclydew
RE: What To Do??!??!!?

Back on our off-topic discussion

“1. Kill them on the battlefield.
2. Capture survivors, stick them in front of a competent tribunal. The tribunal would weed out any innocents caught up in the battle, could provide POW status to those who were unwilling or conscripted fighters and could label all the others as independent agents operating outside law.
3. Innocents go directly home with some compensation for their inconvenience. POW and Independent Agents are questioned (using whatever means short of torture are available) POW’s are held until the end of hostilities (which in this case may be the rest of their lives), but held according to GC. Independent Agents once questioned… are shot… we can ask them what they would like on their Tombstone (pep and sausage maybe?).” — dclydew

I begin to see something of an approach that you might find interesting. Emphasis on the word, ‘might’.

It’s one that I’ve been contemplating since late 2001. I refer to it as the Pershing Technique.

Are you familiar with General of the Armies Pershing?

During the Moro [Muslim] Insurrection in the PIs he was a captain of infantry.

His technique, as I’ve heard it was to execute captured guerrillas by firing squad.

His one modification to the procedure was to have a pig slaughtered before the post-tied honorees and then the firing party would slather their bullets in the pig blood before loading their weapons and carrying out their duty.

The insurrection sort of collapsed.

Captain Pershing was recalled to Washington….and promoted DIRECTLY to general-officer….over a goodly number of his peers and superiors.

My variation on this technique would be that we do not execute the captured.

Rather, they are interned for the rest of their natural life.

That life is spent tending a prison farm.

On this farm there are pigs. They will, on occasion, tend the pigs.

They will not eat pig flesh or by-products during their internment. However, upon their death….

…their carcasses will be fed to the pigs.

Videos will be provided to Al Jezrel and YouTube.

“Seems like it would be cheaper than GitMo and all the bad press. I mean other than the cost of bullets and pizzas.” — dclydew

With my idea of a modified Pershing Technique, we might turn Gitmo into a money making activity while (1) meeting most, if not all, of your options and (2) dissuading our ‘friends’ from continuing their attacks on us.

It’ll take some time, but I think it will be VERY effective.

It’s sort of a lesson learned from when the characters in Hizballah kidnapped a Soviet diplomat.

The KGB did something like Pershing’s technique to the leader of Hizballah; kidnapped him, killed him, stuffed his genetals in his mouth, stuffed him in a bag and dropped him off at Hizballah HQ.

The Soviet diplomat was released, unharmed.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Here's how ya do it. If Capone puts one of your people in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue. -- Sean Connery in The Untouchables]

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:10 pm 201. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. About the ‘kids’….

I treat them as I would my soldiers and I treated my soldiers as though they were my own kids.

It’s interesting how the two are so closely related, after all, an infantry company is made up, for the most part, of very young men.

Feb 2, 2008 - 12:15 pm 202. RBG:

I think McCain’s senatorial endorsements speak for themselves. All the RINOs and a Democrat.

I have been a conservative longer than a lot of you have been alive and only vote Republican because that’s where the least liberal candiates usually are. I am an American first. Party labels aren’t going to mean much if we end up living in a socialist state with no freedom, property rights, gun rights, etc..

Also, as a veteran, I get pretty tired of having to hear of McCain referred to as a hero. So he spent some time as a prisoner and was mistreated. So were several thousand other servicemen in all our wars. (Read about Andersonville if you want to understand real mistreatment). At best, he is just another pilot who got his ass shot down and got captured. That doesn’t make him Sgt. York. The term “hero” is grossly over used today. I got news for you; everyone who serves in the military is not a hero, especially if they fail in carrying out their mission. After 7 years in the military I don’t consider myself worthy of wiping a true hero’s boots. None of our true military heroes that I know of have ever been pompous egotists like John McCain.

Worst of all, McCain is a lier. God hates a lier. If McCain is on the ballot, I’ll be out hunting on election day while I can still legally own a gun.

Feb 2, 2008 - 3:50 pm 203. davis,br:

RBG – I sooo agree with everything you’ve just said.

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:00 pm 204. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Back ON-Topic

I get the distinct impression that there is a majority of military types here that think McCain is NOT the person to be the nation’s Commander-In-Chief.

And, based on their arguments, with good reason.

Is this ‘derangement’? Or is Roger ‘projecting’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Feb 2, 2008 - 5:27 pm 205. wardmd:

Does not “derangement” require a component of IRRATIONALITY?

Those with “Bush Derangement Syndrome” are, by and large, DEMOCRATS who simply blame Bush for EVERYTHING that they don’t like.

Those who opposed/disliked Clinton, did so because of his sexual ASSAULT on women (and his lying about it [wagging his finger at us all]) – and, yes, they were (are) mostly Republicans.

The so-called “McCain derangement syndrome” is First, and foremost, based on McCain’s RECORD and ACTIONS against HIS OWN PARTY. It is, therefore, worthy of note that those who oppose McCain (at least until after the Republican Convention) are REPUBLICANS.

Where are the Democrats who oppose McCain?

Where are the Moderates who oppose McCain?

Is it “derangement” to not trust a man who has sided with the OTHER PARTY (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman) – AND voted against Tax Cuts (one of the Republican Party’s “planks”)?

It’s NOT leadership to abandon one’s principles and side with “the opposition”. Is it not possible (probable) that McCain’s positions are NOT, in fact, in opposition to those of the Liberals in the Democrat party?

WHY, then, should Republicans (especially Conservative Republicans) vote FOR him?

YES – I DO think it would be EASIER to recover from the disaster that would result from ANY Democrat executing their “cut and run” policy. Yes, there WILL be a heavy price to pay, but getting Republicans to come to their senses (and act like Republicans again) is, in my opinion, MORE valuable than allowing someone like McCain to think that THEIR vision for America is correct.

Therefore, IF (and I sure hope not) McCain is the Nominee, I WILL NOT vote for POTUS.

Feb 4, 2008 - 5:26 pm

Write a Comment

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