"My point is simply that the immaculate conservative leader for whom so many on the right yearn to vote is a fantasy."
While that's true anyway, since when do Dick Cheney and James Inhofe get to decide what an "immaculate conservative" is? It's not obvious to me that half of what "conservatives" complain about with McCain is genuinely conservative.
I liked one comment on Fox News Sunday from their panel yesterday...to the effect of "President Reagan wasn't very Reaganesque."
Posted at 2008-02-04 10:07:34 [PermaLink]...Except, that woman has a point. McCain may well be a war hero, but that doesn't mean anyone should vote for him.
Frankly I'm suspicious of any politician touting their war record (or for that matter being a bass player; Mike Huckabee, I'm looking at you).
McCain served his country well in Vietnam, but frankly, that's ancient history when you are running for President. HW Bush was a war hero, so was Bob Dole, and neither one got a pass from anyone for it.
McCain, on the other hand, has been on the wrong side of virtually every republican issue, and was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal. You haven't heard about that yet, but you will if he is the nominee. Democrats want McCain to win because they know they can beat him. They are holding their fire in the hopes that he will win, and then they will let him have it.
First of all, the "skyrocketing" spending under Reagan was due to the strong Democrat majority in Congress at the time, and Reagan still cut taxes overall from where they had been before he entered the White House.
Second, while pulling out of the Middle East after the bombing of the Marine base was a truly dreadful decision, remember that Reagan was in the middle of fighting a different war which at the time had a much higher priority-- the Cold War. In the early 1980's, stopping the Soviet Union and its spreading of arms and communism all over the world HAD to take precedence over pursuing a much smaller (at that time) war with Islamicism, just as FDR worked WITH the Soviets in order to bring down a much larger and more aggressive (at that time) enemy, the Third Reich.
Which brings me to my third point: Reagan did indeed provide arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, but he also provided some to Iraq as well. This is a strategy I have no quarrel with-- when two utterly repugnant nations are at war with each other, we should render aid to both sides to keep it up as long as possible. The busier they are at fighting each other, the less time and manpower they have for fighting us or spreading their noxious philosophies.
Moreover, while McCain is indeed robust about pursuing the War on Islamicism on the battlefield, he seems determined to allow the enemy to win in the courts and in the media. He has called for the closing of Gitmo and for allowing non-uniformed foreign soldiers, captured while fighting our troops, to be granted the full rights of American citizens and allowing them access to our civilian courtrooms. This is ridiculous! What German POW wouldn't have loved the opportunity to sue the US government during WWII if given the chance? Can you imagine the degree to which that would've hindered the war effort? And McCain's very-publicly excoriating the US government over our "abuse" of terrorists (people caught in the act of shooting our troops) and our use of "torture" (even though we subject some of our own soldiers to water boarding for training) certainly counts as aiding and abetting the enemy. Maybe he's not selling them arms, but he's giving them weapons to use against us nonetheless by A) tying our hands concerning the need to incarcerate and interrogate terrorists, and B) handing the enemy anti-American propaganda by describing practically any discomfort at all as "torture."
Which brings me to my final point: McCain's mouth and attitude are well, WELL beyond anything Reagan had. McCain typifies the common Republican political failing-- "appeasing your enemy and vilifing your friend." McCain has, time after time for over a decade now, reserved his strongest ire for scolding the Republican base. The language he's used against President Bush over Bush's pursuit of the war and his treatment of terrorists has been FAR more scathing and public than any disagreement he had with President Clinton or indeed with any Democrat. And during McCain's recent push for amnesty, he painted any who disagreed with him as racist. There's a REASON why the Mainstream Media calls McCain "Maverick," and there's a REASON why he MSM likes it so much when he does crap like this-- it's always against his own party members, not the Democrats.
Reagan never did any of that. He was very careful about avoiding criticizing fellow Republicans, and he never, ever accused his own base of bad faith or venal motives. That McCain does so quite regularly will understandably (and rightfully, imho), cause the base he scorns to strongly distrust him.
(And by the way, George McGovern was a war hero too, but I’d sure never vote for the man, nor would I trust him with our nation’s defense.)
The "Benedict Arnold" quote seems to originate with Thomas Sowell's latest column, Sowell is not someone likely to throw smears around so it isn't surprising that in context the quote is perfectly reasonable:
" When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.
Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.
Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services. "
Would shareholders in a large corporation elect a CEO based on his/her war record? The idea is absurd.
It is, however, a reasonable way of assessing a person's true character; Ike for example, or MacArthur, had he chosen to venture into politics.
HEY, who IS this Laura? ...and why the heck doesn't she contribute here more often?
Dan, please pass the gal a brewski. I'll muster up some nachos 'n melted cheddar. We gotta keep her around.
On behalf of the left-wing, islamofascist, liberal, feminist conspiracy, I must denounce John McCain.
Furthermore, I must call upon all conservatives everywhere, to denounce this worthless traitor to our perfect, moral values.
We must find a person who defends life (by banning abortion and bringing back the death penalty), who lowers taxes (for corporations and the shareholders) and who defends our liberty by reducing the size of government (liberty does not cover wiretapping, "rendition programs" or adherence to international law).
Yes, on behalf of all leftists everywhere, I encourage you to run a candidate that embodies all of what I described above. While you're at it, hire Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin to run your campaign.
Looks like Much Loathed's mom needs to come up with a new password for the family desk top.
Posted at 2008-02-04 22:54:06 [PermaLink]"Does this mean that Reagan was not, in fact, a great conservative?"
Yes.
The Reagan illegal immigration amnesty, a Benedict Arnold treachery.
Ed Meese:
"...The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal."
"Reagan was in the middle of fighting a different war"
Grenada?
"FDR worked WITH the Soviets"
You mean FDR's Jews worked with Stalin's Jews to ensure Eastern Europe fell to the Communies, the British Empire was destroyed and Amerikwa's hegemony was assured?
McCain the Younger:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event."
Thanks, DJ, for putting that all in perspective. /sarcasm
Posted at 2008-02-05 07:21:45 [PermaLink]"FDR worked WITH the Soviets"
'You mean FDR's Jews worked with Stalin's Jews to ensure Eastern Europe fell to the Communies, the British Empire was destroyed and Amerikwa's hegemony was assured?'
Okay DJ, enough already. We get the fact that you're still nursing a grudge because Hitler didn't bake every last Jew on the planet. Yeah, your side lost, but that was more than 60 years ago.
Get over it.
Yeah, McCain is a traitor. He was a war hero that sold out his country, bit by bit while in the US senate. Think, morons: NAFTA, GATT (WTO), MFN for China, and a spendthrift, unconstitutional war in Iraq.
I think that North Vietnamise let him go because they couldn't stand him anymore. But, the republican moron voter is about to saddle the country with a vitriolic, sellout A-Hole.
Henry, you really need to lay off of the sterno before noon.
Fow what it's worth, Reagan was a strong advocate of free trade and first proposed what came to be known as NAFTA during his 1980 Presidential campaign. I guess that makes him a traitor, too.