On June 17th, 2008 at 2:36 am, bird said: If he thinks Ginsberg and Breyer were to be “supported” as nominees, and he now says his model for who he’d nominate is John Roberts, what’s the truth?

Apparently, the “Truth” is a “foreign” policy to most politicians.

…Bower said he’d liked McCain’s answer on judges, in which he “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg and Breyer.”

And yet McCain is campaigning before Republican voters in saying that his model for a S.C. judge is John Roberts.

Since I think Roberts is about the best thing that’s happened in my time to the S.C. (and McCain gets my support for what he’s saying in that regard), and since Ginsberg and Breyer are nearly the polar opposites of Roberts as to “mind” and reason — plus they have that added thing called “Liberal” “intent” that prejudices all their perspectives — how McCain can say both these things simultaneously is beyond me.

If he thinks Ginsberg and Breyer were to be “supported” as nominees, and he now says his model for who he’d nominate is John Roberts, what’s the truth?

On June 16th, 2008 at 6:42 am, zorro said:
I would not be surprised if old Juan McCain switched parties after the election, win or lose.

He already has in all but name.

So out of touch…..SO OUT OF TOUCH!

He doesn’t need little ol’ me..

I got wrapped up in the Latin.

He sure has deep insight to the world:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp

He may try to get along without us…

no campaign is PERFECT…

I’m not even “hurt” if he tries…

If he gets all of Hillary’s female voters…He doesn’t little ol’ me…

A little Latin is good for the soul….

Thank you.

There! This REALLY convinces me Johnny’s the LOTE! If you spelled it lout, I might agree.

AND: [un]wise-man, regulus, all you other MightyMcCain sockpuppets, don’t bothr to respond unless you are going to say something substantive, not more of this: “he’s better than obama”, or “yes, go ahead & vote for the >2 evils”, or any other such mis-directive crap. If you are only able to argue on those grounds, you have no argument!

We (Those Who Question McCain) supply substantive problems w/McCain, you answer with “a vote not for McCain is a vote for Obama” mis-directive crap.

You are a bunch of stage magicians, all.

– martin.musculus

#51
On June 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, Regulus said:

Very Vichy, Regulus!

I applaud you! I am certain I’d find you & your point-collecting buddy [un]wise_man handing over the keys to Paris, along with a long list of names…

If all you care about is being on the winning side, then you are absolutly right.

If, however, you are interested in doing what is right — not what is easy, you’d stand up.

BTW: a little background on that quote. Orwell was a communist and a pacifist until he got a good look at the evil of socialism. He wrote that to convince his fellow travelers that they had to drop what they were doing & do the right thing.

Are you suggesting that the right thing is to continue to creep leftward by supporting a lying creep?

Note, those not vying for McCain points:
They’ve moved the goal posts again. You’ll hear nothing for the next several days about how McCain will nominate Conservative/Centrist Judges™ It will be “He’s better than Obama”, or He’s better on the WOT, or He’s gotten it on illegal immigration (my personal favorite…)

What if Washington had just trown in the towel? He was offered forgiveness, money, rank and position to bring his army in… and this was just prior to Trenton.

I *will not* pick a lying backstabber. If he’ll cut his buddy’s throat for his own gain, (which he has, repeatedly), how is he better?

Mark this: McCain, if elected, will be our Clinton.

ok, let the flames begin…

– martin.musculus

He could always sniff out the picnic baskets and thus provide for him and his sidekick.

Bear meat also happens to be plentiful and filling, not to mention the fact that the skin makes a right nice jacket.

As for your stance on voting or not voting for McCain, should I point out the obvious mathematical error there? One vote less for McCain does not equate one vote more for B. Hussein. -1 does not equal 2. (Though this may be one of those fuzzy math questions that I missed when learning actual arithmetic in school?)

Personally I am quite honestly fearful of what either of these people will be able to accomplish whether they are dancing on their own side or just simply reaching across the aisle. Maybe the American populace will wise up but history does not bode well for that option. If your belief that being prepared to defend yourself is a bad idea, nobody will force you to. Still, if you have someone or something that you care about, it may be the prudent course of action.

IMHO

Don’t you remember Yogi Bear cartoons Wise_Man?

John McCain and his supporters are grasping at straws if they believe that..even his buddy John Swiss Kerry won’t support him…

On June 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am, Goldwater Knight said:

McCain still thinks he can win without conservatives. What arrogance.

Perhaps. But it’s even more arrogant for conservatives to think that they’re some kind of sine qua non king-makers.

So McCain is courting Hillary cross-over voters? That’s no revelation, just like it’s no surprise that he’ll be going after independents and “Reagan Democrats.”

It’s called electoral survival. There aren’t enough purists and perfectionists in the Republican base to win a general election; a successful Republican candidate must appeal to a broader segment of voters. Especially when the donkeys have just put up the most leftist candidate since George McGovern in 1972, it makes a great deal of sense to come across to independents and “Reagan / Scoop Jackson Democrats” as a moderate or a centrist they can turn to as an alternative.

The problem for purist and perfectionist conservatives is that by their over-heated rhetoric they are doing an excellent job of marginalizing themselves: the more they shout their insistence that they’ll never vote for McCain, the less motivation he has to tack right and the more incentive he has to look elsewhere for the votes he needs.

In the end, the purists/perfectionists will become as politically radioactive and irrelevant as the John Birch Society – heck, it still exists, why not join up? Vote for Bob Barr. Write in Ron Paul. Whatever. Who cares?

For all its faults, the one thing the Republican Party does is to serve as the most significant bulwark against donkey rule. There’s a lot not to like about it. But some of us are under no illusion about what’s on the other side of that bulwark, and that’s why come November we’ll press our shoulders against it even though it’s crumbling — that, instead of whining and complaining about how crummy it is, and how it’s not “worthy” of us, and how letting the barbarians knock it down will either have no meaningful consequences or might even be a good thing.

I leave you with George Orwell, freshened up a bit for the 21st Century landscape of American politics:

“Pacifism Conservative purism and perfectionism is objectively pro-Fascist donkey. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one…

But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism conservative purism and perfectionism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists arch-conservatives who have started out with an alleged horror of violence donkey rule end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism moonbattery. Even pacifists purists and perfectionists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Nazi donkey victory is desirable in itself.”