John McCain endorses Hillary’s “good character, honesty, integrity”
John McCain is incapable of disagreeing with strict immigration enforcement activists without lambasting their character, honesty, and integrity. We’re “nativists” and Jim Crow-style racists who should just “f**k” off. He couldn’t help sneering at former GOP rival Mitt Romney’s business experience as dishonorable and greedy. And his personal vindictiveness toward GOP Hill staffers who have opposed his positions is well-known.
Contrast this treatment of people in his own party with McCain’s treatment of his supposed ideological opposite, Hillary Clinton. Yesterday, McCain was asked about his comment three years ago that Hillary would make a “good president.” If his explanation of the remarks to George Stephanopoulous is supposed to “calm down” conservatives, the McCain camp is 1) more out of touch with reality than I imagined, and 2) hurtling towards a repeat of the 1996 Dole/Kemp disaster faster than I imagined. When Hillary’s Democrat rival, Barack Obama, is doing a better job of attacking the ethically-challenged, truth-challenged, integrity-challenged Clintons than the GOP presidential front-runner, we are in deep doo-doo.
Here are the vid and transcript. Watch, read, cringe, discuss:
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona sat down with George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” today for a wide-ranging interview.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re a superstitious man.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: Let me say that I’m the luckiest man. You know, I don’t like to use superstitious. I just feel that I’m very lucky, and I like to have things that make me luckier.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So when was the first moment you let yourself believe “I’m going to be the nominee”?
MCCAIN: I haven’t yet.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You haven’t yet?
MCCAIN: Well, I think we’ve got to go through it. I think we’ve got a very good shot at it. I’m optimistic. But I think the time to do that is when [former Arkansas] Governor [Mike] Huckabee and the party decides that I am the nominee. He’s still in the race, and he said he’s going to stay in, and I respect that. So we’ll compete.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in 2005, you said, “I have no doubt that Sen. [Hillary] Clinton would make a good president.”
MCCAIN: Well, look, here’s — Sen. Clinton and I are sitting next to each other, and we’re asked, “Would she,” quote, “be a good president?” She would be a good president in the respect that I think she has integrity, I think she has all of the qualities that are necessary, but she has a very different philosophical view, the liberal Democratic view, than I have, which is conservative Republican.
So when you say “good,” she’s a good person. But we have strong differences in our views of government. I think she is a very good person. I think that Sen. [Barack] Obama is a good person.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But not good presidents?
MCCAIN: They certainly wouldn’t make the kind of president that I would be or I wouldn’t be running. You see my point? It’s not a, quote, “good.” I think they would work hard. I think they would be dedicated to the things that they believe in and stand for. I just have different fundamental philosophical views than they do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it sounds like you wouldn’t say the same thing today?
MCCAIN: I would say that they would be good in the respect they’re people of good character, honesty, integrity, when you look at that. Would they be good from a governing standpoint? Certainly not what I would do for this country.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bipartisan Love Fest: Barf Alert! « The Vast Global Zionist Conspiracy v 5.0
- Dave Lucas' Notes
- The TIW Blog » Blog Archive » I TOLD YOU SO! McCAIN WILL *NOT* FIGHT!
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » McCain says Clinton would make a good president
- Malkin: Faster Than Feared — The McCain Mutiny
- Neocon News » Bill Clinton’s Screw My Wife* Tour
- Oblogatory Anecdotes - campaign trail quotes
- Right Wing News
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Plagiarism? The Clinton Campaign is now showing a drowning desperation
- John McCain: Hillary Has Good Character, is Honest and Has Integrity « AmeriCAN-DO Attitude
- Michelle Malkin » McCain to staff: Hands off of Hillary
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
protein wisdom
» A Nannystatist Emily Litella moment [Darleen Click]
Ed Driscoll
» The University ArchipelagoNewsBusters.org
» The War on Terror Made Him Do ItEd Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-Investigation
Rose,
If you can’t beat ‘em (or force them to your way of thinking), insult them. Nice.
Remember this post?
How about “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” or “Doctor, heal thyself.”
Voting for McCain would be the utter hypocrisy. (just as voting for Obama or Hillary would be.) Standing strong in our belief’s is called integrity and principle.
If you want to vote for McCain because he’s the only choice, fine, (that’s probably what I’ll do too) but don’t call everyone else a hypocrit. I feel that I’M the hypocrit, compromising my principles by voting for a man that I KNOW doesn’t stand for the same conservative ideals that I do. The only thing he’s conservative on is the War and maybe Pro-Life, so I’ll vote for him to help the military, (there’s no guarantee he’ll appoint conservative judges, with all his pandering) but I won’t delude myself into thinking that he’s in any other way ‘conservative’.
I’m the hypocrit, and although I don’t like it, at least I can admit it.
BTW, the reason alot of people want to end the WOT is to bring the troops home, which would actually make them significantly safer than they are now. What those people don’t understand is that it would not only ruin the progress in Iraq, it would open the door for the terrorists to move the battleground to the U.S., which would cause uncountable casualties here. They don’t understand that the purpose of the military is to protect the citizens of this country. That’s what they’re paid for. However, I do believe that at least some of the dems and libs truly want to bring the troops home to protect them, they just don’t realize it would be at the expense of the civilians.
McCain has some good qualities, but where it counts–protecting the sovereignty of our nation–he stinks, totally corrupt, totally on the pad of big business and Mexico.
Yes, some Americans will just “yawn” in this election when we have the following choices:
McCain: Will keep us in Iraq and proactive against Muslim terrorists around the world.
Hussein Obama: Will pull us out of Iraq in order to give his Muslim buddies a win and America a humiliating loss.
McCain: The 4000 lives will not be in vain in Iraq.
Hussein Obama: Who cares about the troops? He will pull them out.
McCain: Has promised Supreme Court justices in the vein of Alito and Roberts
Obama: Supreme Court justices in the vein of Hugo Chavez.
And there are some
conservativesliberals posting as conservatives with MDS who will not under any circumstance, even the above, vote for McCain. By the way, Michelle has NEVER stated she will not vote for McCain over Hussein Obama.This always happens. You get liberals posing as conservatives on blogs and talk radio, like Ragspierre is doing on this blog, trying to get conservatives not to appear on voting day. The line is usually: “I’m not going to vote because they are all equally bad.” Now the line is “McCain is not conservative enough, so I don’t care if Barack Hussein Obama gets elected.”
Ah, for a candidate that folks could be confident saying good and positive things about rather than only “well, he’s less evil”.
There were many conservatives more than willing to give McCain a chance by listening to what he said and watching what he did. He gave a very good speech at CPAC signalling his desire to reach out and to keep an open mind regarding some of his positions that were contrary to conservative values.
As more time passes, it appears that McCain’s idea of outreach was limited to giving a speech. Period. And the only tangible effort we have seen on “uniting” the GOP has been to garner endorsements while his supporters go out and brow beat people into submission. In the process, the GOP has painted conservatives who do not support McCain as everything from emotionally unstable to outright stupid.
Some people may kowtow to threats of the end-of-the-world prospects the alternatives bring, but those who are committed by principles and values are unlikely to bend to such tactics.
While I understand McCain not wanting to engage in a face to face commentary on Clinton that could be viewed as “negative”, he seems to be more concerned with lauding the opposition than with making any similar effort with conservatives in his own party. There has certainly been no shortage of vitriol and negativity aimed at conservatives who take issue with his views.
And let’s not forget that we also have a Congress that provides a check and balance on the actions of a President. There are actually some folks who are thinking beyond November, and believe that with a Democrat in office there is a much better chance to regain majorities in both houses. With McCain in office, it is a virtual certainty this will not occur, and the real danger to conservatives is that we will have a Democratic Congress with a de facto Democratic President.
People are entitled to their opinion. They do not have to fall into line with those of differing views. As what is good for the US, there are some who actually believe that a McCain Presidency will be worse for the country in both the short and long term than having a democrat in office. Rational arguments to the contrary are the most likely to be taken into account, but arguments maligning people and hurling invectives in their direction over their beliefs are unlikely to sway anyone.
But more importantly, the actions of McCain himself can have the greatest impact on bringing people into the fold. A speech alone does not cut it, and assailing people to bring them into line is likely to only strengthen their resolve in opposition to the candidate himself.
McCain noted he was open to changing his positions where the facts supported a contrary view. The facts on an issue like illegal immigration are overwhelming. They cry for McCain to change his position based on economic principles, security principles and on the preservation of the chracter of this country. Yet there has not been so much as an acknowledgment of these views from McCain (”securing the border” is an evasive non-answer, since it carefully side steps illegal immigration).
McCain will do nothing, because he does not need to do anything to reel in the GOP nomination. His actions indicate not only a willingness to abandon conservatives who disagree with him, but also appear to be geared toward severing them from his base of support by alienating them through public excoriation and humiliation. In other words, if they do not come to him, he will banish them from the GOP. And, at this point, that certainly seems like the way things are working.
Frankly, whenever I see the top 3 candidates, I’m reminded of Monty Python(Holy Grail)…”Run away! Run away!” Democratic party has no vote from me. I’ve looked at Libertarian and Constitution party platforms, and, they just don’t jive with my views. So, that leaves me with a “moderate(?)”. A candidate strong on immigration reform would be nice, but with the state of the houses of Congress, any attempt to do something would probably be met with a “stick it” reply, leaving a stalemate. “No new taxes” makes a nice speech, but, then again, the President doesn’t tax; only the House. He can recommend, but will probably get the same “stick it” reply. So, that leaves the international scene. Well, there, McCain does have some strenght. At least he can handle himself there, better than anyone else. However, there is some small hope…as one columnist said:
“However, there is some truth to what he says. Let’s not forget the Howard Dean scream, or the shot of Michael Dukakis when he stuck his head out of that Abrams tank adorned with that silly looking helmet. How about John Kerry wearing that green contamination suit, or “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” line?
Gary Hart, thought to be the Democratic frontrunner in the ‘88 Presidential campaign, had to drop out after the infamous photo of a young model named Donna Rice sitting on his lap aboard a yacht called “Monkey Business” appeared in the National Enquirer. Who can forget (although you might want to) Ross Perot’s running mate, Vice Admiral James Stockdale, and his performance at a debate in October of 1992? Stockdale’s response to his first question: “Who am I? Why am I here?” If you watched that, you knew it was a turning point in Perot’s quest for the Oval Office. By the way, this is only a partial list. Candidates from all parties have “stepped in it” and never survived.”
A “small miracle” may be needed. But, if nothing, I’m going to have to go Republican.
McCain is at least a Republican, and SCOTUS appointments are important. But:
1. Even if he wins, he may only serve one term and the decrepit liberals on the bench may delay retirement.
2. Taking the conservative pressure off McCain is stupid. It would allow him to easily make some foolhardy choice for VP and blithely continue to “reach out” once in office. He needs to be constantly reminded that he cannot move left with impunity.
A McCain-Clinton or -Obama choice is no real choice for conservatives, and we should accept that at the polls. But this fact should not preclude criticism and continuing attempts to sway McCain from his natural wayward path.
The truth is that none of the three candidates for President will…or could…pull the troops our of Iraq, as this poster suggests.
Obama made that very clear just this past weekend.
McCain has promised us a lot of things. I suggest that if you believe him, you are a fool.
He said Alito was too conservative, then lied about saying it.
Gabe here was posting a short time back that Obama was openly supporting a Muslim take-over of the U.S.
He was challenged to support that nonsense.
He never did.
Yep. I’m just a liberal poseur…like that Rush Limbaugh guy whose on the radio sometimes….
With all due respect, that’s a hell of alot of crystal ball reading on which to gamble this nation’s future for the rest of out lives. It’s what Rush Limbaugh suggests. I’m beginning to feel that Rush is more concerned about galvanizing his falling audience numbers than his country. After all, who benefits most from the socialists taking power than the ultimate right-wing pundit, where he can offer up a place for his followers to gripe, lick their wounds and live in a fairy-tale world about conservative perfectionism?
To begin with, to assume that McCain is as bad as Hillary is simply not even remotely justified by the evidence. McCain is harder on terrorism, harder of spending, harder on abortion, and if nothing else we owe it to the unborn who need our protection so as to know what life is to elect not perfection, but the candidate who is best, no matter how imperfect. We owe it to those who are alive in potential target areas to choose the candidate who is the more hawkish on fighting terror.
To hand out the wholesale loss off our rights to democrats appointing far-left socialist judges as to make sure that
is nothing less than the ruination of this country for an unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky prophesy.
Sorry for the tough talk, but that’s how the majority of us see it.
Why does it seem like McCain is angling to be Hillary’s veep pick? Everyone thought Obama was only in it to be her veep, but now that he’s whomping her, if she were to pull the superdelegate rabbit out of the hat and steal the nomination, does anyone think Obama would settle for the silver? Hell, no!
OTOH, does it not seem too far-fetched that after winning the Stupid Party’s nomination, McCain could switch parties and run as her veep? The saddest part of this admittedly ridiculous premise is that it’s all-too-possible.
Bill Bennett was moaning today that conservatives need to look at what they have in common with McCain – i.e. what positions he hasn’t flip-flopped to the left over YET – and all I could think was that it sounded like he was saying, “Since he’s good on spending and the war, we can overlook the fact that he’s a pedophile and a cannibal.” Uh-huh.
In November I will cast a vote for President. No more, no less. I will not be choosing my role model, my personal mouthpiece or my spiritual leader (Throne of St. Peter reference) for the next four years. But I will be choosing the next Commander-in-Chief.
At the start of primary season McCain was at the middle of my candidate (from all parties) list, just ahead of Ron Paul–who was ahead of all the Democrats. Now it’s down to McCain, Oh!b♥m♥ and Clint♂n. McCain’s still ahead of those two, so that’s who I’ll vote for. And I’ll do that knowing my vote is not my ringing personal endorsement of every utterance he has made or every position he has taken.
Again, I’ll say that a man with a 100% rating from the Club for Growth and a 0% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League can’t be as bad as some here are making him out to be.
This will be my last post for a few hours. Have to prepare for a job interview.
Yup. And conversely, I imagine everybody realizes America’s not going to keep hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq to the last syllable of recorded time.
Good luck at your interview Tiger!
Hopefully it won’t go like this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dWMIuipn_c
Indeed! Hope it goes great,TexT!
No, I linked to this article from David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine. The only one who took offense was Ragspierre, and the offense he took was very similar to that a liberal might take. And Ragspierre doesn’t want anyone to vote for McCain. Go figure.
OK, I guess nobody is taking on the question of…
Why is a Fabian Socialist PROVEN more dangerous than an outright Marxist?
So, here’s the answer…
History (not a crystal ball) teaches us that Fabian Socialism was successful in Britain and Canada and the U.S. when Marxism could never gain a foothold.
What made it “Fabian” Socialism? Just this: Fabian was the ancient who had the flash of insight that little steps would defeat a very powerful foe when going heads-on would not. Fabian Socialists saw that democratically effecting outright socialism…or Marxism…was not going to happen in Britain…or most anyplace with a tradition of freedom. So, they decided on a strategy of little steps…little steps that proved very successful in socializing their nations.
McCain, as a Fabian big government liberal, is much, MUCH more dangerous than the outright socialists of the Dimocrate Party.
Why?
He would confuse the lines of distinction. He’s known for it.
He carries credibility the other two do not.
He would be vastly more effective in office than Obama could be. Hillary is one of the most hated people in the US, and not just by conservatives. That will only increase with time.
Jema Carter was one of the smartest people to ever hold the Presidency (he was a nukalar scientist for real). He was one of the least effective, as well. Obama and Hillary would make Carter seem like Teddy Roosevelt.
If you want to see the ball advanced down the field by the socialists, by big government, and see the Constitution eroded faster…
vote McCain. The New York Times idea of a good Fabian in Republican clothing.
Yep. It’s true…I DO hate guilt by association…
I won’t let even people on my side of an argument get away with sloppy thinking, or telling an outright lie.
Hmmm…is that what anyone here associates with Leftists…???
While we are all enjoying the drama of the Dem fight, you must appreciate the tightrope Sen. McCain is walking.
He needs the Republican conservative base to come around. Given his opponents, in November I believe it’s a given.
If he goes too far to the right before the election, he will lose the moderates on the left which far outnumber the strict conservatives that, so far, say there is no way the could vote for him anyway.
His path to the presidency, however you view it, is clearly marked by staying consistant with his “reach across the aisle” message.
That being said, for him to pound on his statement at CPAC about stopping any bill with earmarks is a winner.
He can challenge either of his opponents with a real, tangible “change” in Washington with this as policy, and I’ll bet he couldn’t get either of them to say that they would veto any bill that contained any.
Once again, I will state that I am decidedly undecided, but I am not ready to accept a socialist as a leader either.
Purplepeep:
I agree with you to a certain point. There is a lot of “Bush-Republican fatigue” as you put it. However, there are MANY, MANY Americans unwilling to do the hard, mental research of finding out what Obummer actual believes in. This is fatally flawed and frightening to me.
I also genuinely believe that Americans don’t care about their country anymore because our government has grown so entrenched, so corrupt, so high off the hog. Americans have also gotten used to being taking care of (welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security) that they don’t know how to survive. When the going gets tough they whine “universal healthcare or bust!” I’m getting fatigued by that. If Americans were actually acquainted with “socialized health care” they’d know it already exists with Tricare, the federal healthcare system for the military. It’s ineffective and inefficient (and I’m one of their customers). They believe that one man (Saint O’Bummer) can change it all. He can’t…not unless that change comes from term limits.
I have a lot to lose as do many Americans if they really were honest about it. I have a husband in the military and I have way too many high state taxes (Virginia). Do you know what it’s like to pay for personal property taxes (my car- I thought it was great to own my own car, however, VA has convinced me otherwise) sales taxes, and income taxes. I’m lucky though, I could be like others and have property taxes too. VA’s socialist, Kaine government is killing my finances. I’m tired of giving to “society” at large. It’s one thing to use my money for road repair but another to institute pc education like same sex parenting and global warming education is riduculous (just look at CA and MA). The only relief I get is tax cuts… government doesn’t know how to work more with less (they could if they saw what the military is going through).
I don’t like McCain (and yes he is Bob Doleesque) but I trust the two Dems even less with my financial resources than him. I also trust the Dems even less with my husband than I do McCain.
I think it’s fair if Obama is offered as an example of an “Islamist Manchurian Candidate” that you can pose McCain as the “Fabian Socialist Manchurian Candidate”.
If you look at his ACTIONS…not a speech at CPAC…and you ask what philosophy they comport with…
it isn’t any kind of stretch to see him as a Fabian Socialist.
McCain-Lieberman…?
Would you need any more proof than that?
“#84 Irish Rose said:
This is turning out to be a very productive discussion, keep it going folks.
I’m off to some vital business for a while… I’ll check back in later.”
Who the hell do you think you are? This post shows, to me, just how morally superior you view yourself. Ack, can’t stand that kind of narcissism. Hardly surprising though, based on many of your comments.
Yeah, emjem, I don’t think it’s against Republicnas specifically – more that people just naturally like to mix it up a bit and at least reshuffle the cards, if nothing else. Just as there was “Clinton fatigue”.
The one thing McCain has going for him in this race is that Obama is a “clean slate”, he can be – as they say – “defined” by an opponent. I don’t know if Mccain is up to that job, though.
Yes, there is a large amount of that attitude in the equation, too. Unfortunately all pyramid schemes collapse at one time or another, that’s when the people wise up due to the realities.
I appreciate your family serving our nation, emjem. My oldest bro was USA for about 20 years and had his share of tales such as your own.
nyc123me, I-Rose is a good person, though I would disgree with her on any number of issues.
Folks sometimes will have heated disagreements or maybe say things they wouldn’t otherwise. But most of them are fine, sincere folks.
It’s February and the onus is on McCain, not us. I haven’t voted in the primary yet. Not happy about that.
C. Krauthhammer writes “selling of hope is the oldest trick in the book” (when I disagree w/him, he’s always right.)
We are at war. aj: Love the outfit!
Hillary isn’t honest. As the liberal James B Stewart pointed out in his book “Blood Sport”, both Clintons have an appalling lack of respect for the value of the truth. Two examples. How did she turn $1,000 of cattle futures into $100,000? She read the Wall Street Journal, she said. Yeah, sure. In her autobio, she said she was shocked to learn of Bill’s dalliance with Monica. Oh yeah. This after his 25 years of womanizing under her nose? She lies like she breathes. Naturally and without effort.
Hmm, are there still any conservatives out there who would NOT vote for McCain, thus helping Hussein Obama win? They must have a lot of money to sacrifice.
It has gotten to the point where those stating they will NEVER vote for McCain are being childish.
They would rather have Hugo Chavezes on the Supreme Court, new taxes, 4000 troops’ sacrifices be in vain, terrorists everyone celebrating. . .rather than vote for McCain. Classic MDS: You would rather have your country be destroyed than support McCain. Classic BDS: You would rather have your country be destroyed than support Bush. Either way: Both camps are not supporting the troops.
Cue hysterical denial of the truth by those with MDS.
I think you give Mr. McCain too much credit by labeling him as anything in particular. He’s whatever he thinks he ought to be in order to get folks to vote for him, and to get good press. He’s a slave to pollsters rather than an ideologue.
If John McCain thought that eating rotting sushimi would attract voters and good press, he’d eat rotting sushimi for every meal. He’s an empty suit–even more so than Barack Obama.
Rags:
I totally disagree with you. Are you truly a Conservative or you one in name only? Are you an idealist, a pragmatist, or a realist? While I agree with you to a certain point, when you get beyond Conservatism is where you lose me.
The candidates are all socialists to a certain respect, the difference is how they apply that philosophy and if the American people catch on (which they often do not). I think your socialism argument is a bit of a straw man, myself. It’s how you apply any given philsophy whether or not you “actually” embody it. If you’re not checked then you can be dangerous.
Marxism vs. Socialism. I’ve seen what’s happened to Europe (I’m a European historian who’s taught Social Studies over the years) and it hasn’t been pretty. I’ve seen what unchecked government does with the people’s money-
just look at the UK, Scandinavia, Germany. Cradle to grave programs do not work. Poring money into unsupportable programs does not work.
Here’s a better example. Look at our education system and how much the Federal government has been pouring money into it. It is inefficient because different hands are running it from different states. There are some outstanding public schools but most are lazy, unaccountable, and uncompetitive.
Either federalize public education or leave it to the states. Both are involved which promotes inconsistency and lack of results. The European schools are better because they are state-run (another brand of socialism). They are also high pressure intensive. If you fail your grade’s exam at the end of the year in Spain, you fail that grade. In some American schools, you fail a grade (or that grade’s core subjects) you get passed on anyway. I’m not one for standardized testing because it makes kids stupider. Teach for knowledge and teach for life.
Liberals (socialists/communists depending on which philosophy they practice) predominantly run the schools. Teachers and their unions prevent choice and parents having a say in their own childrens’ lives. I’ve seen this as a teacher myself. There is no fairness but the American public puts up with it. Why? Because it’s free (which is becoming more of a lie year after year).
You can call McCain a Fabian as much as you like. It’s how he adheres to that philosophy that matters. At least we know. What do we know about Obama (the media presumptive nominee darling)? Not much. It’s a matter of the enemy you know vs. the one you don’t.
We are heading down a treachous road that Europe has already been down. It wasn’t pretty. I’m pretty sick and tired with people telling me that Obama is GREAT! Yeah, right… I don’t like McCain but at least I’m under no illusions as to what he’s about. Many people are about Obama and they prefer to be kept under said illusions. Pretty sad.
BTW, I’m simply stating the obvious, not saying I’m not going to vote for McCain. Being an empty suit means that someone could fill it with good ideas. Barack Obama is definitely a more dangerous candidate than McCain.
Again, McCain has no underlying philosophy that guides him. He’s an empty vessel. Yet, even that doesn’t discount me voting for him, especially if he can be persuaded to choose a half-decent running mate.
#123 purplepeep “I-Rose is a good person, though I would disgree with her on any number of issues.”
Perhaps you are right, I do not know IR personally, but that subtle comment IR made spoke volumes to me – seen that sort of attitude before.
Is IR an educator by any chance? (teacher/professor).
continued..
Irrelevant to the topic though, so drop it rather than get into ad hominem attacks. Apologies for any unintended hijacking.
I hear you, but disagree.
McCain has demonstrated a core set of values, and they are not pretty.
If we look at who he fights with, and how he fights when he does, you’ll see that he is ANTI-CONSERVATIVE.
You will see a big-government, pro-tax, pro-regulation, anti-market, anti-freedom guy…
who, as you say, is an empty suit…
when it comes to character.
I don’ think I have ever witnessed Presidential Canidates so out of touch with the American Electorate…truly these people running are only after the “Power” this is about ambition naked ambition…dress it up anyway you like but when your message, Mr John McCain, is out of step with a huge block of the people, that would normally vote Republican…something is wrong!
Knowing the political climate of the country…trying to throw the cultural shift to LEFT, coming up on 7 years after 9/11, this makes sense to somebody? There is neither border or port security, from the party who ran on National Security – 2004.
John McCain, show me the fence and maybe just maybe, I will vote for you. No I am not holding my breath.
\
I wouldn’t read too much into a comment smack in the middle of some errr, vigorous debate, nyc.
I don’t know I-Roses’ profession.
But here’s kind of a catch-22 question: wouldn’t a person have to believe him-herself morally superior to judge another as acting “moraly superior”? (I just mean that as a noggin scratcher, not as a dig, lol.)
No, I think he goes that way because he gets GREAT PRESS when he does. If the MSM were conservative, then he’d be more conservative. Really, it’s not more difficult than that. If the press were pro-Nazi, then he’d campaign as a Nazi. If the press were pro-cannibal, then he’d campaign as a cannibal. It’s as simple as that.
A politician can’t depend on just the vegetarian vote to carry him to office.
Mr_Conservative_Cat in #64
Just getting a chance to respond … sorry …
I think the problem is everyone is wanting that “perfect conservative” candidate … and that person does not now nor never has existed … even Reagan had his areas that were not totally conservative views …
Until people get over that obsession with perfection there are going to be those that will never be anything but disappointed in their choices … but refusing to vote as a form of defiance is nothing more than voting for the opposition … period …
We can only play the game with the cards we are dealt … and those who did not get out and work for those candidates that were more to their liking earlier on can only go with what is left …
I live in AZ … and I did not vote for McCain … and by the time I got to vote my 1st and 2nd choices were no longer available to me …
but now I will vote for him because the options from the other side are much much worse than McCain …
Off to another meeting … will try to catch your response afterwards …
Any way you slice it, we’re screwed.
Going along and voting for the lesser of two evils is what led us to this point. McCain represents nothing that I believe in and forget waterboarding me….hold a gun to my temple in the voting booth and STILL WILL NOT VOTE for this traitorous ,egotistic, contemtuous Bastard! NEVER! Yes, he will be the nominee, much like Martinez was the head of the party against the wishes of the base. Doesn’t anyone here get it that this party is not representative of conservatives any longer? Despite voting for Bush twice I have regretted that decision and have nothing but contempt for the man who has defied the American people time and time again to SHOVE his North American Union and open borders plan on this country. There is a special place in hell for these men and at least they will all be together .McCain will win the nomination but there is NO WAY he will ever be President.
yohannbiimu;
McCain as simply a camera whore…?
Certainly some degree of fit…
But how, then, do we explain his hateful response to conservatives who oppose him…
when no such ferocity is displayed to his “friends across the isle”…????
Neither does voting for McCain.
Succinct…that’s what…
succinct and correct!
Again, when he’s singing “Kumba-ya” and playing nicey-nice with Democrats, he gets good press. When he bad-mouths otherwise “loyal Republican voters,” he gets good press (and WE get bad press).
And let’s realize that if McCain does have anything underlying within him, he feels that otherwise “loyal Republican voters” ought to be loyal, and stand with the party, regardless of mindset. He gets angry when he feels that we are being disloyal and not being in lockstep for “the good of the party.”
This process is MUCH more serious to you and me, but it’s only a game to McCain, and he’s playing it the way he feels he needs to play it.
I believe the counter argument to that will be “but one Socialist has an ‘R’ after his name.”
Rags:
Crystal ball watching is all well and good but we really don’t know what any one Dem or “Republican” would do. Calling McCain a Fabian (which is a silly argument.. I give you points for labeling McCain a Fabian socialist in the guise of an established RINO Republican) is like calling Obama “moderate” or Hillary the “military” candidate.
Politicians like to wiggle in and out of positions as is their style. So I agree with the poster who said that McCain defies labels (and expectations). Look what happened when we labeled Pres. Bush a “conservative.” We got little of the conservative we were expecting.
Politicians only serve themselves. If the American people think that voting for any given politician means jack then I got an expensive condo development ready for occupation in the Floida Everglades. Policians like to please and give people what they want even if it’s not what is healthy or sound for the country. This is the lesson to learn from Europe.
Your points are well-taken but I’m an eternal skeptic. I have watched some odd things go on in the military that I did not like. I have been attacked on other message boards/blogs by military members (if they even were) for supporting another country’s quest for freedom. I am a conservative but I am not naive like many in this country that think that principle is the only standard upon which to live one’s life.
I respect the opinions of fellow conservatives on this blog who feel that they, under no circumstances, can vote for McCain. However, I do not think there will be a viable Libertarian or Constitutionalist waiting in the wings. If anything, vote to ensure that the Dems don’t control everything if it looks like they’ll gain the presidency. Nothing gets accomplished without Congress… nothing (which is both pitiable and encouraging).
yohannbiimu;
Suppose we concede your argument.
Effectively, there is no difference in result, as we can always predict that the press will liably be Leftists.
Hence, if McCain behaves as he does solely to curry favor with the Leftist press, he will preside as a Leftist.
OK…
tell me why that is true.
Maybe it would be easier to look for something we agree with McCain about? Anybody got something positive to point to about McCain? This isn’t about Conservatives, this is about Republicans, you know it’s McCain’s turn.
I do believe John McCain supports the American Military. I don’t have anything else.
That’s a possibility, but it only means that we need to back conservative candidates running for the House of Representatives and Senate to bend Mr. McCain’s already weak will. If we have a liberal democrat Congress, then our policies will be liberal/socialist regardless of who’s in office; however, if we can get a conservative Congress, then McCain might side with ‘em once and awhile (if he thinks he’ll get good reviews by Chris Matthews). Obama or Clinton won’t.
I think Matthews will throw McCain a bone once and awhile.
People need to figure out that WE no longer decide who will be on the ticket. The globle elite decide that. By having the MSM control who’s message is allowed to be heard, and who’s campaign is flush with cash.
http://www.trilateral.org/
Laree;
I’ve written various times we all owe McCain a debt of gratitude for his service and sacrifice as a member of the armed services.
For a time, early in his career, he was a reasonably good office-holder. There did seem to come a turning point about the time of the Keating Scandal. I think he changed after that.
He might be a cool guy to have a drink with, but I personally don’t like people I consider to be liars, so I wouldn’t hang out with him.
yohannbiimu;
We have successfully fought off a majority leftist Congress and President before now.
I respectfully think your final analysis assumes predicates that have never seen any support in reality.
McCain is the New York Times candidate…
McCain has convinced himself that he is smart. He is wrong.
Ragspierre:
McCain is playing this campaign like a game. He’s pretending he’s Admiral Nimitz standing over a map of the Pacific, “island-hopping” to capture as many voting blocks as he can.
McCain is thinking strategically, not ideologically.
Is it just me or does it seem like McCain’s wife never speaks? just curious, not a slam but I haven’t heard her say one word.
maybe she has ijshalps (I’ll just stand here and look pretty syndrome)
Heh yeah, good point purplepeep #134
Just a point for those who echo McCain’s ‘war hero record’ as a reason for supporting for him.. McCain graduated in the bottom 5% of his class at the Naval Academy out of about 900 graduates.. and that’s possibly only because of his Daddy’s status saved him from getting the boot altogether. When on active duty, he was shot down and captured, held prisoner for over 5 years where he was tortured – that does things to people, and his violent outbursts show his emotional and mental stability to be at least questionable. And people want this guy as the US commander-in-chief, with his finger on the proverbial big red button? No thanks. He’s shown his disregard for people who don’t agree with him, including his own supporters and party members. JUST SAY NO.
Rags:
My assertion is true for several reasons. One: we’re already in a pseudo-
socialist framework. Two: there has been no tip-toing into socialism because we have very well-developed social programs. Three: those social programs are welfare (we were tip-toing out of it under Clinton but it’s still around), social security (falling apart and barely hanging on),
medicaid/medicare (falling apart/barely hanging on), and public education. Four: federal/state decree that your kid must attend school until they’re age 18 when in Europe (the socialist model) they attend until 16 and then they can elect to go to college or move on to something else. There is very little wiggle room for parents. Under a socialist apparatus like public education, your kid has no choice but attend a public school (unless you have vouchers, have the money to put your kid into private school, or homeschool). Public education has become a more and more socialistic tendency than societal normalizing.
When FDR held the presidency 4 terms, he instituted social security. This happened during a period of what many feel was social and economic instability (the Great Depression). Public education really didn’t take on its current form until the mid-late 18th century as a way to keep immigrant kids in one place and out of trouble. Public education existed before then but it was more community-oriented- what is now known as the one-room school house (which my grandparents attended).
We are already in socialism’s grip. Perhaps, not to the same extent as Venezuela or Europe but we are there. I actually saw what happened when Spain got a Conservative-minded prime minister in office who wanted to do away with all their cushy social programs like 3 week vacations and the like and there was uproar in the streets.
Americans are more and more in love with what others have (Europe’s social programs and the rich). Liberals, especially those like Hillary and O’Bummer want to take more and more from the productive and rich (and I don’t think it’s just Exxon) to give to the unproductive. We need to get back to what used to work. Regulation in some industries is good but if it becomes a stranglehold, not so much.
Politicians are changeable creatures, Rags. Just look at Pres. Bush. Look at Clinton. We need someone who will give the American people some tough love. Perhaps, McCain will do it, but I’m sure like any other typical politician he will want to “please” the American voter.
If you have a chance (and this is for anybody reading this) go to the MSN, Middle Class Crunch message boards and look at the self-indulgent, socialist-crazed morons running amuck wanting “change” at any price (um, like universal health care). It’s enlightening, alarming, and a bit self-pitying. This message board is the epitomy of what happens when people grow too dependent on government.
Could be…I couldn’t say what he’s thinking…just that if it is that, he’s wrong.
Conservatives who run as conservatives win, according to statistics.
Even Conservative-LIKE candidates like Dubya win…I voted for him twice (kind of giving the lie to people who call me a purist)…
But outright liars who claim they are channeling Reagan…while hosing his people…
CANNOT win. (Sorry, Kitty.)
emjem24;
Sorry, what I read from you agrees with me.
I don’t get how you arrive at the conclusion that McCain is not effectively a Fabian Socialist.
If McVain and Obambi are both beholden to George Soros and his financing of both candidates and to a somewhat lesser extent Hillary as well, Haven’t “WE” the American people already lost? And is there really a difference between all three if they are going to be implementing Soros’s plans?
Ezzzz ACKLY, America…!!!
Can we tell the GOP this is acceptable????
I wrote this letter to McCain before I came here. I asked for a personal response but most likley will not get one so I will not waste my time waiting, If I do I will post it here for all to read.
Rags:
Actually, what I’m saying DISAGREES with you. I’m not big on social/political movement comparisons. I’m also not big on European political movements being applied to American politics. Please indicate (through articles or other sources) what evidence you have as to how McCain is a Fabian Socialist and I might just agree with you. The onus is on you to prove your “theory” as it is on Gabe to prove that Obama is a Manchurian, Muslim candidate.
I guess you must have missed my disagreement through examples in my 6 paragraphs of post. Let’s summarize since you seem to have skimmed: we are in all aspects a socialistic country already. This happened way before McCain got his feet wet in politics.
FDR started the big government, socialist ideology with social security. LBJ (who I didn’t mention) continued said ball with the War on Poverty (which you can never entirely irradicate because there will always be people at the bottom rung of society). Public education (a passion of mine as a former teacher) has been around for a long time but is the subject of endless utopian, social experiments that always fail.
I don’t get how YOU think that McCain is a Fabian socialist. I have a big problem with anybody using European social/political history to prop up one’s viewpoint about an American politician. You have provided no evidence except your own viewpoint. I have already provided you with the American historical record as evidence that a socialist framwork was already in place way before McCain was a politician. That doesn’t mean he will fit that mold- that, sir, is your crystal ball prognostication at work.
Rags, you said you hate liars. Well I hate people who use the historical record to speak for them, to give some judgement on another human being that may or may not be true. What were the Fabians known for? What did they do? Where is the evidence? So far I’ve only heard your opinion. Is that evidence?
Interesting that George H.W. “Read my lips..” Bush comes out supporting Mccain the same time this article comes out. Guess it takes one to know one.
oops I copy the last part of that twice but maybe he will get the message.
Nope. My opinion isn’t evidence. History would be, though. Try some research.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about when I mention the Fabians, how did you conclude I’m all wet?
I haven’t asserted McCain is a Manchurian any-damned-thing. He is effectively a demonstrable Fabian Socialist. Explore his record since 1998.
“She would be a good president in the respect that I think she has integrity”
“I would say that they would be good in the respect they’re people of good character, honesty, integrity, when you look at that.”[with your cranium fully shoved into your anal cavity and without using even a modicum of critical thinking skills - he would have added if he weren't a weasely RINO]
I threw up a little in my mouth upon reading this.
He’s a lucky, lucky man!
The musings of Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan (except for “Just Say No”), Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton didn’t contribute a whole lot to American political discourse.
I don’t think the Fabian I remember was a socialist. Maybe someone can tell me what a Fabian Socialist is?
BOB;
Google “Fabian Socialist”.
The net is a wonderful thing…
OK. How can someone with 100% ratings from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (big business), the National Federation of Independent Businesses (small business), the Club for Growth (supply-siders), a 91% rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, an 88% rating from the National Taxpayers Union and an 80% rating from the Traditional Values Coalition be a Fabian Socialist?
BTW, these are McCain’s most recent ratings–not his lifetime ratings.
TexasTiger;
Glad you asked…!!!
I think it was Disraeli or Burke who said, “If you torture numbers enough, they will tell you anything.” (Which I risk misquoting from memory).
Where to begin…
Who but an effective socialist would embrace the anti-rational religion of Global Man-made Climate Change?
Who but an effective socialist would push McCain-Lieberman?
Who but an effective socialist opposes tax cuts while using the rhetoric of self-identified Leftists?
What do we make of a person who openly attacks capitalists and markets?
I could go on, but you need to explore this yourself.
I personally don’t give a fig about who rates McCain Mr. Wonderful. He could be endorsed by the entire college of cardinals, and it would make no difference to me.
I like to use more fundamental indicators…like how the man votes, speaks, and who his friends are.
Even though I doubt that McCain will make a good president, I’m willing to get behind him. I just have one question. If I fall in line with McCain, does that mean I vote for him or for the person he has “no doubt” would make a good president?
Those aren’t ratings to McCain, the man. Those are ratings of how McCain voted recently by solid conservative organizations.
You would be right to put more stock in a politician’s votes than his words or friends.
There are plenty of legitimate things for which to criticize McCain. This interview is not one of them. I’m sorry, but I can’t get worked up over one senator being polite to another. It’s statesmanlike to show a strong disagreement over policy, while refraining from personally demonizing your opponent in public.
You know that Senate vote the other day to tie the CIA’s hands on interrogations? McCain voted against that, and Bush will veto it if it comes to his desk.
The critically important FISA bill that was just voted down? It would have given telecoms immunity and allowed us to spy on terrorists outside the US w/o the red tape. McCain voted for that.
The only thing that’s saving us from these irresponsible Democrats is a Republican president. I ordered a bunch of McCain bumperstickers yesterday.
Obama/Bloomberg ?????
Armstrong Williams over at Townhall.com says he heard on the street that Bloomberg would give BHO a billion with a B to run if he is snubbed by the Dems at the convention. And run as his running mate. With the Dems fractured a conservative candidate could win in a 4 way race.
YEEEHAAAAA!!
Isn’t what’s McCain’s doing called “damning Oh!b♥m♥/Clint♂n with faint praise.”
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
- Inigo Montoya
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus gained his reputation and his nickname (Cunctator, or “The Delayer”) after Rome’s early defeats at Hannibal’s hands in the second Punic War. His strategy was to wear Hannibal’s army down by constantly maintaining a Roman army nearby while refusing battle, thus starving the Carthaginians of the opportunity to win the war outright.
In other words, Fabius was the author of a defensive military strategy, one which the Romans abandoned as soon as they felt strong enough to take on Hannibal again directly.
Those who espouse “Fabian Socialism” are proposing something else entirely – effectively a revolution in slow-motion while nobody’s watching – which is a different (i.e., offensive) concept.
In other words, the base comparison is inapt.
Likewise in the current context, to call McCain a “Fabian” (while implying that Hillary or Obama are in fact “real” socialists) is a red herring argument. For if pursuing policies that lead to creeping socialism is being a “Fabian,” then most American presidents if not most American politicians since Franklin Roosevelt have been Fabians to one degree or another.
If Bernie Sanders was the donkey nominee, then darkly warning about the “Fabian” McCain might make a little more sense. But if what you have amounts to a choice among three flavors of Fabians, then criticizing only one of them as such is sophistry.
Rags:
I’ve heard of the Fabian Socialists but how do they relate to McCain? As far as I knew the Fabians were one of the formulators of the Labour Party of Great Britain. They favored a national welfare/national health system and imperialist foreign policy and Tony Blair is seen as one of their proponents. The Fabian Society is more of a socialist club for fellow theorists who then influenced political thought at the party level.
As to how this relates to McCain, I cannot see it. If you’re implying that McCain is a gradualist… America caught on quite quickly to his shamnesty ploy. I do not see McCain as a big supporter of a national health care system (univeral healthcare) or imperialist foreign policy. McCain was a huge critic of the Iraq War (which is seen in some far-left circles as an imperialist war) and is very well-favored by business (the Fabians being a labor entity are not).
Why do I need to do your research for you, Rags? You know better to assert such a thing without backup. I taught history for 5 years and I’ve counseled my students to back up anything they say with documented support. So why does that need to be the case for middle schoolers and not for you? Or am I to take your word on it?
I’m well aware of the socialism bent in European politics. There were also many subgroups and splinter organizations, especially in the early 20th century. Socialists are known by many names, but also the names of those who inspired the movement.
Please stop insulting our collective intelligence by inserting European history into what is uniquely an American political conversation. How is McCain a “demonstrable Fabian Socialist?” Is it because he’s not a “reliable conservative?” There may be people on here who don’t know who Fabian is. Why don’t you enlighten them, stop being rude to me, and give us RESOURCES as to experts who believe this the case?
I do not like McCain. I also don’t like many liberals of either political spectrum. If your’re refering to Shamnesty or his collaberations with liberal Democrats since 1998, I did not like that either. However, such dealings make him a slimey politician, not necessarily a Fabian socialist.
I think it the height of irony that you’re asking me to do research on an assertion YOU made. That is lazy and not befitting a member of this blog. You and I will agree to disagree. I want evidence, not personal animus. Stick to the personal animus instead of the historical comparison. It does wonders for your authenticity.
I chose not to ignore any of that.
I know that Mr. McCain does not vote in a vacuum. He has been a Presidential candidate for a couple of decades now. Has he managed to fool you, too?
I think this is like saying, “Yep, she’s a great cook 100% of the time, and keeps house at a 85% approval rate…it is just those few periodic instances of adultery I that I have to over-look…”
Thanks. It went well. Didn’t hear “Good night! Ding, ding, ding, ding!” once.
5…4…3…2…1
“So I’m going to divorce her and shack up with a crack whore because that’ll really show her!”?
It wasn’t mine. The Fabians chose it. Didn’t they?
Are Hillary and Obama self-identified Liberal/Progressives? Why, yes, they are!
Are they open advocates for socialist policy? Why, yes, I believe they are!
Would their brand of socialism be easier to oppose by CONSERVATIVES than would be, say, Mr. McCain’s socialist urges?
I assert they would.
I reckon you can if you want…
Myself, I’d just leave her. I like dealing with reality, see, and that adultery stuff would be kind of nuclear.
But some couldn’t do it for fear of being alone…
I find the Fabian Socialist arguments interesting, so I thought of things I consider socialist, yet many Republicans seem to support (with votes and money).
1. Public schools
2. “No child left behind.”
3. The FDA.
4. The Federal Reserve.
5. Social Security.
6. Medicare.
7. “The war on drugs.”
8. Foreign Aid
9. The death tax.
10. National Debt
Now tell me, why the Republicans represent conservatism?
What is “damning” about praising Democrats as “people of good character, honesty, integrity”? Either McCain is a Straight-Talker or he is a deceiving flatterer. But he can’t be both.
But in November there won’t be a “None of the Above” (i.e., being alone) option. You will have to work things out with the old lady or shack up with the crack ho.
When life hands you lemons…make lemon drop shots.
PL:
The faint praise is damning. It’s what he didn’t say (”We agree on almost everything. ♥♥♥♥”)
I vote for deceiving flatterer. JM could use a little less talk and a little more straight.
Rags:
As another poster commented, the American public have a Bush-Republican hangover. They’re not parceling political ideologies over the dinner table. They’re going for the feel good, pleasure points that Obama extolls right now rather than the rational, is this guy a socialist talk right now.
Has it occurred, to you, Rags, how often Dems don’t want to be known as liberals but rather progressives? Why is that? Liberal has a such a more negative connotation than does the word progressive. Progressive is rather a meaningless, innocuous word until you look deeper.
As to McCain, he will have to do more convincing. Some conservatives will not vote for him while others (me) will with our personal disagreements with him. I think we all have a lot more to lose with the other two (uhhh, Universal Health Care) than him.
As to your socialist argument- that’s pretty innocuous. So, you have problems with McCain being or not being a Fabian socialist but not with the current socialist infrastructure all Americans now live in? We have social security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, student aid programs, affirmative action, food stamps, public education, etc, etc. Some would see these programs as gradual socialistic change instituted by Dem presidents. Are those not all aspects of what is seen as socialism today?
Europe is different from America. Yes, there are American politicians who want to copy European, feel good ideas, and have done so. I’m seeing that with the Dems, not so much with McCain. Again, politics is all about perspective… don’t be so quick to tie any politician to any one ideology because they might just surprise you.
Geez…I guess I’m glad I can think of a third option…
When I go into the voting booth in November, I don’t know of anybody who’s going to make me “marry” one whore over the other.
I can stand to be alone. I can live with my conscience. I can chose self-respect.
Mister P;
Agree with almost every point on your list as being socialistic, except 7 and 8 are pretty arguable.