Bashing! Who's bashing?
Posted on 03/02/2008 10:58:52 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
It’s no secret that John McCain is disliked in conservative circles. Whether it is because of his pro-amnesty stance on illegal immigration, his reputed hotheaded temper when dealing with interns and staffers or the media’s unexplainable fetish for covering the travels of the McCain Straight Talk Express bus, McCain has a definite problem proving to conservatives that he is one of them. The thing is, though, if you have to remind and prove to people that you’re a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter), you’re probably not one.
However, for one Cincinnati radio commentator, the final nail in the Straight Talk Express’s tire came last week. Enter Bill Cunningham, host of WLW 700’s “The Big Show” with Bill Cunningham, on the AM dial. Cunningham, along with former Cincinnati-area Congressman Robert Portman, opened for McCain’s campaign stop in the Queen City last Tuesday. Cunningham, in a horrible act of insensitivity, said Obama’s full name! Oh, my stars and garters. He called Obama “Barack Hussein Obama” instead of “Barack Obama” or, as it seems Democrats have taken to calling him, “Messiah.” As if that was not enough reason for Cunningham to commit hari-kari right then and there, he then went on to say that the media needs to stop coddling Obama and start to “peel the bark off of” him.
As soon as McCain left the stage, he spoke with his favorite supporters, the national media. In a move that did Casca and Cassius — the prototypical back-stabbers from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar — proud, McCain denounced Cunningham, and assured the media that he had nothing but warm, fuzzy feelings for Senator Obama. Is this what someone who is trying to convince conservatives that he is one of them would do? Does John McCain even care about the fact that he needs the conservative Republican vote in order to win the election? Let me shake my Magic Eight Ball of Politics here … Well, the answer it gave is “all signs point to no.” For both questions.
Really, it seems like the only issue on which McCain is conservative is the war in Iraq. He likes to call himself one of the “foot soldiers in the Reagan Revolution,” but what would the Gipper think of the McCain-Feingold law’s restriction of political speech? Would Reagan applaud McCain’s global warming fear-mongering bill, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act? How about McCain’s calculated opposition to President Bush that changed as soon as it became politically advantageous? It’s things like this that make me wonder if McCain is an escapee from a mirror universe, one where conservatives are buddy-buddy with flaming liberals such as Obama and Clinton, the most widely recognized leader of the conservative movement would have liked cap-and-trade carbon credits and draconian arbitrary restrictions on political speech, and “straight talk” means “saying whatever the audience wants to hear.” If McCain ever decides to grow a beard, I’ll be convinced that McCain is an evil mirror double. For now, however, it’ll have to remain a pet theory of mine.
John McCain’s strategy appears to go along the lines of “I’m going to win the Republican vote without getting the conservative vote.” By constantly shifting his views with the tricky, fickle Independent winds, McCain is pinning his hopes on gaining more votes from the unwashed unaffiliated masses than he’s lost from the conservative base. In essence, he’s hoping to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is a bad strategy, one that may have worked in past years, but one that definitely won’t fly in a race against the Democratic rock star, Barack “No Middle Name Here” Obama.
McCain got just what McCain-Feingold was planned to accomplish - empowering the media to pick our candidates. Sure enough, they picked McCain, who has sucked up to every liberal media outlet in the country for years and years. With 20-20 hindsight, it’s all to obvious that this HIS strategy to get to the White House. You McCainiacs are supporting a guy who knowingly crippled the ability of ALL of us to speak politically in public, for his personal benefit and IMHO nothing else. Other than his appearance, the man bears a striking resemblance to Vladimir Putin to me. Insulting Bill Cunningham just adds to the mountain of evidence. Like other posters here, I’m concentrating my money and my support down-ballot. The national party will get not a groat.
U need to ask....If your wife stepped out with your brother..would it be ok with u cause he’s part of the “family”???
It (demonstrably) already was; instead, you've merely succeeded in clumsily making a hash of things. Congratulations, of course, if such was your actual intention; if not, then you'd be materially better off leaving such matters to those of us as have concretely evidenced day-to-day competence in doing so for a living. Observe:
You are correct that a vote must be earned but there are only 2 choices. Either McCain wins or the democrat wins. What matters is the result. There is no choice called “both not win.” If that was the case, then not voting for mccain would not help the democrat. But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you won’t counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win, de facto even if not de jure. The practical result is still the same.
In order to lecture or admonish authoritatively, re: "logical arguments," it's rather helpful to be able, first, to credibly advance one of one's own. What you have jury-rigged, above, does not even remotely meet the minimum requirements for same, as:
1.) You fail to acknowledge your own (increasingly painfully apparent) inability to wrestle successfully with the concept of fungibility. Instead, you merely restate, obdurately: "But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you won’t counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win" (are you an ESL student, incidentally?) -- thereby simply re-demonstrating once again that, all huffed protestations and indignant arm-wavings aside, you still patently believe that there are somehow mysterious, phantom "votes" out there "rightfully" the property of either one candidate or the other (!!!).
Incredible. Simply incredible.
Once more, solely out of charity, and then never again: any ballot not cast on behalf of Candidate "A" does not, magically, transform itself into a ghostly ballot on behalf of Candidate "B." To believe otherwise is not one whit or jot different from a similarly sincerely held belief in the corporeal existence of unicorns, the Great Pumpkin, or Narnia; and, in all honesty, forevermore brands one as someone who, really and truly, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote for anything more lasting or significant than the position of Home Room Monitor, in any event. Whether or not you opt to continue publicly self-identifying as such, from this point forward, is your own lookout, of course.
2.) You hamfistedly attempt to distract with a straw man argument, and are caaught doing so. Not having ever once advanced your cobbled-up argument that "there is a choice called 'both not win'" (your own words) myself, you automatically cede all credibility in splutteringly attempting to remonstrate otherwise. That's a hard core leftist rhetorical habit, that is; you'll want to watch that, in the future, and restrain yourself simply to what's actually spoken (or typed), the way honest men do.
By all means, do avail yourself of the last word, if you like. I've taken your measure, and found it wanting; unless and/or until you eventually offer up anything better, you're dismissed.
I suspect that -- sadly; ultimately -- there are no means by which I might conceivably render such concepts simple enough for the shill(s) in question, FRiend... but, as salve to my own conscience: I made the one brave (and, most likely, doomed) effort to which simple courtesy obligated me. ;)
Theres your first mistake...You ASSUME that all Dems will vote for Osama....
But.....just like the conservative (R)’s not voting for McCain...there is a big faction of elitist Clinton (D)’s that will not vote for a black man in the privacy of the voting booth....I know lots of ‘em!!!....They don't mind them on the plantation..but they damned sure would never let them run it!!!
Bashing! Who's bashing?
FR links on McCain's record from Feb. 2000. MrChips collection.
The troops issue is the only reason to even consider voting for McCain. I had said I wouldnt vote for McCain and I wont unless I can be convinced our country/troops will be in great danger.
My point is conservatives cannot keep fighting a two front war...against the RATS and turn coat RINOs. Conservatives can recover from Obama. Maybe a landslide in 2010 as in 94?
McCain amended the heart out of the statute. For example, the 1995 version required a unit commander to report to his theater commander within two days that a person was missing and describe what rescue and recovery efforts were underway. The McCain amendments allowed 10 days to pass before a report had to be made.In the 1995 act, the theater commander, after receiving the MIA report, would have 14 days to report to his Cabinet secretary in Washington. His report had to "certify" that all necessary actions were being taken and all appropriate assets were being used "to resolve the status of the missing person." This section was stricken from the act, replaced with language that made the Cabinet secretary, not the theater commander, the recipient of the report from the field. All the certification requirements also were stricken. 'Turn commanders into clerks' "This," said a McCain memo, "transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the field to Washington." He argued that the original legislation, if left intact, "would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks."
In response, the backers of the original statute cited the Pentagon's stained record on MIA's and argued that military history had shown that speed of action is critical to the chances of recovering a missing man. Moving "the bureaucracy" to Washington, they said, was merely a way to sweep the issue under a rug.
Chilling effect cited
One final evisceration in the law was McCain's removal of all its enforcement teeth. The original act provided for criminal penalties for anyone, such as military bureaucrats in Washington, who destroy or cover up or withhold from families any information about a missing man. McCain erased this part of the law. He said the penalties would have a chilling effect on the Pentagon's ability to recruit personnel for its POW/MIA office.
Yes I remember that.....thanks for posting it.
there are also republicans who will vote for Obama. But I’m concerned about the anti-Obama side
In a close election, my not voting for mccain could result in Obama winning the WH. And if I encourage other conservatives on conservative activist websites to not vote, then that would make it even easier for Obama to win.
I don’t think our country can recover from obama. I’m concerned about islamofascism and the terrible fiscal shape we’re in right now. The baby boomers will retire soon, the dollar is already very weak and the US may have its credit rating lowered.
If the stakes weren’t as high, I might consider a gambit to accept a Carter today to get a Reagan in the future to further the conservative cause but I just don’t think we can afford that risk right now.
man I understand....we are in a tough spot.
I could stomach him more if he were for real border security. I would sacrifice the tax cuts for border security, quite frankly. I think that is the one issue of all of the “maverick” positions that he has taken that upsets conservatives the most.
I guess I might have to sit this one out.
That's right. That's exactly what McCain and his accepters want you to believe. Of course, anyone believing or accepting your statement fully deserves anything McCain heaps upon them.
It's interesting that the first tow words of your post are "I fear". That pretty much sums up the motivation of McCain accepters.
How low have we sunk in the name of fear? How much lower can we sink? If we accept and support someone we know is unfit, we should expect nothing good to come of it.
When you’re up to your ass in alligators......its hard to remember your first objective was to drain the swamp....
If you cant vote for what u believe in...you’ll CONTINUALLY drift to the left till u find yourself in the Lib camp...Then what will u be concerned about???...when its your own doing that got you there......Some frogs are oblivious to the end result when the water feels like warm bath water....Get out now!!
it’s a big problem obviously.
I just don’t understand why bush gets a pass for all his liberal positions but when mccain comes around he is suddenly the worst thing to ever happen to conservatives.
I don’t vote for who I ‘believe’ in because G-d is not on the ballot. I vote for who will be best for this country and McCain is much much better than the dems.
I did my part to try to get the GOP towards the right. I voted for huckabee in the primary. That process is over
I also don’t buy your argument of continually drifting to the left. mcCain is a singular event. And I don’t see how letting Obama win and taking us directly into socialism would be any better.
I assume u voted twice for Bush even though he has proven himself to be to the left on some issues of what u believe in...(assuming you're a conservative here)...My point being....at what point do u draw a line in the sand????...if you’re just gonna follow the current (R) drift to the left.... over conservative principles....then u eventually end up in the Liberal camp!
or to put in in a context u can understand better.....If your brother steps out with your wife...will it be ok with u because he’s one of the “Family”??...At what point do u draw a line???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.