I can stand the heat so I’m staying in the kitchen.
(But I will not make you a sandwich.)
Five years ago, if something I’d written got me called an idiot, a moron, a jackass, a stupid bint, a fool, a fucktard, and an insane Kool-Aid drinker, I would’ve cried and vowed never to express an opinion about politics again unless it was perfectly in line with what certain right-wing bloggers and commenters believed because it sucks so bad to be called an idiot by people on your own “side”.
But this isn’t happening five years ago, and I’m not crying or making any yellow-bellied vows. Now, I’m just stunned. I’m truly surprised at the vitriol and the name-calling.
Especially because so many people are showing their asses, specifically by demonstrating a heinous lack of reading skills. Not the bloggers who call people like me idiots (i.e., people who think Hillary/Obama are more liberal than McCain), but mostly commenters on other sites and people who’ve emailed me.
I’ve seen myself referred to about a dozen times as a “wingnut”. This, despite my repeated and very plainly-stated assertions that I am not a Republican or a conservative. I think there must be a whole different English language that I’ve never heard of before, because how you read this site and come away thinking I’m a “wingnut“, using English as most of us know it, is a genuine mystery.
I’ve been called several different variations of “insane” by conservatives because I agree with the American Conservative Union’s data that says McCain is, in fact, more conservative than Clinton or Obama.
I’ve been told I’m drinking the Kool-Aid and proving it by continuing to refer to that data, which again I point out is from the American Conservative Union.
I’ve been called “glib” because I was vaguely humorous in the first post about all of this. Maybe if I’d been a dead-serious asshole about it, that would have been better?
The most obnoxious display of highly questionable reading skills is coming from those who continually refer to my posts about this as “support for McCain”. What part of “I prefer Romney over McCain” do they not understand? What part of “McCain is an asshole and I don’t like him” is so confusing?
It goes on and on, and it becomes more and more ridiculous. What really pisses me off is that no matter how relatively nice I’ve been about it, that counts for absolutely nothing to some of these people. There is some comfort in the fact that this makes them no better than the assholes on the left, but it still pisses me off. But I’m not going to call anyone names, no matter how many ways they question my intelligence and sanity. I haven’t once said that all of you who disagree with me are idiots, or anything else like that, and I won’t. That’s because I’m an adult and I realize that people can disagree without ANYBODY being an idiot.
The only thing I’m going to say about those who are so vehemently against McCain at all costs and who are saying things along the lines of “anyone who would vote for McFuckface is a fucking fucker” is that you sound exactly like the liberals you’ve been criticizing for years. Really, you do. Me, I’m going to continue being decent about it.
If you refuse to vote for McCain IF he is the nominee, more power to you. It is your duty to do what you think is right and I respect you for doing what you think is right. I disagree about what is right, and I will do something different. If you don’t respect me for that, YOU are the asshole, not me.
I’m not the only one saying what I’m saying. There’s actually been a great deal more positive feedback than negative; it’s just that the negative is more vocal and obviously more confrontational, which gets all the attention. I’ve been keeping loose track of “Rachel is right” links and as of now, there are almost 100, compared to about five “Rachel’s an idiot” links. Not to mention all the posts out there that have nothing to do with me and just give their own arguments for and against, and they’re about 50/50 from what I can tell.
Glenn Reynolds, Bill Whittle, and John Hawkins, to name just three “big” bloggers, all are on the same side I’m on. That is, they agree that McCain sucks but he’d still be better than Clinton or Obama. I’m just saying. Are they insane, too? Are they idiots? Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, John Cole — Insane? Idiots?
And Ann Coulter is the voice of reason? Ooookay.
At first, I thought the disagreement among us was simply about whether it’s acceptable to vote for the lesser of evils. After five days of this, I now realize that’s not it at all. The disagreement is whether McCain is actually more or less conservative or liberal than Clinton/Obama and whether he is the lesser of the evils. Many people on the anti-McCain-at-any-cost side clearly believe that Clinton/Obama are in fact less liberal than McCain. My assertion otherwise is what garnered most of the “insane” comments on other blogs.
I don’t even know what to say about that. The ACU ratings are not irrelevant all of a sudden just because you don’t like McCain.
Many people have called me an outright FOOL for calling Clinton a socialist or a Marxist. I would bet my last penny that these same people have called her the same things in the past. What really confounds me most of all is that in the same breath many folks are accusing people like me of “giving McCain a pass” on his liberal record, they’re doing the exact same thing with Clinton and Obama. Suddenly they’re not that bad. Suddenly it’s not okay to refer to Clinton as an ultra-liberal lying sack of Marxist poo. Suddenly Clinton would be “tough on terror”.
What can I say? It’s been a learning experience if nothing else. I’ve finally got a thick enough skin to get in the muck and stay there even when I know some of my own friends are going to excoriate me for having an opinion that doesn’t line up with theirs. I will continue to say that, in my opinion, Clinton/Obama are more liberal than McCain. You want to call me a stupid crazy moron for that, be my guest. I will persist in my refusal to fire back with name-calling and emotional rants.
And I have a suggestion for those bloggers and commenters (on both sides) out there who find it so irresistible to make up silly names and be a dick about your argument: you would be so much more effective if you’d just calm down. I’m learning that myself. Rants are impotent and the only way to sway intelligent people to your side (which I’m not saying I’m even able to do but I’m trying to learn) is to state your case like a civil adult. Like John O’Sullivan does here on The Corner:
The willingness of a President McCain to cooperate with the Democrats would give such issues as an immigration amnesty a better chance of passage than under a President Hillary or Obama even against strong GOP resistance in Congress. Opponents of such policies, despite enjoying majority support among the voters, would find themselves politically marginalized. On the other hand, a united Republican opposition might well stop a Democratic White House from passing these measures because its party would be nervous of finding itself on the wrong side of a popular issue in the next midterm elections.
And there is another factor this time. Any bill similar to the senator’s “comprehensive” immigration reform would accelerate the GOP’s relative demographic decline by creating new voters overwhelmingly likely to vote Democrat in a quicker time scale. This dominant Democratic majority would emerge fully only after a hypothetical President McCain left office, but its approach would cloud the future of every other Republican incumbent.
All these fears lie at the root of conservative reluctance to endorse Senator McCain. Fortunately for him there is a simple way to dispel them. He can give an unequivocal assurance that he will not support such a bill, and that, if one is passed despite his opposition, he will veto it. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Thus far he has refused to do so.
OKAY THEN. That makes sense, I see the point, and I will give it a lot of thought. Might not change my mind but at least it makes me think.
It is way past time to change the subject now. Let the primaries work themselves out and see if this whole discussion has been completely moot. I truly hope so. In the meantime, I’ve got to practice on my new skates and figure out how to avoid massive craniofacial disfiguration and maiming. I’m scared.
Rachel, You rock!! Don’t let name calling get you down. You speak with the voice of reason for MANY of us who either haven’t the talent to do so, or are too lazy.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pmIn either case, your arguments make too much sense to ignore.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if the choice was between Hillary and The Devil himself, I’d give the Devil a go…
Best,
Sluf
Dear Sweet Rachel:
You go with your bad self. Forget all these twits (you know who you are)! The key here is the lesser of two evils. I am not enamored of McCain. I think he’s an unprincipled tool. I much prefer Romney. The Demomarxists are just evil and stupid. But if it comes down to McCain or a democrat, it’s McCain. I can see with my own eyes what works and what doesn’t. Glad you can too!!
Tom
February 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pmRachel,
I guess that you are experiencing what some great blogger calls the “ACPOTI” syndrome (Anyone Can Post On The Internet), which, if I understand it correctly, means that even raving loons can post “discussions” and that the anonymity of the Internet facilities a reduction in civil discourse. I dunno. Maybe big Al should have thought the whole thing through a bit more before going operational on it.
I myself fundamentally disagree with many things that you say, but I am mature and intelligent enough to realize that:
1. You are not a cretin just because you disagree with me, and
2. You are still hot.
The second point, of course, being the most important.
Anyway - why depress yourself? Post doggie pix. I am seriously into Sunny Dressup Withdrawal.
mike
February 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pmOf course you pick the devil over Hillary.
He has experience in an executive position, and has shown he can take the heat, after all…
February 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pmThe voice of reason. At long last.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pmWell I don’t think this liberal has ever called anyone a Fucker Fucker McFucky Fucker but I do call them Limey Bastards sometimes, just not to their face
I don’t care what side you’re on, I love that you speak your mind and say what you believe because to me that is what America is about. AND who needs the asshole mc Fuckey Fuckers who give you lip, tell them to Bite You and go cast your vote for Mit or whoever you want. Who the hell cares, it’s a free world and go practice your GOD given free will by speaking your mind and casting your vote and shooting the double guns to anyone who gives you greif.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pmI wonder what the reactions were in the Senate during Henry Clay’s proposal during the Missouri Compromise.
Who in Clay’s own party were too busy calling him a ‘backstabber’ to notice that he’d forestalled a civil war, before we’d recovered from the 1812 invasion?
Senator Clay was a definate moderate, and that seems to be the trouble Senator McCain is in; he’s too Left for the Right, and the Left sees him as too ‘Old Guard’ GOP.
Friends and Rachel, I’d much rather finish my career out with Senator McCain as my C-i-C, than Senators Clinton or Obama. I know one of them will keep up this fight, and the other two…I’ve HEARD them say that they’ll quit !
February 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pmRachel
I’ve been following the last few entries for the last couple of days. Have stayed out of the fray - there seem to be enough opinions to go around.
Just wanted to say that I have assimilated quite a bit and feel a lot more informed now because of the back and forth. I have been reading your posts past and present. I have said it before - I enjoy your clarity and insight ( and Sunny ).
Besides the fact that I find your arguments more convincing than those who are hurling invective at you, Bill Whittle ( among others ) has weighed in to defend your argument. That speaks volumes…
I just wanted to encourage you and says thanks for sticking with it. You mean a lot to all of us!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pmYou have pointed out, in a great way, why I don’t discuss politics, religion or abortion with anyone but my husband. We don’t always agree but we don’t call each other names and we respect each other’s opinions.
If someone states their thoughts or beliefs, someone else will eventually call them a nasty name. Instead of speaking about voting records or whatnot, it becomes totally personal. Why can’t people have differnt OPINIONS without it turning nasty?
If you say the shirt I am wearing is yellow and it is pink, you are wrong. If you think a certain candidate is better than another, that is your opinion. This does not make you an ass or an idiot etc. What don’t people get about this? They have every right to try to sway your thoughts/ideas/opinion with reasonable discussions. And they should be reasonable to do so without calling names!
And, why does it upset everyone so much to hear others’ opinions? We live in a country where we are ALL allowed to speak out. Just because I may or may not agree with someone does not make them wrong.
Thanks for being the voice of reason. You go girl!
And please, dress up Sunny soon and post pics!!!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pmAwwwwwww….yeah….Rachel is bringing the noise….. I like it when someone writes something that makes other people reveal their true self as a result of knee-jerk partisianship. Keep up the good work!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:18 pmRachel,
don’t sweat the small stuff. And considering the source, at least some of the vitriol certainly qualifies.
I don’t like McCain, I’m not voting for him today, but if he’s the nominee I will vote for him in November, with great reluctance. The hypothetical situation you describe in immigration is certainly a possible bad side effect but its only a possible. I also don’t see the “united opposition” from repubs in the congress from being too much of an issue; they’ve shown for years that they don’t have the spine for it even in opposition to Hillary (and if Obama wins, he’ll be the press’ floaty cloud angel boy who can do no wrong, and anyone who opposes him is a racist bigot homophobe child-eating corporatist evildoer).
The dems are much better at cohesion in opposition; the party discipline is very ‘iron fist’ and the bastards in charge are all too willing to carry out punishments. Too many RINOs (like McCain) will end up shmoozing over with the dems in order to get the cocktail party invites and fauning press coverage (like McCain did). Thats also why I’m not counting on a repub senate minority doing squat to prevent another RB Ginsburg appointment to the supreme court, and why I am counting on the far lower likelihood of McCain appointing someone like that in the first place.
At this point its all I can hope for. And it truly sucks.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pmI just wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading your recent posts about the candidates.
I won’t pretend to know a danged thing about politics, or what all the candidates stand for. That I know their plans for healthcare, and for defense, and for making the blue light special at K*mart available to all Americans. I won’t act like I know their political pasts, and what they did on such a such a bill, or how they voted. I do know though that I will vote for someone because I feel they are the right person for the job, not because they are the same gender as I am, or because they have the ability to cry before a primary and possibly get a sympathy vote.
Anywho, thank you for putting yourself out there. It’s not easy whether it’s in person or on the internet.
Good luck on your skates, they look like fun!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pmWell, I don’t buy O’Sullivan’s argument any more than I have when I’ve seen the same thing stated elsewhere:
If he doesn’t think that the Democrats will turn into the biggest bullies ever when they’ve got a majority in both Houses and the White House, he hasn’t paid too much attention to the way they have been acting even as the minority party. You know all that “filibustering” that wasn’t really filibustering, but just threatening? They’ll make the Republicans go through with it for real, to force the issue. The Republicans will cave, and that will be the end of it.
However, we have proven once that we can drive the immigration debate with an amnesty-sympathetic Republican in the White House, even with a Democrat majority, and we can do it again. And again, and again.
As far as the ones calling you a fool, idiot, or whatever, at least some of them may be Liberals trying to stir things up on the Right, because I’m sure they believe that it’s good politics for them to help get McCain nominated.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pmRachel, you ignorant slut! (That line is funny only if you remember Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin during “Point, Counterpoint” on SNL in the 70’s. If you don’t remember, I apologize.)
Your points were well made and could only be misunderstood by someone who didn’t want to understand them. The name calling is just a bonus. That means that they can’t argue with you, so they call you a poopy head. With Bill Whittle on your side, I think that you are on the right side of the argument. Let’s see how this plays out in the actual election. It should be interesting.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pmNothing sends peoples’ trains ‘off the tracks’ quite like politics, does it? It’s amazing how people just lose it, and in a spectacular fashion, over things like this. You don’t have to berate someone, you don’t have to impugn their character, you don’t have to succeed in persuading them through verbal violence. We can agree to disagree, people. All I can say to the people who have beat you up, Rachel, is:
And have any of these Asshats considered the old adage that “you attract more bees with honey”? It’s extremists like this that make it so hard to discuss politics in a civilized, considerate way, and I think we’re worse off for it.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pmRachel,
Its a well proven fact (ok, really I just made it up) that most of the time, when someone blogs about someone elses blog, they did not read the actual blog, but read a comment or two and ‘decerned’ what the blog was about and what the opinion of the blog was, by some goobers reaction to it.
Your blog must have been in support of mccain because someone said it was. You must be a wingnut, because a fellow liberal (who I highly respect) said so. Its the ‘Wall of text’ syndrome. If it is more then two sentences, or maybe two paragraphs, I will allow the commentors to paraphrase it for me. I can’t be bothered to actually read all those words. I write a blog so people can read MY words, why would I want to read yours.
Anyway, I think that is the thought process of most of the people that have picked up your comments without being people who typically read your blog and know to read each and every word
-Mat
February 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pmDon’t let them bring you down missy. I LOVE reading your views. Sometimes I get too sucked in to the emotional rants and need to be brought back to earth. You are great for that.
I really don’t understand all the hatred and screeds against McCain. It just seems so blatantly obvious that he is the better choice to socialist/marxist Obama/Clinton. *shudder*
Hearing his ideas for spending it all this morning on Laura I’s show freaked me out way more than McCain’s lax views on immigration. It won’t matter how many immigrants get in…we’ll have Mexico’s economy if Obama is elected. Scary!!!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pmCheck out Ilya Somin on Volokh.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pmPreach it, sister!
Amazing how talking politics brings out the worst of the asshats. And as big a douchebag as I think McCain is, he ain’t *nothin’* compared to the Hildebeast.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pmMatrioux - I think you’ve brought up a point that is all too easily forgotten. In fact, it seems that it’s not limited to Blogs and commenters, it appears to happen with “real journalists”, too, where they present nothing more than another person’s opinion as fact without bothering to do any research to find out if the other person is just blowing smoke.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pmSteamroller, baby! Flat-out fierce and funny.
I’m staying out of the discussion; I just enjoy watching you go, girl!
February 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pmRachel:
I agree with you.
But vote for Romney in the GOP primary to avoid the choice between somewhat liberal McCain and very liberal Hillary/Obama.
Breaking News: I understand some people are strategically writing-in Sunny for President in Alaska.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pmLike casto, I too love reading your views. I like hearing/reading everything I can about a certain subject b/c that is the only way to get all the needed information to make a rationaly, educated decision. Not once have I called you an ignorant fucker, nor will I. It is…wait for it…rude. The ones that are chastising you are the same ones that are going to destroy the GOP. Rational thoughts come from rational minds. Bloviated non-sensical arguments come from the same minds that are destroying American politics. You have to take emotion out of it or no one will listen to what you are saying.
If I were to call you a dumbass, it would solely be for buying some of the stupidest looking skates I’ve ever seen in my life. You’d be better off making a pair of your own. And plus, where have you been? Don’t you know that everyone has those shoes w/ the little skates built into them? I want a pair, but I can’t find them in 14.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pmRachel:
That’s why you call them asshats. Just keep on stating your opinion, (which btw, I usually agree with) and don’t let the asshats get to you.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pmRoger that, Rachel. And it goes both ways, right?
People can agree to disagree without denigrating the others’ intelligence, patriotism, reason, sanity, reputation, or values. I don’t mind when people slam the issues or the candidates on the issues, but keep it there. No need for it to get personal.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pmHey Rachel, don’t sweat it. People just get all wrapped up and emotional about politics… hell, its what starts wars afterall, right? I’m not a big fan of McCain or anything, but the simple fact is that the biggest issue, the issue that NOBODY is talking about, is that its the Supreme Court that makes all the big changes in our country. Legalized abortion in this country was served to us via the Supreme Court, not any politician. So all you right wingers out there… a question. Who would you rather have around to appoint the next supreme court justices? Obama or Hillary? or John McCain? I think that anybody out there with even the slightest grasp on logic and reason would choose McCain over those other two.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pmRachel, you got called a stupid bint?
Wow, your reach must be global.
I’ve only ever heard the English, Aussies or Kiwi’s use that term.
Reach out and dominate the globe, you know it’s within your power!
February 5th, 2008 at 2:38 pmThose name callers deserve a cock punch*. Especially as they do it from the anonynmity of the internet. Wow that’s, like, soo brave.
*I do think that’s the first I’ve actively used that phrase, apart from telling people about it.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:47 pmRachael - asholes, whether leftwing or right - are still just assholes; and they will read whatever they want to see into whatever you write. It is safe (and sane) to ignore them. Your points were well made; and well received here.
Personally, I have always been an advocate for, and defender of, Ann Coulter — but I was completely floored when she came out with her rant about “campaigning for klinton” if mccain is the nominee. That was a major disappointment. Now, I have to view everything she says with a jaundiced eye to be sure she isn’t just playing spoiled little bitch with whatever rant she is currently on.
And, if the choice is between mccain and hitlery, I’ll have to hold my nose and go for mccain. And then take a very long, quite hot shower. I don’t believe that mccain can do as much irreperable harm to America as hitlery. Also, the phrase “president for life hitlery klinton” keeps running through my mind. (Think Evita)
Keep up the good work! You are a rare flower of reason and humanity in this pestilential swamp of an internet.
SUNNY LUCAS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!
February 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm“Hey Rachel, don’t sweat it. People just get all wrapped up and emotional about politics… hell, its what starts wars afterall, right? I’m not a big fan of McCain or anything, but the simple fact is that the biggest issue, the issue that NOBODY is talking about, is that its the Supreme Court that makes all the big changes in our country. Legalized abortion in this country was served to us via the Supreme Court, not any politician. So all you right wingers out there… a question. Who would you rather have around to appoint the next supreme court justices? Obama or Hillary? or John McCain? I think that anybody out there with even the slightest grasp on logic and reason would choose McCain over those other two.”
McCain will appoint Souters and Kennedys. The -fact- that he voted for Roberts and Alito means jack flop. Which of the above pairs of judges would be more likely to uphold his hatred of the Constitution?
No name calling here, just a recognition that character counts. McCain’s is all bad.
With a choice between Caligula and Nero, everyone loses.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pmRachel,
Someone pointed out the other day, all we are trying to do now is pick the cleanest turd from the pile. They are all turds. Some election, we’ll not have to pick from the least evil of the choices, but that election is not today.
Go skate, pick up poo, and try not to worry about it. The world will not end if HildaObaMcRomney becomes president.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pmWhat’s a bint? I know that wanker is apparently a very foul word in the UK but I think it sounds kinda cool. I’m not up on my non-US lingo.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pmRachel — These negative comments you’re getting kind of remind me of the line in Blazing Saddles where Gene Wilder is talking to Cleavon Little:
What did you expect? “Welcome sonny,” “Make yourself at home,” “Marry my daughter.” You’ve got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons.
It explains a lot.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pmRachel, sweetheart (with apologies to Rupert) … ignore the loud voices that mawk on and on. Hey, in some circles Wingnutis not even an insult. I am a certified Wingnut and it is even my nome de guerre on a couple of Biker websites … because I’d rather be out riding my Goldwing than almost anything else (I said almost, heh)
I think you were decidedly brave to leave the safety of dogblogging and you fostered an incredibly interesting thread. How cool is it that you got Bill Whittle more involved here than we ever see him engaged on his own doggone website?
Of course, unlike idiot liberals that think any attention is good, even if it’s bad - I can understand your concern, but hell … consider the source. Do you REALLY care what someone you don’t respect thinks about you? Hell, McCain couldn’t pay me enough to care about his opinion of my opinion …. so he doesn’t bother me, any more than the umpteen thousand leftard bloggers that don’t garner my attention. I only worry about what those I care about think of me … and even then …. LOL.
The back-and-forth was very edifying … and I’ve gone from McCain is evil to McCain is evil BUT …. because of the comments … well, in spite of some comments. One particular military wife irked me with her attitude, somehow making the assumption she was the only one with family in the military and at risk.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pmHey Casto, if you’re calling someone a bint in New Zealand it means you think they’re a giant idiot (with a touch of slapper) but implies they think otherwise. It’s one hell of an insult.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pmWelcome to Political Discourse in the Bush Era! We have, all of us, become so polarized, even within our own parties, that anyone who disagrees with us….must be destroyed. There is no debate, no discussion, no reasoning, just vitriol. There is plenty of hatred to go around for all. It makes me wonder where this is going to lead in the future.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pmFor the record…I dislike McCain as well. But Hillary or Obama? As President? That is insane.
Although I tend to resist using too harsh a language set in face to face debates, I have been known to call people “a brick.” I reserve that, however, for people who insistently make assertions they cannot back up. Opinion is fine, but assertion of a “fact” with nothing behind it will not stand.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pmIn addition, calling something “bogus” is NOT an argument. It may be bogus, but gimme the sugar and tell me why.
I can be pretty harsh online, mostly because it is suuuuch a target rich environment. A cogent argument with which I disagree is ducky, but blither is not. In real life, I do not even engage in arguments with loons or drunk people. Well, maybe the occasional Lyndon La Rouch nutter or 9-11 twoofer, but that’s about it.
Castro, no, do NOT call anyone who can beat you up a “wanker.” Trust me on this, pal.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:53 pmJust let it roll off. After I vote for Mitt in the primary on 4/22, I plan to write an article on my blog about why I will, should he be the nominee, vote for McCain.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pmRachel–
Thanks for your thoughts. They add to the discussion. I happen to be on the McCain side of the Romney vs. McCain debate — made up my mind last Friday (never say never, which is what I was saying about Mccain when this all started). I believe Romney to be much more the liberal than McCain; reminds me of the Rockefeller Republicans back in the mid-sixities. I guess this means I don’t believe Romney, which I don’t; hell, within the last five days he on one day said he’s for, no make than against, gun control; and he wouldn’t want, no, wait he would want, Bob Dole’s endorsement. Funnily, I believe the extemporaneous comments, not the staff-crafted “corrections.” But Romney over Obama or Clinton — in a nanosecond. Obama, most liberal senator in 2007, and Clinton 16th most liberal.
Now I’ve got to go out and find a good sandwich since I can’t get one here.
RDA
February 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pmIt took 40 responses for someone to finally erect a rejoinder. I hate politics.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pmHi Rachel, speaking of rants and outlandish bragging, here is part of a rant from a mostly unknown author. If yall like it i’ll send in the whole thing. Read Laugh Vote.
I am the China Syndrome,
February 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pmwho will piss on me?
I told a bad joke,
and there was a solar eclipse.
Satanists wet their robes when they see me.
I’m rechargeable.
Death touched me and got a cold.
I played hacky sack with Bruce Lee,
and won.
I eat caleche.
I’m a fire-breathing playboy,
what girl will sit on me?
I’m a great dresser.
I’m invisible.
I didn’t like my horoscope,
so I changed the orbit of the planets.
I fly into the past just to eat lunch.
Buddha thinks I’m funny.
So, Rachel…let me make sure I’m understanding you: Do you prefer Romney over McCain and do you consider McCain an a$$h*le?
/Rank-and-file Hooked on Phonics internet troll
May you continue to be what knuckleheads refer to as a “glib-idiot-wingnut.” I, for one, absolutely love it!
February 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pmI’m as amazed as you, Rachel, at the behavior of some of the posters here. As Roger Kimball puts it, conservatives are supposed to be the adults in the political game. Behaving like hysterical drama queens, or toddlers throwing a tantrum, does not help them persuade anyone.
I’m serious about this. Hey, all you card-carrying Republicans and dyed-in-the-wool conservatives: I am a swing voter. I have no party loyalty, and I don’t call myself “liberal” or “conservative”. My vote is up for grabs this year, as it has been in every election since I came of age. If you want me to vote with you, you have to persuade me. Shrieking that we’re all doomed, or snarling that you’re going to do your best to send the country to Hell so your party can take it back in four years, does not impress me. It makes me think that you’re as deranged as the Daily Kos “Bush=Hitler” moonbats and the Truther conspiracy freaks.
If you keep this up, you’re going to make the Ron Paul supporters look reasonable by comparison. And I’ve voted Libertarian in the past. I stopped doing that after 9/11 because I thought the Libertarians weren’t serious enough to deal with the terrorist threat, but if you conservative purists continue acting crazier than them, I may have to reevaluate that position.
Rachel, as for the people who are insulting you: ban them! You don’t have to put up with that crap. Anyone who posts a comment on your blog is a guest in your house, and if they can’t be polite to their hostess, they deserve to be propelled out the door by a swift kick in the ass. If people want to demonstrate John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Dickwad Theory, they can do it somewhere else.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pmAs you know, Rachel - you’re golden. I for one am very glad for this whole discussion - it helped me solidify my choice and I feel like I can live with it, come what may, so thank you for that. Now, if you want to know if I think you are insane to try those roller blades, we may something to talk about, but, no, you are not insane with your stance on McCain. I absolutely do not trust him any further than I can throw his old dog tags, but that’s more than I trust those other two solicialist. That’s just not that hard to reason out.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pmFirst of all I want a sandwich! OK, I feel better now. I urge all sane people who vote Republican to support Romney. If this fails we have no choice but to vote ( not support, but vote) for the M word against which ever Stalinist bozo/bimbo the dims(not a misspell) come up with. There really is to much at stake to even consider sitting out.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:32 pmPlus, those skates are cool.
Hey Racheal!
February 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pmLong-time reader, first time commentor…
First of all, let me point out that I’m not even American so have been paying very little attention to the Presidential race so far. Up here in the Great White North, we usually maintain faith that the American populace will make the wisest decision for their country (and really, the rest of the free world). It hasn’t always worked out ideally, but seeing as there’s been no nuclear armaggedon as of yet. I’d say things have been OK.
Your recent line of blogs has apparenly brought forth true examples that anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection can share (or in this case, respond to) an opinion. Personally, I love your honest, shoot from the hip opinions. I haven’t always agreed with what you were saying, but I’ve had nothing but respect and admiration for your honesty in at least HAVING an opinion and not merely regurgitating popular opinion like more than a few of your fellow bloggers out there. Keep telling us what you think on this, your forum, and I (and people like me) will keep coming back to enjoy your blog.
In parting, I’d like to leave you with wise words from my mother:
‘Fuck em if they can’t take a joke’.
So, add the fucktards to the “Never Invite Over to Dinner” list and post more shit about your dogs. That’s some fucking funny right there.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pmBitch fucking wingnut whore reichwing redneck Jeebus-licking atheist c**t moron centrist taffy-sucking fool closet liberal fag-lover traitor ROOOOARRR!
That’s Rachel Lucas!
February 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pmThis article may provide some insight into what’s going on- seems Rush Limbaugh is fervently against McCain.
That’s a big audience. There’s one effect of such a large audience that isn’t really Rush’s fault and can’t be avoided. The vast majority of that audience, which sometimes includes me, is taking Rush’s opinions as inputs, and forming its own opinions. But there are many thousands also listening who are taking his opinions as marching orders, and those aren’t the types who are reading your posts for meaning - they’re just hearing any phrase along the lines of ‘…better to vote for McCain…’ divorced from context and having a fit.
He’s not the only source of that sort of behavior, either.
I guess what I’m saying is- don’t sweat it. They’re mouth-breathers.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pmRachel, I just want to add to the chorus: you’re terrific. Don’t let ‘em get to ya. –z
February 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pmYour head is much safer on skates than reading political blog comments. You can even substitute “in a vice” for “on skates” in that sentence. Most political blogs I read have the intellectual comment footprint of Youtube. As for English, I’ve graded enough papers and read enough resumes to know it was doomed a while ago.
The first time I skated, I learned that one of my feet is a bit larger than the other. I couldn’t ski the next day because the skates rubbed off a quarter-sized patch of skin at the top, back of my heel. If you’re not used to it, check them part way through and make sure you’re not getting irritated–if so, go one size up. Such damage is harder to notice than in shoes because you’re often in sensory overload from the cold and the unusual sensation of skating.
And keep writing. Just because English is doomed doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go out fighting.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:27 pmRachel,
You are awesome. You are right. If McCain is the GOP nominee, I’d rather have him win than Hillary or Obama. Of course, things can happen over 10 months to make me change my mind. But they would have to be BIG things.
However, I probably won’t have any say in it. I live in Oregon, which has gone Democrat every election since Reagan I think. I fully expect the democrat to win here by at least 5% and maybe much more. So unless by some weird alignment of the planets it looks like Oregon will be a swing state and the GOP will need to take it to win the electoral college, there is no reason why I should have to hold my nose and vote for McCain. I don’t like McCain.
Granted, I don’t like Obama or Hillary, and the dislike is even stronger than for McCain.
But if I’m stuck with whoever the people in Ohio and Florida choose for President, then why not stand on principle and vote for someone I actually like?
I can’t affect the outcome of the race. I hope it isn’t Hillary or Obama. I’d be much less distraught if McCain (or practically anybody) won. But it’s out of my hands.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pmYou know, none of this would be an issue if we could all just get behind Sunny for President.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pmThis blog is, was and will be COMMON SENSE CENTRAL. If Rachel Lucas disagrees with me on something I return to my hole and think about it some more. I have never read anyone who could see the essentials in complicated issues so clearly.
I’m done with this argument until about three weeks before November. Then I will take everything I have learned here and try to make the best case I can. But this has been a wake-up call of MONUMENTAL proportions for me, and not in a pleasant way.
McCain’s faults as a conservative party candidate are clear. Attacking him on these points is sane and necessary. But some of the arguments I have seen here — and you can reduce them to “he’s no better than Obama or Clinton” are beyond reason and argument. The heartbreaking thing for me is hearing these tortured explanations of how Obama will be tougher on terror or that Clinton will do less with Global Warming is that I formerly thought that conservative thought — which I had always assumed required reason over emotion and a willingness to look at facts as they are and not as wishes for what we would like to believe — would not be this susceptible to the kind of hysteria and downright fantasy speculation I have seen on these and other pages.
Newt’s 1992 Republican congress, afire to reduce spending and government, turned into the bloated, amnesty-loving, pork-laden party that was voted out of office in 2006. What, precisely, did the “strategic thinkers” do after that warning shot? Nothing that I can see. And what will they do if all three houses go as hard left as it is possible to imagine in 2008? Not a thing, except claim they had nothing do do with it. That is a defeatist and cowardly position.
How many people here shared my disgust with the Democrats unwillingness to accept the fact that GW Bush won the 2000 Florida count, recount, and re-recount? How many of you felt that the Democrats incessant whining and crying, of calling the whole game unfair and walking away from the table, was a childish, infantile reaction to the fact that democracy does not always break the way you want it to?
McCain, if he is the nominee, will have been duly elected by members of our own party. He was not apponted by the MSM, or selected by Al Gore and Jesse Jackson. You are participants in a democratic republic. You have a moral obligation to vote, regardless of whether or not you like the candidates, because the choice we face in November will have been the result of the democratic procress, like it or not. Not choosing is a choice.
I am not — and have not been — defending McCain as a candidate for any party. I am passionately defending the democratic ideals that this nation was founded on. I am defending the idea that a vote is a sacred right purchased with the blood of young men who will not see adulthood, and that it is squandered with spit in their eye. I am defending the entire idea of a political party, which is, to my understanding, a group of people who associate because in general they can accomplish more together than any can seperately. That requires compromise and the willingness to play when you don’t get your way. That is a fair requirement for any successful enterprise. To walk away from it when the results don’t suit you represents the most reprehensible and churlish qualities demonstrated by Democrats after Florida 2000. I never in my wildest nightmares imagined I be seeing it these quantities from people I thought mature and reasonable.
Let me be clear on this: I have no problem with you being unwilling to vote for McCain. I have a serious problem with those who say he is more liberal than the Democrats, but that’s my opinion. But you have an obligation to vote. That right has been purchased for you with the blood of patriots. So if you really, truly believe that a man strong on spending and strong on terror is worse than Hillary or Obama, you need to go out to the polls in November and pull the lever for the Democrat. You need to put your vote where your rhetoric is. And then you need to accept responsibility – a term I thought most of you would be familiar with — for your choice. Not voting is anti-democratic, anti-responsibility and anti-American. You can’t have it both ways: allow the pandering, identity-politics socialists to come to power and then claim you had nothing to do with it.
And if you think that we need a new conservative political party, you will find many, many, many people who agree with you. Go get one started. Or, at the very least, start suporting the candidates who will represent your votes in 2012 right now. If you find a candidate worthy of election, I can assure you I will defend him with the same passion I have been defending this least bad choice, and I can assure you furthermore that I will have a great deal more pleasure doing so.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pmRachel, your skin is thicker than mine. ‘Nuff said. You go, girl!
February 5th, 2008 at 7:14 pmI took the time to write down an analysis of the Big Four before today’s primary, but it ended up being too long for a comment. I don’t blog much, but I posted it on my typepad site, News To Me. In short, go Mitt! (which would make much of this argument irrelevant).
February 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pmThat’s one of the reasons I keep coming back here, (apart from the doggie pix). You speak your mind honestly and unapologetically, Rachel, and I admire that in anyone. I might not agree, but that doesn’t matter if you make me rethink things - and you have done from time to time. That and your humour. None of this is to make you feel uncomfortable - it’s true.
I don’t get involved in political comment stoushes, as most I’ve seen on different bloggers sites can get very ugly very fast. Your recent commenters have been relatively restrained compared to some I’ve seen. If there’s one thing guaranteed to get peoples ire up it’s stepping on each others toes over politics or religion, and I’ve found that people rarely really listen to each other over the same.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pmCan I interupt the heated political debate to ask a seemingly dumb question (I’m not dumb, I’m just not American) would someone please tell me what the acronym GOP stands for?
I know the RNC is Republican National Congress…I think…at least it’s got an R in it so I know they’re not talking about Democrats, but GOP? I can’t for the life of me figure it out and no one on Fox or CNN ever says the full thing because they assume we all know…but I don’t it and it just may drive me nuts.
Please help keep me sane.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pmCan I interrupt the heated political debate to ask a seemingly dumb question (I’m not dumb, I’m just not American) would someone please tell me what the acronym GOP stands for?
I know the RNC is Republican National Congress…I think…at least it’s got an R in it so I know they’re not talking about Democrats, but GOP? I can’t for the life of me figure it out and no one on Fox or CNN ever says the full thing because they assume we all know…but I don’t it and it just may drive me nuts.
Please help keep me sane.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:59 pmJodie73: GOP stands for “Grand Old Party.” From Wikipedia:
The term “Grand Old Party” is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party, and the initialism “G.O.P.” is a commonly used designation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the first known reference to the Republican Party as the “grand old party” came in 1876. The first use of the abbreviation G.O.P. is dated 1884.
The more you know…the more trivial pursuit games you can win!
February 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pmI voted. Obama is going to win the Dem nomination… eventually
Updated: no I did not vote for Barry, I voted Romney. God save us all!
February 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pmFletch: Keep forgetting about Wikipedia.
I have to say, I was not expecting “Grand Old Party”. No wonder I couldn’t figure it out. I quite like it though.
Thanks for your help. It’s been nagging at me for ages. I can sleep at night now.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:15 pmOf course, the Republican party ran it’s first Presidential candidate in 1856 (Freemont, was it?) and then Lincoln won in 1860. So if Fletch is right (and when is he ever wrong?) then the term “GOP” starting becoming fashionable when the Grand Old Party was all of twenty years old.
The Democractic Party, Jodie, is far older but far less grand.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pmI’ve decided that if McCain is the nominee, after I vote for him in November, I will go outside and puke out my guts. Followed by a session in my closet asking forgiveness. We can not allow a Dem into this office! Neither one of them.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pmDad
I shake my head in disbelief. Since when has Group Think and Shout ‘Em Down been the preferred mode for (allegedly Conservative) adult decision making?
Is this the next instantiation of the “Scientific Consensus” thing so loudly trumpeted by Al Gore and so insulting to real climate scientists?
I have heard it said that in a Democracy we get the government we deserve. Not a cheerful thought in the context of the flack Rachel has been taking.
Rachel, this series of posts is one of the reasons I jumped for joy when Bill Whittle announced your return to blogging. And I look forward to a long essay of his expanding on his above comment.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pmMr. Lucas, your daughter is a National Treasure. When did you know? I’m guessing it was recent.
=)
February 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pmSee? We DO agree.
I said before in the 485+ thread, (I think I came in under the non-dick heading)I’ll vote for who I think is best. And you, or whoever, do the same.
After it’s all over with, we’ll all trim sails and make do the best we can. Such is life.
Now what kind of sammiches are there? And is there by any chance a floor show?
February 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pmFletch: I can honestly say I was not expecting the answer to be “Grand Old Party”. No wonder I couldn’t figure it out. I quite like it though.
Thanks for your help. It’s been bugging me for ages and now I can sleep at night.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pmWith pleasure. My long-time conundrums are usually sports related. What’s a Hoya? Buckeye? Hoosier? Or a Terrapin?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pmI think the crux of the matter is that political parties seem to be losing control of candidate selection. As I understand it, it used to be that candidates were selected at the party conventions. No doubt, it was done with backroom deals and horse-trading, but at least the parties determined their candidates. I don’t know when primaries started, but I suspect it was as a reform measure when people got tired of sleazy backroom deals.
As imperfect as the old method was, it probably helped to weed out unstable people or those with serious skeletons in their closets. The primary method seems more like a popularity contest.
I’m sure there are others here who have studied the history of political parties much more than I have and can provide insight.
I live in Pennsylvania. Only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, and only registered Democrats can vote in the Democrat primary. Independents can’t vote for party candidates, but may vote on ballot questions. I’ve done exactly that myself, when I was an independent.
But what about states that have open primaries? Allowing anybody and everybody to vote in primaries regardless of their affiliation sounds like a textbook illustration of the term “clusterfuck”. From what I’ve read, in open primary states it’s a common strategy to vote for the worst candidate of the opposition party rather than the best candidate of one’s own party. That seems to negate the whole purpose of political parties, and it probably doesn’t help improve the quality of the candidates we end up with.
I don’t know how or why open primaries came to be, but it sounds like a very bad idea to me. And I think it’s significant that several of the earliest states this year had open primaries.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pmI couldn’t agree more, Rickl. And this year has me thinking about another possible adjustment…
Why can’t we run primaries like this: there is Primary Day, where all states vote at the same time, and that means people like me in California get to vote for Fred before he drops out due to “lack of momentum.” Then, we take the two top candidates from Primary day and we have Runoff Day, again, simultaneously, so that those people whose candidates were marginalized get to chose between the most popular candidates. I am so heartily tired of not having a chance to vote for my guy AT LEAST ONCE. Likewise, if you have a state whose primary is so late in the season that the delegates are already in, your vote becomes irrelevant and there is no reason to vote for the underdog since he could sweep your state and not have a statistical chance anyway.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pmThere’s just one problem with this solution: after John McCain has broken his oaths to uphold the Constitution, and dishonestly referred to anyone who is concerned about immigration as a racist and a nativist (to name but two examples), why on God’s Green Earth would anyone believe him?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pmFletch: Wikipedia’s no help on those then?
I think Hoosier has something to do with basketball and Iowa, or was it Ohio? Oh hell, I don’t know, I just saw a movie called that once. Gene Hackman was in it, I think.
Anyway since your answer I’ve been humming “You’re a grand old flag “. Now that will probably keep me awake.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pmBill: on Primary, Runoff and Election Days you could have a national holiday–say Presidents Day, Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Then have the polls open at the same time everywhere. I suggest nine am to nine pm eastern time with Alaska and Hawaii voting early via write in.
No election day shenanigans. No east coast bias. Just vote and then count.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm“Updated: no I did not vote for Barry, I voted Romney. God save us all!”
Steve, you didn’t vote for Goldwater? What kind of conservative are you?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:40 amHoya is a flower; and the mascot of Georgetown U. athletics.
Hoosier is…a citizen of Indiana? Huh?
No, wikipedia isn’t much help.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:33 amMr. Lucas:
I agree with you entirely. Please set back the clock one month and talk everyone in the GOP into your view. I wish you could.
I - like Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh - am amazed that conservatives have not looked at the issues and voted for Romney in greater numbers.
I’m genuinely afraid that what we’ve seen this evening in the South was a big anti-Mormon vote. I truly hope I’m wrong.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:25 amI have been a Mitt guy, but as of tonight, it’s over. Not emotionally, but mathematically. Let’s break it down:
Total delegates: 2380
Needed to win: 1191 (50% + 1)
Selected so far: 1001
Remaining: 1379
Here’s where we stand in the delegate race as of tonight:
McCain: 575 / 1001 = 57%
Romney: 250 / 1001 = 25%
Huckabee: 160 / 1001 = 16%
Paul: 16 / 1001 = 2%
Now, in order to win without a brokered convention, each candidate needs another 1191 minus their current total, out of the 1379 remaining. Here’s what that task looks like:
McCain: (1191 - 575) / 1379 = 45%
Romney: (1191 - 250) / 1379 = 68%
Huckabee: (1191 - 160) / 1379 = 75%
Paul: (1191 - 16) / 1379 = 85%
To date, McCain has won 57% of the delegates. If he can win just 45% of those remaining, he has an absolute majority and becomes the nominee. This gives him some breathing room: he can drop 12 points and still win. This means he can afford at least one serious mistake, maybe even two. That’s a pretty comfortable position.
Romney has won 25% of the delegates so far, but must win 68% of those remaining to secure the nomination. Or, looked at another way, he has to hold McCain PLUS Huckabee to under 32%. That is simply untenable.
The only way Romney can win is if McCain fails to secure his necessary 45%, which would lead to a brokered convention. Even in that relatively unlikely event, McCain will probably have the most delegates, and hence the strongest hand at the convention. And McCain and Huckabee would surely team up to prevent a Romney win, as they did in West Virginia earlier today.
Romney is a smart man. His people are doing the same math I am, and I assume he’s looking at the results as an competent executive, not as a magical thinker. The only question now is when to get out: do it too early and you look like a quitter; do it too late and you look like a loser. He must be careful, in particular, not to let his supporters down; that means staying in a bit longer to give them a chance to digest electoral reality.
It’s a bummer, but that’s what it is. Now, onward. McCain will be fine. He’s fantastic on national security, supports nuclear power, is fiscally conservative, and doesn’t waste time posturing on social issues. And he polls well against the socialists. We could do worse — and have. I voted for Mitt today, but will happily support McCain going forward.
Romney in 2012!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:28 amRachel — are comments working? I just posted something, but it got eaten. Tried to post it again, and WP said sorry, you’ve already posted that! Yet it’s not there. Odd.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:33 amRachel,
Welcome to what passes for “political discourse” in our country today. Lovely.
A return to the teaching of critical thinking may help change this situation but I’m not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:19 amI saw Haley Barbour on Fox last night and he made a good point. The primaries are the time to hash out policy differences between party factions, but once the nominee is selected we all need to come together. There are some serious differences in viewpoints that came out, but now that it’s increasingly apparent that McCain will be the nominee we have to rally behind him.
I’ve lived through Republican “civil wars” here in New Jersey and they are not pretty. The Democrats sit on the sidelines and laugh, and then they win. Meanwhile Republican party leaders spend all their time bickering amongst themselves instead of uniting to oppose the Democrats.
I hope reason will prevail by summertime. The ranting, name calling, and invective has got to stop.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:41 amRachel,
Screw Glen Reynolds and Juan Cole and Victor Davis Hansen and especially Bill Whittle. I mean I agree with them and you but who cares? It’s your opinion you don’t have to validate it by citing other bloggers.
After listening to Hillary scream on TV last night, I’d vote for Vladimir Putin if I thought it would just make that noise stop.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:57 amWhen John McCain was trying to shove “Shamnesty” down our throats, like thousands of others I sent him a fax, (actually several, because if nothing else he is persistent in his arrogance). In reply McCain and his ilk called us “Racists, and Natavists”, simply because we disagreed with the premise that illegal activities should be rewarded.
In one of my last faxes, I told McCain that I would personally never support him in a Presidential Election.
So my mind, and I imagine many others like myself was made up long ago, and McCain has only himself to blame.
That said, I think that those who call others names because they may hold a different opinion on matters such as these not only manage to demean themselves, but also cast all of us on the right in a tarnished light.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:14 amThe problem with political discourse in the age of the internet is that everyone gets to play. It used to require some level of effort, which implies interest, which implies self-education. No longer! We’d all best get used to it.
We remain a vast, diverse commercial republic, set against ourselves along many dividing lines so that no one division is greater than the rest. Gotta love that Alexander Hamilton.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:23 amrock solid, empirical evidence that lots of lunatics have internet access? Ron Paul’s online funraising success. Really, who needs to say more?
February 6th, 2008 at 11:44 amBecause it would be unconstitutional without the complete voluntary agreement of the states, the voluntary agreement of both national parties, the voluntary agreement of the state parties, etc. And they won’t agree voluntarily. They would go right back to jockeying for advantage. Nor could a constitutional amendment be passed without their cooperation and agreement.
The national parties are not part of the national government but private entities, can choose their candidates in whatever fashion they wish, and are not going to surrender one bit of that. The party leaders do not want a level playing field. They do not want the public in charge of the process. They want to control the process as best they can for their own benefit, and they want advantage over the other party.
Presidential primaries are a 20th century invention, but before WW2 only a minority of states used them and before the first Nixon administration they were simply “beauty contests.” The results were not binding by party rules–they were simply popularity polls to guide the national conventions. The modern “binding” Presidential primary system was an invention of the Vietnam era–and the parties still set the rules.
If either or both of the national parties were so inclined, they could decide to simply pick their candidates from names in a hat. Or by lowest body mass index.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:58 amit sucks so bad to be called an idiot by people on your own “side”.
Hi Rachel. I’d just like you to know I FEEL YOUR PAIN!
Signed,
February 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pmDesert Cat, Ron Paul supporter
Once again, the notion that there could be one big “super primary” ignores the “strong party, weak party” difference that Tully points out in the above post.
As for McCain, the derangement against him comes not in attacking his record or untrustworthy personality, but in ignoring the very real badness of the alternatives. The Democratic candidates are as close to socialist as it is possible to get, and Hillary equals or exceeds McCain in ruthless backstabbing evil.
On Mitt and the border, let’s face reality. His natural constituency is the corporate side of the R’s, and at heart he’s Rockefeller Republican by upbringing and inclination. He would not have been as bad as McCain on the subject, but I wouldn’t doubt that his anti-immigration stance would be as impotent as the party’s anti-abortion stance when push came to shove. What is really evil about the whole question is that punks like McCain actually know that the opposition is not racially motivated but merely a concern for the rule of law and continuity of culture on the part of border enforcement supporters, which is why Johnny Boy can get away with falsely demagoguing the subject. Added to this is that Mitt’s “vibe” is that of the sleek yet murderous and WASPY rich businessman so beloved as a Hollywood villain (the kind of role Leslie Nielsen used to specialize in pre-AIRPLANE!), and you can see why he generated no traction as a candidate. McCain was able to bang on that like a drum, as unfair as it was from a rational viewpoint.
This whole election is shaping up to be Caligula vs. Agrippina. Saying that the former has the support of the troops at heart is not enough to compensate for his other evils. Woe to the Republic!
February 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pmVlad the Impaler over Hillary? LOL yet another bridge too far I’m afraid. But funny as hell.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pmWhat was the middle bit again?
Actually, I’m enjoying watching the discussion and should probably make some popcorn to go with it.
It’s kinda/sorta like the old days.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pmRachel,
I assume you know that I haven’t said anything negative against you, other than the fact that I disagree with your position -and Bill Whittle’s- about voting for the lesser of two evils. My only nasty remark in the previous thread was directed at someone dickish enough to reply to what I considered a reasonable post with two words: How childish.
I’m certain that he owns multiple copies of How To Win Friends and Influence People. However, much like an ape reading Plato, he didn’t understand anything.
I’ve been reading and enjoying you since before blogs were the in thing and won’t change now, regardless of anything you write. If I ever post a comment that could possibly be interpreted two ways, always assume I meant the one that doesn’t insult you.
By the way, of course McCain is more conservative than Hillbama. However, I’m leaning towards getting more GOPers elected to both branches of the legislature. As the opposition party, they can stop a lot of nonsense forwarded by the Democrat to be name later. If McCain wins, my thoughts are that lots of the House and Senate will roll over for him as the de facto leader of the party.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pmRachel,
Just so you know, you changed my mind. When Thompson wussed-out, I decided to stay home. But you’re right. McCain is better than Obama/Hillary. So come election day, I will step into the booth and vote for McCain, one-handed. ‘Cause the other will be holding my nose.
If/when he is elected, he will hear from me on every issue.
Lamont
February 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm