January 29, 2008: McCain Derangement Syndrome - It's Here!

What's amusing in one way and horrifying in another, but all-too-human in the final analysis, is how the moment a politician becomes popular and powerful - Bush, Clinton - a sizable percentage of the population starts to hate him. We've seen Clinton reviled. We've had years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Welcome to McCain Derangement Syndrome - it's happening before he's even elected!

I heard two examples of it this evening - one from my friend Hugh Hewitt, whose rage against McCain today on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show made the hair curl on my bald head and later, on the Larry Elder Show, I listened in as a woman caller excoriated McCain as no war hero even though she knew the Senator had spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, was tortured, had his bones broken yet stayed with the other troops when offered a chance to leave, etc. Even Elder was appalled at the woman, though Larry is no McCain supporter.

I won't psychoanalyze this rage for fear of just stirring more up. But I will make a couple of observations. One of the raps against McCain by traditional conservatives is that he opposes waterboarding and Gitmo. On the other hand, he was one of the earliest, strongest and most influential backers of The Surge. I think by any rational comparison the importance of The Surge vs. waterboarding and Gitmo isn't remotely close. The Surge is responsible for the vastly improved situation in Iraq and for our consequentially improved situation globally. The other two are of marginal importance by comparison. McCain, it would seem to me, has his priorities right (not to mention more experience) on the most important issue of our time - the War on Terror.

One other thing: I have no particular dislike of Romney, other than I find him bland (a very personal reaction, which is not that important.) I followed his career as governor of Massachusetts and thought he did a pretty good job. But, to me, he seemed pretty much of a conventional liberal then, in fact vastly more liberal than I ever regarded John McCain, who I saw and see as more or less of a centrist. I recall Romney running to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights (an issue on which I am to the left of both).

Romney claims to have changed and "seen the light" on many issues. I have no idea whether this is true, but I am amazed by all these conservatives who totally and almost slavishly believe this is the real Romney yet equally assuredly distrust McCain when he repeatedly says he would build a security fence. It reminds me of that old shrink's thing about the "need to be right," how it always trips us up. I have seen it happen to me a lot. Anyway, I'm not sure McCain Derangement Syndrome has a cure. People love their anger. It's a security blanket.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Romney always struck me as a vastly more intelligent version of John Kerry; willing to tack to any wind that would advance the Ship of Mitt, if you will.

As a moral entity, Mitt is nonetheless probably a better example the the junior senator from Massachusetts, but I still would have a hard time voting for him.

McCain's (nearly) unpardonable sin remains for me McCain-Feingold. That sin actually has a part A and a part B. Part A is that it tramples the First Amendment, something I hold near and dear. Part B is that it bloody well doesn't work. Evil and stupid is a baaaaad combination, and that is his pride and joy.

Not good.

Posted by: Mark at January 29, 2008 11:12 PM

Hi Roger,

I largely agree with you on the senselessness of McCain Derangement Syndrome ("McCDS?"), but...

I think by any rational comparison the importance of The Surge vs. waterboarding and Gitmo isn't remotely close.

Try telling that to the people whose lives were saved by the information gained from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or Ramzi Binalshibh.

And regarding Gitmo, the senator cares too much about the opinions of the Europeans and MSM, and he's wholly misreading the Geneva Conventions. Give him all the credit in the world for being an early and firm backer of the surge, but it is legitimate to criticize him on these two issues.

That said, it does worry me that so many conservative Republicans seem to be demanding ideological purity, taking a "small tent" approach. It reminds of something I used to hear Reagan say (paraphrased): "Do you want 50% of what you want or 100% of nothing?"

If McCain is the nominee and the McCDS sufferers stay home, we could easily wind up with 100% of nothing.

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at January 29, 2008 11:21 PM

It will be interesting to see if this continues after McCain officially wins the nomination (assuming he does).

Some Republicans obviously like him, or he wouldn't be winning even in a closed Republican primary.

I had a real epiphany about Republicans a few years ago when I realized that Rush Limbaugh is not actually typical. I had to take them more seriously then because Rush is such an easily dismissable jackass. And if he isn't typical, then the party is less easily dimissable.

The current war within the Republican Party might actually be good for the party if McCain indeed wins and the likes of Rush don't relent. Then everyone will know he and his ilk are not typical.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 29, 2008 11:23 PM

Roger, I think you've got this totally wrong. The angst about McCain runs deep and long. It's not an overnight thing.

I'm curious about something. Does anyone know if McCain has picked up any endorsements from his fellow Republican senators? I really don't know. I haven't heard of any, and that seems a little strange (if in fact he doesn't have any), considering the outsiders he's running against. There are have been reports that McCain has had some big dustups with his party members. Rommney had a late add that encapulated about ten of them, with quotes. If McCain is picking up some senatorial endorsements, I'd feel a little easier about him becoming president. Personally, having him in control of the military scares the shit out of me.

Posted by: Godzilla at January 29, 2008 11:49 PM

McCain-Feingold. Problem One.

My many issues with McCain are with McCain's **positions** - not his fashion choices, or his haircut Roger - and go back many years.

...wanna try this one again.

Posted by: davis,br at January 30, 2008 12:19 AM

Current United States Senators who have endorsed McCain:

Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)
Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.)
Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)
Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.)
Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Sen. John Warner (Va.)

Posted by: Patrick Tyson at January 30, 2008 1:28 AM

It should be the time when the conservatives of
the GOP [they don't seem to be anywhere else]
decide that keeping the White House is preferable
to handing over all structures of power in DC to the Democrats. How does Hillary, Harry and Nancy sound?
Liberal enough for you? No, then how about Barack, Harry and Nancy?

Posted by: jedrury at January 30, 2008 4:45 AM

McCain Estrangement Syndrome.

Posted by: D Anghelone at January 30, 2008 4:53 AM

As a Southern conservative, McCain was neither my first nor second choice. On top of all his positions that offended me--immigration, McCain-Feingold, lack of support for the Bush tax cuts (I could go on)--John is known to have fierce temper tantrums when out-of-sorts. He's burned bridges and made some enemies as a result. That gives me pause when thinking of nuclear stuff.

Neverthenless, I'm in the process of adjusting my attitude to what seems to be the reality of McCain. And I will absolutely support him if it comes to that. Because like you Roger, the mythic Obama and the worn-out Clintons just aren't an option.

So neither is McCain Derangement. It is a monumental self-indulgence that we cannot afford at this time in our history.

Posted by: Webutante at January 30, 2008 5:03 AM

As a Southern conservative, McCain was neither my first nor second choice. On top of all his positions that offended me--immigration, McCain-Feingold, lack of support for the Bush tax cuts (I could go on)--John is known to have fierce temper tantrums when out-of-sorts. He's burned bridges and made some enemies as a result. That gives me pause when thinking of nuclear stuff.

Neverthenless, I'm in the process of adjusting my attitude to what seems to be the reality of McCain. And I will absolutely support him if it comes to that. Because like you Roger, the mythic Obama and the worn-out Clintons just aren't an option.

So neither is McCain Derangement. It is a monumental self-indulgence that we cannot afford at this time in our history.

Posted by: Webutante at January 30, 2008 5:03 AM

McCain is a no-sale for me. I had committed to a $150.00 donation to the Republican Party but right about the time I got the envelope McCain won his first primary. That envelope is still sitting on the secretary and it will remain there unless McCain is defeated.

McCain will sign the Fairness Doctraine. After all strangling the 1st Amendment is what he does best.

Under McCain's watch the border with Mexico will disappear.

Tax Cuts...quit dreaming.

Dangerous temper...

And the promise that he would nominate the Roberts and Alito style judges is pap he is throwing to conservatives. He would never nominate judges that would immediately dismantle his signature accomplishment in the Senate, McCain Feingold.

McCain is a liar and I simply cannot tolerate having a Republican be blamed for the mess he will create.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at January 30, 2008 5:58 AM

I can understand a lot of the dissatisfaction with McCain, and even agree with a lot of it. My main reason for supporting him is that next to Win The War, I consider *all* the issues to be trivia. (Or to put it another way, if we screw up tax policy, that's something that can eventually be corrected. If we screw up a world war, it's a lot harder to pick up the pieces later.)

But what gets me is how so many people are unwilling to give McCain credit for *anything* - saying he's "just another liberal Democrat" or something!

For instance, wasn't the accepted storyline of 2006 that the GOP lost because the Republican congress had become just as addicted to spending and pork as the Democrats ever were? Doesn't McCain deserve at least some grudging admission that whatever else he is, he's *not* that?

Posted by: David C at January 30, 2008 7:04 AM

Roger, I really think you're missing the point on those who detest McCain. For the other examples you mentioned, it was almost entirely people from the opposing party exhibiting disgust. Now it's those that are nominally on the same side. That ought to tell you that this problem is deeper and different from the ones you named.

Posted by: Billy Hollis at January 30, 2008 7:15 AM

Hugh Hewitt said it best: McCain is a great American, a lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican.
Romney is a compromise in the best political tradition. But McCain is for the misguided, like Roger, who care only about anti-jihadism, and will happily let McCain flush domestics down the toilet. Sure, he'll build a border fence, you bet....eventually, out of chicken wire, covering 100 yards, so it won't impede the jaguar's northern excusions. Lookit who his Hispanic advisor is. Sheesh!

Posted by: TomTom at January 30, 2008 7:21 AM

McCain has certainly done some things with which conservatives have a legitimate beef, and I agree that he can be prickly and arrogant. I strongly disagreed with his approach to immigration, and think that McCain-Feingold was a stupid usurpation of the 1st Amendment (and let's not forget who signed it into law).

But we are in an existential fight with people who will gladly destroy us, and we need a CIC who can stare down our enemies and have the respect of our military men and women. We have unfinished business with Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Do you really think it's worth putting Hillary or Obama in charge of those issues, just to make your point about McCain? Good Lord.

Posted by: SWLiP at January 30, 2008 7:25 AM

I oppose McCain-Feingold on principle. I believe waterboarding is not torture; we do it to our own military in training. I believe we need enforcement first before amnesty and I'm married to an immigrant. I think the Republicans should have forced all judicial nominees to be submitted to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. I was for the Bush tax cuts on the basis that much discretionary Federal spending is a waste and the less money the government has to waste, the better. I oppose the government funding embryonic stem cell research on ethical and fiscal grounds. Let private investment fund it if it's such a good deal. I think it's pretty stupid to have $100 oil and be sitting on 36 billion barrels in ANWR and more off the coast of Florida that you won't drill for.

I have a derangement syndrome? Look, if McCain's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. Clinton is corrupt. Obama is a cipher - at best dangerously naieve. McCain is right on the need to win the war and wrong about most other issues. My reservations about McCain are pretty much the same as my reservations about Bush. At least with Bush, we got taxes and some judges along with the bad. With McCain, we might not even get that.

Maybe this will fracture the Republican party. I don't know, but I do know that that there isn't much room left for a fiscal conservative anymore.

If that's derangement, commit me now. Console yourselves with the knowledge of how well the government involvement in education and healthcare are working. Tell yourselves Social Security will be OK. Congratulate the next policeman you see about how well the war on drugs is going. Learn Spanish so you can survive in the US. That bilingual thing worked out for Canada, right?

Nobody could possibly think McCain's judgement and temprament make him a poor choice. We couldn't oppose him on principle. We're deranged. Well, that's better than racist, I guess.

Posted by: MarkD at January 30, 2008 7:28 AM

My main problem boils down to a single issue (despite the polls on the front of Drudge today).

I don't think McCain stands a chance in hell against either Obama or Hillary. I'm not sure Mitt would stand a chance either, but this is Bob Dole 2.0 waiting to happen.

Posted by: popcontest at January 30, 2008 7:34 AM

Look, I take issue with some of McCain's positions, especially the first amendment. But there's a hell of a distance between "not perfect" and "terrible".

Yes, I supported other conservatives first. I don't plan on voting for him in the primary. But once it's all over we need to step back, take a deep breath, and say, "this guy will do". We hold primaries for a reason, and the Republicans have spoken.

John McCain will make a fine president. As as war leader, he'll be superb.

Let's get our $%#( together and focus on stopping Hillary.

Posted by: Wellspring at January 30, 2008 7:37 AM

what about those of us who have loathed the creep for over a decade? McCain was never to be trusted, not now, not ever. This should be the wake up call the GOP needs, alas, I thought that during the 2006 debacle.

Sadly there are really no viable 3rd party options, and the looters and moochers who run the DNC are far worse.

Lets face it, there is a growing segment of the population who has zero representation in Washington. Someday, I pray they wake up and do something about it.

Posted by: The Great Satan at January 30, 2008 7:45 AM

Trying to think like a (neo)conservative, I would assume McCain is a very solid bet to: 1) keep us in Iraq at full military force; 2) be tough with North Korea and Iran; 3) make "cutting spending" a big issue, lots of veto threats; 4) do nothing on health care reform.

The only things I would be concerned with are a (small) tax increase on the very, very, very, very rich. And an immigration bill, with both amnesty and a wall.

Pierre - as a Dem I want to keep people like you discouraged from voting for McCain in the fall. Who scares or disgusts you more, Clinton or Obama?

Posted by: markus at January 30, 2008 7:46 AM

Roger:

Why so many on the Right detest McCain ought not be that tough a mystery to crack - they're returning the bile he's spewed in our direction for years.

McCain argues against tax cuts using "class warfare" rhetoric.

McCain gives Democrats cover for accusing the Bush Administration of "torture" with his very public posturing about waterboarding (this after we all know waterboarding broke KSM, by the way).

McCain tries to ram his immigration bill through over conservative objections & associates himself with that lil' puke Graham, who calls us bigots.

McCain snatches defeat from the jaws of victory with his "Gang of 14" deal. (It broke the logjam for a select few - Bush nominees are still being stalled - and took an issue where we had the high ground off the table.)

McCain provides cover for Democrats on "McCain / Feingold" - if he doesn't know Democrats will use it as a political weapon against Republicans when they get the chance, if he can't recognize how it enhances the influence of a media hostile to our interests, he's a fool.

McCain's harshest rhetoric, etc. is directed at "other" Republicans - find me criticism of Kennedy, Feingold, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, etc. that matches the temper & tone of what he's said about Romney on Iraq.

McCain's no party builder. He has no respect for anyone on "our side" who doesn't agree with him (it's almost as if he gives Democrats a pass because they're in the "other army"). He grandstands constantly.

McCain v. Hillary or Obama is a tough vote for me. I don't know how it comes out - - - - as the day draws nearer, I suppose I'll think a lot about just how much damage I think the Democrat could do. Maybe it'll be enough to convince me to fill in the "McCain / _______" bubble on the ballot.

But make no mistake - if that happens, it won't be a vote "for" McCain.

Posted by: BD at January 30, 2008 7:46 AM

My main problem boils down to a single issue (despite the polls on the front of Drudge today).

I don't think McCain stands a chance in hell against either Obama or Hillary. I'm not sure Mitt would stand a chance either, but this is Bob Dole 2.0 waiting to happen.

Posted by: popcontest at January 30, 2008 7:49 AM

Stunning that a conservative would rather have Hillary/Obama win than McCain. Actually, childish is a better word.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at January 30, 2008 7:50 AM

Give him all the credit in the world for being an early and firm backer of the surge, but it is legitimate to criticize him on these two issues.

It certainly is. For those of us looking for an aggressive stance on the War on Terror, there are only two real options: 1) a forward strategy; or, 2) harsh tactical measures against terrorists. The current Administration chose both, and is being roundly castigated in the court of public opinion on each choice. Regrettably, Sen McCain has helped lead the charge.

Supporting the surge when he did (at a critical juncture) was praiseworthy. It showed considerable political courage, and headed off a series of defeatist efforts. But, in the larger sense, the shift in strategy (and especially adopting Petraeus's COIN approach) was already made . . . McCain's "more troops" were critical to implementing the strategy, but should not be confused with the strategy shift itself.

On Gitmo and harsh interrogation measures, he's just plain wrong. Al Qaeda types captured on the battlefield are not entitled to POW protections under Geneva, and their treatment should by rights be less comfortable in order to discourage their flouting of the laws of war. But in any event, they may be held until the end of hostilities without charge or trial, and could be even if they were lawful combatants. There is some room for arguing which particular measure is proper, but the idea that terrorists are entitled to hands-off POW treatment (which doesn't translate into better treatment for our POWs anyway, as Sen McCain can attest) is simply incorrect.

That said, he's light years ahead of the closest Democratic candidate on any defense issue, and that'll probably be the decider . . . at least for me.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at January 30, 2008 7:56 AM

"To the ego, illusions are safety devices."

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at January 30, 2008 8:04 AM

McCain-Feingold is a stupid law. But remember, it was George Bush who signed it.

McCain's not my first choice, but I will support him if he's the nominee. Notwithstanding his endorsements from the NY Times and Rudy Guliani.

But can he win against Hillabama? That's the key question. Between McCain and Romney, it's tough to predict a general election winner.

Is McCain really Dole 2.0? That's my biggest worry. I'm not worried about what he'll do if he gets elected -- it'll be so much better than Hillary or Obama.

Posted by: TomB at January 30, 2008 8:07 AM

The problems with McCain go beyond his liberalness. This is not a contest to choose a President. It is to choose the Republican candidate. And Republicans were betrayed by McCain when push came to shove in the Senate, when he not only sided with Democrats against the President, but was in fact the ringleader.

His Gang of 14 was not only a betrayal of party, but a thumb in the face of the Constitution which does not stipulate that a self-appointed clique of elite Senators get to be the gatekeepers for judicial nominees for the federal bench and the Supreme Court.

His bill on election "reform" was a slap at the First Amendment, not to mention common sense.

His opposition to taxcuts is a deal-killer in itself. If not for those cuts, the economy would have tanked years ago, and we would still be in a Carteresque depression.

But most of all, his push to bestow Constitutional rights on foreign terrorists, captured on foreign battlefields, held on foreign soil, would be a disaster, would make it impossible to combat terror, and would destroy the whole idea of citizenship to begin with. The enemy is sure not bending over backwards to give us any rights.

Finally, the despicable behavior of democrats and "independents" who were allowed to sabotage the primary votes of legitimate Republican voters is, quite literally, criminal. Why is this ignored and allowed to go on? It's bad enough to make armpit states like Iowa and New Hampshire so influential in the choice of the next leader of the free world, but to then have this process further bastardized by cheaters and saboteurs from the other party just makes the whole election process a sham.

So on to the future, or what there is left of it.

Now I will have to vote for Romney in New York. Feh.

But regardless of all this, if McCain wins the nomination, I will end up voting for him assuming Rudy is his running mate, which is likely. (Not if he chooses Schmuckabee; then I would sit it out.) Either Clinton or Obama would probably allow our cities to be destroyed again, and that's a little worse than choosing one or two bad judges and raising taxes.

I have to console myself with the thought that that's how Teddy Roosevelt got into the White House. And McCain doesn't look that healthy.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 8:08 AM

Under another Clinton administration, we'll be sold out to the Chinese (again.) Under McCain, we'll be sold out to Mexico.

Differences? Mexico wants to bankrupt us by absorbing us - send us 100 million mostly illiterate Spanish speakers, who'll fill the schools, hospitals and prisons, increase other social spending by an order of magnitude and guarantee a permanent Democrat government.

China wants to crush us in the international arena. Out compete us as a supplier AND as a consumer, bring countries out of our sphere of influence and into theirs.

For me it's a tossup.

Posted by: dsinope at January 30, 2008 8:15 AM

Roger, you're falling into the typical trap that anyone who disagrees is evil or insane. There are many reasons to strongly dislike and distrust McCain.

McCain gets a good mark on the war but not an A.
He is too publicly critical of the US / Bush administration to get an A. And yes, he was a war hero.

On every other issue of importance to me he gets an F.

Immigration? His Hispanic advisor swore an oath of allegiance to Mexico and says that immigrants should not assimilate.

Freedom (Free Speech in particular)? McCain/Feingold anyone? Roger, I want to buy an ad in PJ media that runs in October to support a candidate. Going to take my money?

Earmarks? How's he doing with the Pork Busters?

AGW?

Taxes, spending, etc....

McCain would be easily and gladly guided by the left-wing on every other issue. I actually think that Hillary (not that I'd ever vote for her) might wind up better on more issues than McCain.

Posted by: AlanC at January 30, 2008 8:16 AM

TO: Roger L. Simon, et al.
RE: It's Not....

....repeat NOT a derangement syndrome.

I'm a Republican. I'm co-chair of my precinct in my county. We'll hold our caucus next Tuesday.

I'm also a retired Army officer of infantry.

I'm adamantly opposed to McCain as the Republican nominee for the presidency.

Why?

Something to do with an oath he and I both took when we took on our responsibilities as officers of the United States Armed Forces.

That oath reads....

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Now, McCain served US well in his early years. Up to and including his tour of duty in the infamous Hanoi Hilton.

However, since he became a US Senator, he has broken his original oath, in as much as he has sponsored an effort to break the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. A concept he originally swore to uphold and defend against ALL enemies; foreign AND domestic.

I'm talking about McCain-Feingold 2002.

I cannot accept someone who would break their oath in such an egregious manner as the chief executive of this land.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
LTC, IN, USAR (Ret.)

[God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 8:33 AM

I do not like McCain. I do not trust McCain. In fact, I even went so far--in a fit of rage--as to say I would never vote for him. However, reality has a way of setting in. When I look at his likely opponents, I will have no choice except to vote for him, or rather against his opponents. My one caveat, if he picks Huckabee as a running mate I will not vote Republican, period. I consider Huckabee only slightly better than Ron Paul, and I don't want either of them close to the White House.

It is not that I am unwilling to concede that McCain has some good points and he has been very right on a number of issues, but he has also been very wrong--in my opinion--on other issues. I could even forgive him McCain-Feingold were he willing to admit it was a mistake, but to listen to his tortured explanation of why it should not be thrown out is an exorcise in frustration. His explanation makes no sense and brings into question his reasoning processes. By the time he finishes his explanation all I can do is wonder what part of the term "Free Speech," is it that he does not understand. I am still far from convinced that he understands the illegal immigration problem and is willing to try to solve it. And there are a number of other places where I question his understanding of how the government is supposed to work as laid forth in our Constitution and By-Laws, but, and this is the killer, the two main Democrats have even less understanding of those same issues. So while I will shudder and gag if he is the nominee, I will vote for him unless he picks Huckabee as Veep, or unless the Democrats come up with someone not yet in sight that I can tolerate.

Understand it is not that I expect a candidate to have only positions with which I agree. Giuliani has a number of positions with which I vehemently disagree, but I would accept him because I trust him to stand by his beliefs whereas I don't feel the same way about McCain. In short, McCain's only redeeming feature is his understanding of the War on Terror, and that is why I will very reluctantly vote for him if nominated. Huckabee is a deal breaker because even though I consider myself a Christian, I do not want religion mixing with government. One only needs look at the Middle East to see how well that works. Lord deliver me from religious zealots. And while I lean libertarian in some ways, Paul is flat-out loony in my opinion. In fact, if one only reads Paul's website he sounds pretty good, but then he opens his mouth and starts explaining his positions.

Ah well, another election cycle and once again I am likely faced with the evils of two lessors. Depending on the Veep selections, it could go as high as four lessors. Can you imagine a Clinton or Obama ticket with Edwards as Veep, versus McCain and Huckabee. Arrghh.

Posted by: Fritz at January 30, 2008 8:34 AM

I think there is a very real and important distinction between being vocally and even stridently opposed to a candidate's statued positions and past performance, as the vast majority of McCain'e detractors are, and concluding that all actions of an individual are the result of a deep set wrongness and evil of the individual, as those sufferers of BDS seem to be. To say that I disagree in the strongest way with the McCain-Kenedy immigration bill that, thankfully, got tanked is no where near to the same as those who castigate Bush for "lying" or claiming that he sends our boys off to die for his enjoyment.

There will always be those at the extreme, but generally the slams against McCain are against his policy positions and not him as a man.

Posted by: submandave at January 30, 2008 8:35 AM

TO: submandave
RE: About the Individual

"There will always be those at the extreme, but generally the slams against McCain are against his policy positions and not him as a man." -- submandave

Better re-read my comment (above).

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Character matters.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 8:40 AM

Hillary-Obama-McCain, all three supported by George Soros money.

McCain doesn't work with the moderate (D)emocrats to 'compromise', he runs to the most radical Leftists and drags a couple of (R-INOs) with him.

I won't list the many examples beyond mentioning attacking the 1st Amendment with McCain-Feingold, granting Amnesty with McCain-Kennedy, undermining judicial appointments with the Gang-of 14.

Do you really think McCain will appoint the type of judges that will overturn his own legislative sellouts?

Posted by: DANEgerus at January 30, 2008 8:40 AM

"There will always be those at the extreme, but generally the slams against McCain are against his policy positions and not him as a man." -- submandave

McCain is dishonorable because he is a liar.

Juan Hernandez has been a part of the Reform Institute for a while. McCain started that institute to hide his campaign workers from the election laws he created.

Roger being called deranged is ok. Principles matter...McCain has none except the corrupt principle that anything goes to achieve the Presidency. I would sooner vote for Hillary than McCain. And since I cannot support that I will sit home this November.

I would rather a Democrat be blamed for what is about to occur than a republican.

McCain is dishonorable and I have had enough of that from Republicans. It is expected from Democrats. Besides Hillary won't lose the war on terror. Hell maybe she might have enough balls to stop calling the war a war against a tactic? This is not a war against "terror" it is a war against Islam.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at January 30, 2008 8:52 AM

I don't dislike John McCain personally. What I dislike are his policies, especially McCain-Feingold's assault on the First Amendment and McCain-Kennedy's amnesty plan. His bringing in Juan Hernandez as his "volunteer" Hispanic outreach person was the last straw for me. I voted for Romney yesterday in the Florida primary, and I'm disappointed that he didn't win.

If McCain is the Republican party nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him as the lesser of two evils. I know that the path that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would lead our country down would likely be far worse than anything McCain is likely to do. But I sure as hell wish that Fred Thompson had started his race earlier, because he was the candidate whose views most closely matched my own. Thompson and Giuliani have proven that it's a losing strategy to not play retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire at least a year in advance.

Posted by: BarCodeKing at January 30, 2008 9:07 AM

Hmmmmm.

"On the other hand, he was one of the earliest, strongest and most influential backers of The Surge."

Sorry but I've read this repeatedly but nobody so far has offered any proof of this.

Is there proof?

Or is this another example of blogger speculation becoming fact?

Posted by: Memomachine at January 30, 2008 9:13 AM

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat anymore, so I know many here will completely disregard what I'm saying, but... For those who worry that McCain is a loser against Clinton or Obama, an '08 Dole as some fear, check out the national polls. He is the ONLY candidate who beats both, and by substantial margins right now. Granted, we're not in the general election yet, but it is obvious that he is the only Republican who stands a chance.
The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election. They will be the ones who hand it to the Democrats. The fact that there is a pro-war candidate who is more popular with the general electorate than those who want to pull out, when the war has been hugely unpopular, is astoundingly fortunate for our country . It speaks volumes about the American people, and about McCain's ability to communicate and lead.

Posted by: Sheryl at January 30, 2008 9:15 AM

"Pierre - as a Dem I want to keep people like you discouraged from voting for McCain in the fall. Who scares or disgusts you more, Clinton or Obama?"

Markus, the answer to this question does not resolve itself into an anti-McCain vote. Republicans are probably more inclined to vote for McCain when they focus on Clinton or Obama.

Posted by: Godzilla at January 30, 2008 9:17 AM

TO: Sheryl
RE: Indeed

"The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election. They will be the ones who hand it to the Democrats." -- Sheryl

That would defeat a McCain candidacy. And, I suspect, that is EXACTLY what would happen.

Better an unknown like Obama than a known oath-breaker would be their rational. Others might write in Thompson. Or, if Hillary is the Democrat's nominee, sit it out, like you suggest.

They'd probably think along the lines of Emperor Claudius.....

"Let all of the poisons of the Earth hatch out."

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 9:21 AM

> The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election.

Well, that's what happened in the '06 elections, and the GOP is not learning from what was at heart a protest non-vote from disheartened Republicans. Then, as it is now, people could not bring themselves to vote for those who were pushing the shamnesty bill and tons of pork and caving on defense.

So why shoult '08 be any different, just because the election is for the Presidency instead of "just" Congress?

Sad times.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 9:22 AM

I will likely support McCain in Nov. but the McCain Feingold legislation is a bitter pill to swallow.

Just for fun - I'm a radio host afterall - I wrote a parody song about McCain.

Enjoy
http://www.extremewisdom.com/?p=974

Posted by: Bruno Behrend at January 30, 2008 9:23 AM

> The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election.

Well, that's what happened in the '06 elections, and the GOP is not learning from what was at heart a protest non-vote from disheartened Republicans. Then, as it is now, people could not bring themselves to vote for those who were pushing the shamnesty bill and tons of pork and caving on defense.

So why shoult '08 be any different, just because the election is for the Presidency instead of "just" Congress?

Sad times.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 9:23 AM

> The way he will be defeated is if these same Republican McCain haters sit out the election.

Well, that's what happened in the '06 elections, and the GOP is not learning from what was at heart a protest non-vote from disheartened Republicans. Then, as it is now, people could not bring themselves to vote for those who were pushing the shamnesty bill and tons of pork and caving on defense.

So why should '08 be any different, just because the election is for the Presidency instead of "just" Congress?

Sad times.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 9:24 AM

Something wrong with the comment form...

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 9:27 AM

Roger:

Its important to note that anger of McCain didn't just surface when he started winning primaries. Its been there because of two important historical events: 1. The formation of the Gang of 14 and 2. the conservative smackdown effort known as the CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform).

After the CIR debacle, I decided that I would never support any effort to elect McCain president. I simply will not vote for him in the general election.

The commentators make some good points on why conservative Republicans should hold their nose and vote for him anyway. I disagree. The GWOT will not end with a McCain (or a Clinton) presidency. To think that only McCain could protect the US is nonsense. There comes a time when you must vote on principle. For me, now is that time.

The Republican party has left the conservative base. If they feel they can win without that base, more power to them. We shall see.

Ken

Posted by: Ken at January 30, 2008 9:30 AM

Roger,
Hewitt has said repeatedly and clearly that he will support McCain if he is nominated. What else would you like to hear? I think you're straw-manning here.

As a "credentialed" media person, McCain-Feingold will not affect you, but it does the rest of us.

McCain is a narcissist but, unlike our last narcissist president, Clinton, he enjoys insulting those he most needs.

But he won't win. He'll do worse than Dole. The New York Times already has dirt on him. They'll unveil it when it's most advantageous to Clinton-Obama. Then they'll remember his age, his melanoma, his divorce, Keating, etc, etc, etc,. Hillary will get to the right of him on immigration.

This is not derangement.

Posted by: kisrum at January 30, 2008 9:38 AM

The problems with McCain go beyond his liberalness. This is not a contest to choose a President. It is to choose the Republican candidate.

That is very possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this week. And it's been a really dumb week.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at January 30, 2008 9:40 AM

I think you have to understand that politicians aren't people, they're symbols, and derangement syndrome, whether for Clinton, Bush or McCain, is a reflection of a groups disdain for what that candidate symbolizes.

McCain represents a betrayal of massive proportions and every conservative knows it. Since you're not a conservative, you're shrugging your shoulders wondering what the fuss is all about.

We will not go softly into that good night. McCain will be opposed resolutely not as John McCain, former POW, but as a stalking horse for the liberal-left agenda.

Posted by: Mick Stockinger at January 30, 2008 9:44 AM

I have to agree with the rest of the posts here, I'll support McCain but I'll do it the same way I supported Bush: I held my nose while I voted (i.e. clothespin Republican) and I supported him on the War but that's it.

Is there a way that we can tell McCain all of this in some formal way that he has to see it? I'm fearful that McCain is going to think his nomination is un-qualified and that we all agree with him. I'd like to see a letter or something from those like me telling McCain that, while we will vote for him in November and we support him on the War, that our support is conditional and that there WILL be consequences. Its not McCain Derangement Syndrome so much as a coordinated way of keeping a leash on him. If we had something like that with Bush we might not have ended up with McCain/Feingold, NCLB, prescription drug benefits, etc. I don't think anyone in the party can stand another presidency based on "compassionate conservatism".

-MM

Posted by: Michael Mealling at January 30, 2008 9:46 AM

I can't even listen to Rush anymore because of his rage at McCain. I don't understand it. I disagree with McCain on some things, but I thought as an adult you go with the candidate that is closest to you in your beliefs. If we all held out for the perfect candidate no one would ever get elected to anything.

By the way, I've heard the same caller on the Medved show who says McCain is no war hero. I think it was a male calling in though, but sounds like the same talking points.

Posted by: Kelly at January 30, 2008 9:49 AM

>That is very possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this week. And it's been a really dumb week.

No, I think that Republicans as a party should be allowed to choose their own candidate that they feel most closely represents their point of view, without this selection being hijacked by "independents" and anti-democratic partisans (bad enough when it's just the press and intraparty dirty tricks).

If the party primaries are going to be general elections where everybody can vote, then why have both? Just have one giant election and be done with it.

This is why we always end up with two lousy candidates: because the selection of each of those candidates is sabotaged by those who want the opposing party to choose the worst possible candidate. And congratulations to everybody, that's what we will now be getting.

If there are going to be rules for voting, then by gum they should be enforced. And they should be consistent.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 9:50 AM

By the way, is McCain on some kind of steroids or something? He looked very weird last night.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Republicans are lumped into the following categories:
1.Social Conservatives-Who do we stand a better chance with when it comes to judges, McCain or Clinton/Obama.
2.National Security types-Who better appreciates the threat and will act decisively regardless of the political fall-out, McCain or Clinton/Obama?
3. Economic Conservatives- Who is most likely to fight for the continuation of the Bush tax-cuts,McCain or Clinton/Obama?
You can sit on the sidelines,but don't complain if the socialist/securalist/defeatist party controls all the levers of government.

Posted by: stu at January 30, 2008 9:58 AM

I am hardly a typical Republican. I voted for Rudy in the Michigan Primary (part of that powerful 3% coalition!). Like yourself, Roger, my views have changed exponentially since 9/11 (really since the 2000 rhubarb and the endless whining my former party has engaged in since; See: BDS). John McCain is no doubt a war hero, and I am definitely on the same page with him on the GWOT - beyond that, I have many of the same problems with his candidacy as mentioned in the previous comments. He strikes me as bitter, dismissive, extremely tempermental, and a little long in the tooth. While my personal fears of him may be allayed as the process moves forward, my opposition to many of his policy positions remain. This does not make me "deranged" any more than Rush Limbaugh's opposition makes him an "easily dismissable jackass" (I've enjoyed much of your writing, Michael J. Totten, but that "jackass" has done much - and given much, much more - to support our military than most people you could name).

Time will tell. One thing's for sure: If McCain becomes President, the people who you think are deranged will mostly, if grudgingly, fall in line and quietly support him. Meanwhile, the same people who burst into irrational anger at the mere mention of Bush's name will find a new "World's #1 Terrorist" to blame all of society's ills on. In fact, you may just be a year early in diagnosing the syndrome, and need to re-check the name-tag on the patient...it ain't me, babe.

Posted by: Lightnin' Hopkins at January 30, 2008 9:58 AM

TO: Roger L. Simon, et al.
RE: Speaking of 'Derangement'...

...you should read Bruce Catton's Civil War Centennial series. Especially the first of the trilogy; The Coming Fury.

I'm reminded, a LOT, of 'derangement' as I'm reading the first few chapters.

The Southern States, prior-to and during the early phases of secession, were behaving very similar to the way the people who DO suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome behave.

They would not listen to reason.
They would not read the writings of the man they so adamantly opposed.
They only wanted to fight....and lie about their reasons to do so.

Very informative.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 10:11 AM

...there are some of us who very specifically do not think that a Huey Long grafter is a worse (or more dangerous) choice than a person who apparently practices a de facto belief that he is above the Constitution.

Unlike the BSD'ers of the Left, we have solid, rational, ideological grounds for not voting for McCain as the Republican choice. Or even voting *for* Hilary.

Your attempt to draw the analogy is too shallow by half.

phobos, kerdos, doxa ...

Posted by: brandon davis at January 30, 2008 10:30 AM

I wish my main concern with McCain dealt only with issues. But at the moment I am more worried about a deepening suspicion that McCain becomes psychologically unhinged when he is confronted or opposed. Here is the ad by Rommney this past Monday that focused my attention on his :

Rommney's anti-McCain ad

I don't think Rommney is desperate or dishonest enough to lie about these incidents. I admit I have not fact checked them. I find them alarming, and for some reason they make me think of that weird crack that McCain made in a previous debate, about how he had more scars than Frankenstein. I thought then that that was a strange remark to make in a national debate, because it seemed to come out of nowhere, and is perhaps another indication that he lacks control and has questionable thinking processes.

Considering his years in the Hanoi prison, I wonder if he is psycholigically fit to be in as stressful a postion as POTUS. As I said in the earlier comment, the thought of him being in charge of the military actually scares me. That really surprises me, because I am very pro-military and gung ho on the war on terror. I hear time and time again about people who are voting for McCain simply because they think that only he can beat Hillary. This reasoning process might actually end up letting a full-fledged Godzilla into the house just to keep a measley little werewolf from getting in.

In the runup to the Florida primary McCain began to accuse Rommney of being soft on the war on terror, claiming that Rommney wanted a timetable like Hillary. This was a flat out lie. He was called on it by the press, and he kept lying about it. When I look back at what I've written here, I see that it is all about McCain's character, personality, and judgment. I would feel much much better if my concern was only about the issues.

Posted by: Godzilla at January 30, 2008 10:37 AM

The Democrats are set to push for three things:

1) Tax increases (by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as well as passing additional taxes)

2) Socialized medicine

3) Global warming "emissions restrictions".

Taken together, these three measures will be an economic disaster.

Trouble is , McCain is on board for all three -- at least in the sense that he will not fight hard against any of them.

Roger, you say you are a "one issue" voter, and I understand that, but if we wreck our economy, that will have consequences for our ability to fight the WOT.

Posted by: Michael Smith at January 30, 2008 10:48 AM

Hi Roger,

I'm a Republican. John McCain runs under the Republican label, but isn't one. He's a "McCainiac."

It is not just that when his interests differ from those of the Republican party he favors himself over his party. It is that he has chosen to set things up so that his interests differ from those of his party.

John McCain has gotten the press to "love" him by repeatedly screwing over Republicans (see "Gang of 14"). How the hell is "President McCain" going to complain when the Democrats filibuster his nominees? After all, he's the one who organized Republican Senators to make sure that Democrat Senators could continue to filibuster Bush's nominees.

As for the Surge et al. Oh great, he's in favor of fighting al Qaeda. So are Obama and Hillary. The problem is that all three of them are opposed to doing what's necessary to get the information to fight them effectively.

Which makes the willingness useless.

Besides, this is all just fantasy. The MSM's love for McCain will disappear the moment he becomes the R nominee. And he will lose in a landslide. because w/o the MSM, he's nothing.

Posted by: Greg D at January 30, 2008 10:56 AM

Unlike the BSD'ers of the Left, we have solid, rational, ideological grounds for not voting for McCain as the Republican choice. Or even voting *for* Hilary.

Snicker. Derangement is an emotional state, not a rational state. When the Republican chatterati calm down and address the issues -- rather than calling McCain a left wing, phony war hero who hates the 1'st amendment and wants to sink the economy -- I might give them the benefit of the doubt. But at the moment it looks and sounds like a tantrum.

Posted by: chuck at January 30, 2008 11:01 AM

In a nutshell, McCain has proven himself to be in the Democratic camp, and he is a compulsive liar and self-righteous rage-a-holic.

But the main problem psychologically with McCain is that he wants everybody to like him. Not only "journalists" who reveal national security secrets. Not only leftists in Congress who want to dismantle the Constitution and give away our sovereignty. Not only foreigners who hate our form of government and capitalism, whose latest attack on our economy is the global warming scam.

But he also wants to be admired and respected by our enemies who want us dead. He's addicted to flattery to the extent that he's willing to give Al Qaeda Constitutional privileges and access to our court system.

It's pathological.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 11:04 AM

TO: chuck
RE: Heh....

"Snicker. Derangement is an emotional state, not a rational state. When the Republican chatterati calm down and address the issues -- rather than calling McCain a left wing, phony war hero who hates the 1'st amendment and wants to sink the economy -- I might give them the benefit of the doubt." -- chuck

You better go back and read some of the comments above, chuckie. You're reminding me of the people Bruce Catton describes. See my comment on what amounted to Lincoln Derangement Syndrome, as manifested in the Southern States in 1860.

Pay particular attention to item #2 in the list.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is none so blind as he who will not read.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 11:25 AM

In a nutshell, McCain has proven himself to be in the Democratic camp, and he is a compulsive liar and self-righteous rage-a-holic.

See what I mean? All the self-righteous rage-a-holics are coming out of the closet.

But he also wants to be admired and respected by our enemies who want us dead. He's addicted to flattery to the extent that he's willing to give Al Qaeda Constitutional privileges and access to our court system.

And he probably plays golf with Bin Laden on Sundays.

It's pathological.

Absolutely.

Posted by: chuck at January 30, 2008 11:27 AM

John McCain's 'hispanic advisor' has a name...

Juan Hernandez.

A very dangerous man, who quite frankly makes my skin crawl. Americans thinking about supporting Mr. McCain for president would be wise to check this character out.

Senator McCain is an American hero who has served his country with great pride, however, he will 'never' get my vote as long as he has Mr. Hernandez as part of his 'advisory team'

In the words of Teddy Roosevelt,

"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people".

Juan Hernandez makes no bones about the fact his loyalty is first and foremost to Mexico.

Mr. McCain should 'wise up and cut this man loose' ASAP.

Posted by: jimmy mack at January 30, 2008 11:29 AM

I love the way comments arguing against blog posts like Roger's inevitably prove the original author's point.

Posted by: David C at January 30, 2008 11:29 AM

All this talk of McCain "betraying" the Republican Party is creepy and more than a little off-putting. I had this same crap thrown at me for "betraying" the Democratic Party when I supported the war in Iraq. I have since left the Democratic Party since that is how I am perceived.

A senator and president owes loyalty to country, not party, far more than a mere writer like me does.

It is not the job of a senator to promote the interest of his or her party. It is the job of a senator to promote the interests of his or her state, which includes huge numbers of people from both major parties.

It is especially not the job of a president to promote the interests of his or her party. The president of the United States is the president of all of us and owes his or allegiance to the country far more than to his or her "base."

Too much "dissing" of the base can make a person unelectable, and a candidate owes at least some allegiance to the base for that practical reason, but McCain hasn't had that problem so far. Quite the opposite, in fact. He cannot, by definition, be betraying his party if his party picks him as its leader.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 30, 2008 11:41 AM

When push comes to shove... If you all antimacaniats really feel that way...

There is no way any of you are voting for Hillary.

I wouldn't be surprise if many anti McCain posters here are really Hillary supporters.

You know who you are.

Posted by: Lem at January 30, 2008 11:53 AM

I have loathed McCain for MANY years for all the reason folks have stated above (open borders with Mexico, opposing tax cuts, undermining Bush's judicial appointments with the Gang of 14, undermining the President during a time of war by falsely accusing him of torture and seeking to allow the enemy to defeat us using our own court system [by giving them access to it as if the were American citizens]), but I can assure you, Roger, that my hatred of McCain starting many years ago with his most heinous act of all-- McCain/Feingold. McCain OUTLAWED political free speech at the time citizens need it the most-- near an election.

This is nothing less that a repeal of the First Amendment, and it frightens me how few people take this as seriously as they should. Would you even consider voting for President a man who had gotten passed a bill that allowed the State to shut down newspapers that criticized the government because such criticism is too "divisive"? Would you even consider electing voting for a man who had gotten a law passed declaring all religions but Protestant Christianity to be illegal, since religious differences are the cause of so much strife in the world?

If the answer is no, the why do you believe free speech is somehow less of a right than freedom of the press and freedom of religion? All three are in the First Amemdment. Are some civil rights more equal than others?

Finally, I'd like to address all of the above commenters who said they'd hold their noses and vote for McCain if he were the Republican nominee, as well as those commenters who feel it would be silly and "childish" to sit it out or even vote Democrat just because the Republican nominee was so antithetical to conservative beliefs:

George Will himself (hardly a wild-eyed demagogue, Roger) wrote yesterday that there is almost no difference between the Clintons and McCain.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will012808.php3

Think about everything bad that you're afraid a Democrat would do if elected. Give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants? We know McCain would too; heck, he TRIED. Raise taxes (repeal the tax cuts)? McCain would too. Appoint liberal, make-it-up-as-you-go-along judges to the Supreme Court? McCain already said publically that he wouldn't have appointed Alito, because he "wore his conservative credentials on his sleeve." Belittle and accuse bad faith of those that disagree with him/her? McCain has done that repeatedly, accusing fellow Republicans of being racist for opposing his amnesty plan, deliberately misquoting Romney by claiming Romney wanted a timetable to withdraw the troops when Romney in fact said the opposite, and using the language of class warfare and scorning private business owners who seek profit (as if that were something shameful).

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012908/content/01125108.member.html.member.html

The only different characteristic McCain might have from the Democrat nominee is the War on Terror. For all you single-issue voters (and btw, I agree that this is of extreme importantance), two things:

One, once a Democrat is in the White House, the Mainstream Media will finally start seeing lots and lots of progress in Iraq (the same way the papers lauded Bill Clinton's fantastic economy but ignored or outright lied about Bush's better one). With a Democrat in charge, it would be easier to stay in Iraq longer, because the Dems and their friends in the MSM will talk about how much better thing are now. Yes, that improvement will have bee due to Bush and Petraeus, not the Democrat suddenly in the White House, but as The Gipper himself said, "You can get anything you want done as long as you don't care who gets the credit."

So, especially now that the momentum in Iraq is in our favor, I see no difference between the policies of a President McCain and a President Hillary/Obama. BUT! Here is the REAL difference-- if President Hillary/Obama tried to raise taxes, or pass an amnesty bill, or take us out of Iraq too early, the Republicans in the House and Senate would FIGHT it. There would be OPPOSITION. The Republican party would assert its conservative ideals and try to get the votes and the support AGAINST that President's bad plans.

But, as we have seen with George W. Bush, Republicans in the House and Senate will simply not go against the President if he too is a Republican, no matter how bad, expensive, or unconservative those ideas might be. Remember Congress passing McCain/Feingold when the president looked like he'd sign it. Remember the intrusive and expensive new government programs like No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug program, and the Department of Homeland Defense, just to name a few.

Under Bush, the Republican Party as a whole got dragged to the left because it wouldn't oppose the lefty ideas of a Republican President. But if the President were a member of the OPPOSITION PARTY, the Republican Party and the Republicans in Congress would do everything they could to OPPOSE that President's lefty ideas, the result being A) the lefty ideas have less chance of becoming popular and passing; and B) the Republican Party STOPS moving left and starts rediscovering its conservative principles, now that it no longer feels obligated to support a Republican President.

In conclusion (and bless you if you stayed with me this long), I, as a conservative, truly believe a Democrat President would be better for the WOT, the Constitution, and the economy than a President McCain.

The "deranged" hatred for McCain, Roger, hardly appeared suddenly when McCain became potentially powerful; the vast majority of McCain's Republican angry opposition that you're referring to has come from conservatives who are terrified and disgusted that this man, whom we have rightfully detested for many years, appears to be in the position of representing the Republican Party... and might even acheive the power of the President of the United States.

Posted by: Laura at January 30, 2008 11:54 AM

TO: David C
RE: Soooo.....

"I love the way comments arguing against blog posts like Roger's inevitably prove the original author's point." -- David C

....are we to understand that you are opposed to the Bill of Rights?

That you support McCain-Feingold 2002 and that one cannot say critical thinks about incumbent members of Congress?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 11:59 AM

"I think by any rational comparison the importance of The Surge vs. waterboarding and Gitmo isn't remotely close."

A rational comparison can't be attempted for they are all inseparably linked on the war on terror.

Consider any single one changed to Juan McCain's demand and the fatal influence it will have on all three.

Posted by: Chris at January 30, 2008 12:00 PM

TO: Micheal J. Totten
RE: On the Nosey

"A senator and president owes loyalty to country, not party, far more than a mere writer like me does." -- Michael J. Totten

Hence my distress at McCain's involvement with an act of Congress that strikes at the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Especially looking at it from the perspective of a professional military officer.

It is, as we would say in the military, a 'key indicator'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Keep up the good work over there.....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 12:05 PM

I've got problems with McCain, all covered above.

I've got problems with Romney, all covered above.

That's it for the GOP, none of the others have a chance at the nomination. If I could assemble a Frankenstein monster presidential candidate there would be pieces of all the GOP guys who took a shot at the job (except Dr. Paul).

I'll vote for Mitt on Super Tuesday. My bottom line is that I'd rather have McCain in the White House than either Clinton or Obama. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP in November rather than sit it out.

Posted by: Right Wing Nutter at January 30, 2008 12:13 PM

I think Laura has a good point. Earlier, I pointed to the three major legislative pushes we can expect from the Democrats after the 2008 election:

1) Tax increases (by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as well as passing additional taxes)

2) Socialized medicine

3) Global warming "emissions restrictions".

If these measures are proposed by a President Clinton or a President Obama, we can expect the Republicans in congress to fight them. However, if these measures are proposed by the Democrats in congress while McCain is president, McCain will react the same way Bush did: he will either offer no opposition or will suggest a compromise that gives the Democrats most of what they want.

Posted by: Michael Smith at January 30, 2008 12:37 PM

I'll vote for Mitt on Super Tuesday. My bottom line is that I'd rather have McCain in the White House than either Clinton or Obama. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP in November rather than sit it out.

By any objective measure based on executive experience, Mitt is the most qualified of all the candidates, Republican or Democratic. So the question is, why hasn't he done better? And I guess the answer is, that politics and business are very different occupations. In politics, the "change" rhetoric of an Obama can work wonders, no one is going to ask for a business plan. After party, I think what motivates voters is the "feel" of the man or woman. Nor do I think that is necessarily shallow: the complexities of picking the best on objective criterion probably makes the task impossible. And I suspect Wilson and Hoover would both rate highly by such criterion, but they were perhaps not the best of presidents.

Posted by: chuck at January 30, 2008 12:42 PM

I agree with Roger. I emailed the following earlier this morning to some friends.

My view.

Very relieved McCain beat Romney, given that Giuliani was imploding anyway. Mccain appears now to be on his way to wrapping this up. I must say again, however, it boggles my mind how "conservatives" in the party have been indulging in their McCain hate-fest.

Take the immigration issue. First, even assuming McCain really is for "amnesty," does he truly plan to amnesty more illegals than conservative hero Ronald Reagan actually did in 1986? Reagan was every bit as much a pragmatist and compromiser as the right ideologues now trash McCain for being. Phony Reagan idolatry irritates me these days almost as much as the hyper-ventilating against McCain. In any case, since NO ONE is EVER going to deport any of the illegals already here, the issue for conservatives is, first, how to tighten the border, and second, how to strengthen the assimilation process. It is not and never will be how to kick these people out.

But strengthening the assimilation process would require conservatives to learn, finally, how to take on the grievance-identity industry intelligently enough to actually change institutional practices and cultures, rather than posture in exactly the same way the left likes to do. Much harder work.

On this very ground, Bill and Hillary have offered the Republicans an unbelievable golden opportunity, one which only McCain (and absolutely not Romney) can possibly capitalize on. By angering blacks, the Clintons have put that rock-solid constituency in play in a way it has not been for a long time. And by Hillary's banking on a racist appeal to Hispanics, the Democrats have given Republicans a chance to appeal to that constituency on conservative and assimilationist grounds rather than in the left-reactionary way the Democrats now must, assuming Hillary is their candidate.

Do conservatives realize that McCain gives them a real shot at cracking apart the heart of the Democratic coalition? Apparently not. My biggest disappointment with Bush has been the failure to go after blacks in forthright terms blacks could understand. To do this now, conservatives will have to have the courage of their own true conservative principles and get over the guilt-flinching and the defensiveness that liberals have learned to provoke in them in order to freeze conservatives out and keep them from a true engagement with blacks. With McCain they also have the chance to do exactly the same with Hispanics. That is, instead of either pompously railing against them, or pandering and promising and flinching before them, a chance to make a tough-love DEAL with them. We help you if you agree to help yourselves.

I despair of this happening, however, even though the open door is there beckoning as never before. Will our infantile rightists grow up, or only take over from the infantile leftists who have so nicely marginalized the Democrats all these years?

Jon

Posted by: jburack at January 30, 2008 12:50 PM

I really don't understand a couple things.

1. Mitt's political record is consistently liberal. Only his current rhetoric is conservative. He wanted to pull troops out of Iraq and then later lied about it. He's been pro-gay marriage, not anti-abortion, pretty liberal in his general policies... and McCain, has on occasion compromised with liberals, while his general record appears rather conservative. Why is McCain's record worse that Mitt's?

2. Why is McCain-Feingold a slap at free speech? I just went through the entire thing and while its not very good legislation, it doesn't seem to impact the First Amendment at all. Everything I can find in the Constitution references the Individual citizen, not a corporation. We certianly don't extend all of the other rights to corporations, do we? Do corporations have the right to bear arms, or do individuals within the corporation have a right to bear arms? Does a corporation get a vote in the election, or do individuals in a corporation have the right to vote? Are Corporations brought before a jury of their peers? Are corporations named in search warrants? Are corporations read Miranda Rights? Is bail ever set for a corporation? And the tenth amendment says that rights are assigned to the People (not a fictional entity run by people).

Consider this, the reason that corporations exist is to limit the liability of the individuals within the corporation. If an individual accidentally causes a loss, they are limited in how much liability they personally have. To paraphrase Spiderman's Uncle, "With Limited Responsibility, comes limited power."

Boston vs Bellotti, the Supreme court case that decided corporations were protected under the amendment was a 5/4 split with most conservatives on the side of "No". Here's what Justice Rehnquist said when the decision was handed down (he dissented): "It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere. Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist."

So, while I respect those who are of the opinion that corporations have freedom of speech, I think, at least, we should all be able to agree that this is murky water at best. McCain may be right or wrong in limiting the free speech of corporations (which is what McCain-Feingold tried to do), but this isn't clear cut, it isn't a trouncing of the first amendment, its not a slap in the face or failing to uphold the constitution...

From my perspective, Judge Rehnquist was right. Corporations don't need political expression and the fact that a multi-billion dollar corporation could throw its weight behind a candidate can.. and has caused problems. Consider, for example, that most of the money earned by a corporation is earned by all members of that corporation, that is, from the factory floor to the CEO's office, everyone contributes to the bottom line. However, the use of those funds are controlled by a few people. Thus, those few people could use money earned by everyone to back a candidate that none of the employees particularly like. The corporation, in this case, is not expressing free speech. Rather, the board of directors are using corporate money to back their personally favored candidate.

McCain Feingold has problems, some of the FEC implementations have left much to be desired. However, thats how our nation works, a law gets put in place, it gets tested and hopefully improved. MF needs improved and clarified, or maybe even repealed. BUT, it is not a clear cut example of evil, it can in no sane way be seen as McCain stomping on Free Speech, the issue is far more complex than that.

Posted by: dclydew at January 30, 2008 12:54 PM

None of the current GOP candidates really appeal to me. I saw McCain on one of the debates and he was stammering all over the place! But there is a person who has recently declared his candidacy. His name is Jerry Curry. Please go to www.curryforamerica.com and take a look. I'm sure you'll like what you see!

Posted by: TeachESL at January 30, 2008 12:54 PM

So let's see, serious and specifically enumerated policy differences and easily verifiable character flaws for McCain equals Bush is worse than Hitler, is the world's biggest terrorist, and thrills at the thought of soldiers heads being blown off.

Waterboarding equals blowtorchs and power tools.

Terrorists hiding behind women and children equal uniformed soldiers and thus should be subject to the same Geneva convention rights.

Rush Limbaugh equals Daily Kos and DU.

The new "moderate" platform!

Posted by: Paul at January 30, 2008 12:57 PM

Only one problem with your theory.

Conservatives have hated John McCain for years, long before it was even thought of that he could possibly be the Republican nominee for President.

It has absolutely nothing to do with his current position of power. It's simply the fact that he's an absolutely pathetic fraud who's repeatedly sold out and insulted conservatives.

Posted by: Gregor at January 30, 2008 1:01 PM

TO: Gregor
RE: Another Problem...

"Only one problem with your theory.

Conservatives have hated John McCain for years..." -- Gregor

...and I think this is another 'key indicator'....

...it's not 'hate'.

The 'deranged' do that; hate.

I don't hate McCain. I didn't hate Bill Clinton.

I just think the latter was one of the worst presidents in American history. [Note: And in the fullness of time, I'm confident my opinion will be borne out as accurate.]

I think the former has presented himself as lacking the necessary backbone to support the Constitution of the United States. He's proven that in 2002. In the military, if you deal with such simple things as the mail, it's referred to as 'moral turpitude'.

Or....'would you hire a felon to enforce the law'?

[Note: Admittedly, the District of Columbia, doesn't seem to mind that last bit. But then again, they've got SOOOOO many unsolved 'murders' surrounding political figures....Foster, Mahoney, Levy. I'm sure with a little more work I could come up with more instances. But I'm confident even you can get the 'drift'.]

There is no 'hate' involved. Just rational, self-interest, vis-a-vis the chief executive of the land.

Hope that helps....but I have my doubts....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime does not pay...as well as politics.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:18 PM

It has absolutely nothing to do with his current position of power. It's simply the fact that he's an absolutely pathetic fraud who's repeatedly sold out and insulted conservatives.

I must say that nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such. I don't regard this sort of rhetoric as conservative, I regard it as freaking nuts. And I'm not having any, thank you.

Posted by: chuck at January 30, 2008 1:19 PM

Romney's big dig was supposed to cost tax payers around 2 billion dollars. In the end we picked up a tab of over 14 billion dollars.

Romney presided over one, if not the worst, mismanaged construction projects in the history of the United States.

McCain may be flawed, but Romney is no saint.

Posted by: Lem at January 30, 2008 1:21 PM

TO: Gregor
RE: Another Problem...

"Only one problem with your theory.

Conservatives have hated John McCain for years..." -- Gregor

...and I think this is another 'key indicator'....

...it's not 'hate'.

The 'deranged' do that; hate.

I don't hate McCain. I didn't hate Bill Clinton.

I just think the latter was one of the worst presidents in American history. [Note: And in the fullness of time, I'm confident my opinion will be borne out as accurate.]

I think the former has presented himself as lacking the necessary backbone to support the Constitution of the United States. He's proven that in 2002. In the military, if you deal with such simple things as the mail, it's referred to as 'moral turpitude'.

Or....'would you hire a felon to enforce the law'?

[Note: Admittedly, the District of Columbia, doesn't seem to mind that last bit. But then again, they've got SOOOOO many unsolved 'murders' surrounding political figures....Foster, Mahoney, Levy. I'm sure with a little more work I could come up with more instances. But I'm confident even you can get the 'drift'.]

There is no 'hate' involved. Just rational, self-interest, vis-a-vis the chief executive of the land.

Hope that helps....but I have my doubts....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime does not pay...as well as politics.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:23 PM

So let's see, serious and specifically enumerated policy differences and easily verifiable character flaws for McCain equals Bush is worse than Hitler, is the world's biggest terrorist, and thrills at the thought of soldiers heads being blown off.

I agree that this is an insane statement and blown far out of proportion.

Waterboarding equals blowtorchs and power tools.

I don't think that anyone has stated that. I think Mr. McCain has stated only that waterboarding was torture and should be illegal. Since we tried Japanese soldiers from WWII for War Crimes for waterboarding... I can see his point. You may not agree, but in this instance I would say that you are making an insane statement blown out of proportion.

Terrorists hiding behind women and children equal uniformed soldiers and thus should be subject to the same Geneva convention rights.

Well, at least this time you tried to include some emotion to sway people. However, the basic statement is one I agree with. All fighters should be tried under the GC. Simply because today's fighters are not like the ones we fought in the past, doesn't mean they aren't fighters, nor does it mean we should lower our own moral standards in dealing with them. Terrorism and Insurgency are part of modern Fourth Gen warfare and they will be from here on out if you listen to any military expert. The British thought Revolutionaries in the US weren't soldiers (because we refused to wear those silly costumes and stand in line waiting our turn to shoot or be shot), but it was simply because they were behind in the ways of war. Get with the times, or you'll be left behind.

Rush Limbaugh equals Daily Kos and DU.

The difference I see between the two is the medium they use to spread their partisan bullshit. You may not like it and DK's readers might not like it... but that doesn't really matter in the end. Blowhards and blowhards and I see little difference between Richard Dawkins, Rush Limbaugh, Kos, Fred Phelps and any other individual too full of their own shit to consider that they might be wrong or in need of an enema.

Posted by: dclydew at January 30, 2008 1:24 PM

I'm pretty sure McCain has it sewn up. I can't stand the man, personally, ethically, politically, etc. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that I will be voting for him in November. And I don't mean in the, "maybe if I feel like voting that day," sense either. I'll walk through tornado weather, if necessary.

Voting for McCain is like voting for Nixon. It's a bad choice, but still the correct one--despite knowing that McCain being president will come with some bad effects that you can predict, and probably more that you cannot. This is true *even if* McCain does to the Republican party what Nixon did. Merely because a sizable fringe of the Democrats will take political advantage of Republicans doing the heavy lifting, it does not remove the thinking citizens' obligations.

This situation isn't the Republicans' fault. It is certainly not conservatives' fault. It's not even McCain's fault. In 1968, when the Democrats decided that they were no longer interested in nominating grownups, they ceded the grownup vote to the Republican primary. With only one party to pick from, the chances that we will get a quality center-right to true conservative candidate ever year are very slight, especially when we consider that we have to take into account all the liberal and moderate grownups that don't have anywhere else to go. This stinks, but that is the way things are--and it is the way things will stay until the Democrats spend so long in the wilderness that they have no choice but to acknowledge it.

I will admit that the brief window where Huckabee appeared to be a credible threat for the nomination concentrated my mind greatly. It pushed into perspective all reservations I had with McCain and the other credible Republican nominees. I will always vote for the candidate I consider the best for the country, no matter how much it hurts. In a Huckabee/Clinton contest, I'd be hard pressed to decide between two people with teenage maturity. Whatever else is wrong with him, McCain is a grownup.

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at January 30, 2008 1:26 PM

TO: Lem
RE: Last Person....

"McCain may be flawed, but Romney is no saint." -- Lem

....I know of who was 'perfect', got nailed to a tree for it.

By politicians, too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Are we learning yet? -- Young John Conner, Terminator 2]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:27 PM

It has absolutely nothing to do with his current position of power. It's simply the fact that he's an absolutely pathetic fraud who's repeatedly sold out and insulted conservatives.

I must say that nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such. I don't regard this sort of rhetoric as conservative, I regard it as freaking nuts. And I'm not having any, thank you.

Posted by: chuck at January 30, 2008 1:27 PM

....I know of who was 'perfect', got nailed to a tree for it.

By politicians, too.

Politicans? Well, maybe they helped, but it was the conservative religious leaders of the Jewish system that put the crowd into a frenzy... Pilate just gave them what they asked for (Barabbas free, Jesus dead). I mean, if you believe the story in the Bible, that is. Yet more examples of Religion+Politics = Great Wrong.

Posted by: dclydew at January 30, 2008 1:31 PM

TO: chuck
RE: Really?

"I must say that nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such." -- chuck

Funny.

I think I've seen the so-called 'liberals' and 'progressives' doing that more than the conservatives.

Case in point....

A couple years ago, there was this liberal/progressive confab in either Tennessee or Kentucky.

During the event the feminists stormed out because the PETA-types put on a fashion show. Or something like that.

Please show us where the alleged 'conservatives' are so overly-sensitive.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. What was I saying about 'derangement' vis-a-vis 1860?

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:31 PM

Chuck, your last post didn't seem to make much sense, could you reword it? Currently it looks like you're providing an example that has nothing to do with the quote.

Posted by: dclydew at January 30, 2008 1:34 PM

TO: dclydew
RE: Still and All....

"Politicans? Well, maybe they helped, but it was the conservative religious leaders of the Jewish system that put the crowd into a frenzy..." -- dclydew

...they WERE 'politicians'. The LEADERS of their day.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[How quickly we forget....]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:36 PM

TO: dclydew
RE: Last Post

"Chuck, your last post didn't seem to make much sense, could you reword it? Currently it looks like you're providing an example that has nothing to do with the quote." -- dclydew

Maybe you could pay more attention to Life as it goes by.

In truth, the item was not addressed to you, but since you expressed an interest, I AM providing an example. One of how the liberals/progressives turn on each other at the drop of the proverbial 'hat[e]'. Much more so than so-called 'conservatives'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In politics stupidity is not a handicap.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:40 PM

P.S. Then again, this site seems to have some interesting site-affects, i.e., weirdness in displaying text.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 30, 2008 1:47 PM

>All fighters should be tried under the GC. Simply because today's fighters are not like the ones we fought in the past, doesn't mean they aren't fighters, nor does it mean we should lower our own moral standards in dealing with them.

The Geneva Convention does in fact describe our current foes as illegal combatants. They do not receive the same protections as uniformed military.

But beyond all the legal mumbo-jumbo, what motivates somebody like McCain to give so much of a crap about how distressed Khalid Sheik Mohammed was when we made him think he was drowning? Is this murderer's comfort more important than getting him to spill the beans on ongoing plots that were disrupted thanks to waterboarding?

Dems (including McCain) don't have their priorities straight. Safety of Americans first. Comfort and relaxation for Al Qaeda terrorists comes dead last.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 30, 2008 1:50 PM

TO: dclydew

...they WERE 'politicians'. The LEADERS of their day.

Err, yes and they were religious leaders as well. Sorry if that point was clear enough...

Maybe you could pay more attention to Life as it goes by.

Ummm, sure.

In truth, the item was not addressed to you, but since you expressed an interest, I AM providing an example.

I replied to it because I was interested in what you were saying, but it didn't make sense to me. You seem a bit hostile, did I piss you off over something?

One of how the liberals/progressives turn on each other at the drop of the proverbial 'hat[e]'. Much more so than so-called 'conservatives'.

But, that has nothing to do with what Chuck stated. He said "nothing insults conservatives quite like the folks who call themselves such."

He didn't say Conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat each other up. He was saying that conservatives beat each other up more than Dems beat on conservatives.

Your example plotted two extreme Left-Wing groups, considered crazy by the majority of Americans and the majority of Dems. Femminazis and PETA? That's like hauling Fred Phelps out and using his attacks on the military as an example of conservative fighting. Your example wa