Roger L. Simon: Pakistani Madness: They Have Nuclear Weapons, Ladies and Gentlemen

While watching the endless pundit blather on TV tonight after the Republican Michigan Primary and Democratic Nevada Debate and reading the various opinion meisters commentaries online, I had one of those rare zen moments of simplicity. It all comes down to a simple question:

Answer that question and you will know your candidate. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

Now today we read of another event from that nuclear-armed country with a population greater than Russia's: A suicide car-bomb attack outside a Pakistani election candidate's office killed 27 people on Saturday, the last day of campaigning for a general election meant to complete a transition to civilian rule.

Yes, my friends, we live in a very dangerous world that doesn't look as if it will be any less so any time soon. (Pakistan, as we all know, has missiles to deliver those nukes and an intelligence agency infiltrated by Islamists.) Yet some people seem mired in internecine intra-party struggles, as is Pam Meister on Pajamas Media this morning. (No, I don't agree with everything there, nor should I.) Writes Pam:

Oh, really? Who cares? Get over yourselves, people. There's a war on and a serious one. And it includes Democrats and Republicans and everybody else from here to Sandusky. I don't care who's a RINO or any other cliché you want to throw at me. Party politics are a shifting sand as old and loose as the Bull Moose Party. The Enlightenment versus Sharia law is an historic battle. This amounts to fiddling while Rome burns (speaking of clichés).

Yes, I know I of all people am not a spokesman for any political party, nor do I wish to be. But I have this advice for Republicans: Save your rhino talk for the zoo and keep your eye on the ball - this is too important.

Comments

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

Those of you who are on the fence about McCain -- those considering not supporting him this fall -- please go here and listen to this speech by Obama's wife, Michelle:

Then come back here and tell me why you want this guy to be President instead of McCain.

"Sean, you know I think it will be good for us. In four years it will be so screwed up that us conservatives will once again, rise to the top"

/just channeling the nut jobs that want to see the country have fun for four years.

That's a low-rent version of the "nach Hilter uns" movement of the German Communist Party in the early thirties. It was their opinion that they should let Hitler because he would screw things up so badly - or alienate everyone so much - that they would come in.

In a bizarre way they were ultimately right, except that World War II had to happen first for this to occur - and sixty million people died.

At the moment, I am resigned to a McCain nomination. But be assured, that my vote FOR McCain is in fact a vote AGAINST Obama (the most likely Democratic nominee).

I am not sure McCain comprehends that a huge number of conservatives feel this way because of the reasons articulated over and over. If he has any awareness, McCain needs to make a very wise choice for VP.

He also needs to clearly state his positions on taxes, spending, regulation, and so on. He needs to state his vision for America - a beacon of light in a world of darkness and the land of opportunity (for both Americans and legal immigrants). If he can talk about the promise of America and frame the threats to the realization of that promise he can win against Obama's fuzzy view of change.

I must admit I don't understand the "let the inmates run the asylum and we will regain control later" crowd.

If it is essential to elect McCain, and that essential event is jeopardized by a dispute between tens of millions of conservatives and McCain, how does it follow that the right thing to do is to pressure tens of millions of conservatives to change their minds, rather than pressure McCain to change his? The onus should be on McCain, especially given that he could move towards conservatives and towards the center by giving up his leftist views on free speech and immigration.

Of course, everyone from La Raza to President Bush to President Calderon to our host is agreed on the importance of bringing unlimited numbers of illiterate young men into this country. Arguing against that policy would be the surest path to McCain's victory even if conservative Republicans didn't exist, but you'll never push for that, will you, Roger? It's more fun to call conservatives children than to do something that might cut your access to LA's servant caste.

It's not fun, bgates. It's deeply depressing that you didn't grow up after 9/11. How exactly are you being pressured? By hearing arguments that irritate you? The only thing that can pressure you to vote a certain way is your conscience. Which I suspect is why you're so mad. Because you know the war against Islamic terrorism comes first, and you know you have to do the right thing. Life's not fair. Boo hoo.

I respect John McCain. That is more than can be said for how I am feeling about Coulter and Hannity and even Rush Limbaugh. I am so tired of their woe is me cry baby nonsense.

Good God, people, McCain is a strong fiscal conservative and he is strong on national security issues. The fact that he does not suck up to the self anointed few did not stop him from being first in line to get the nomination.

So, right now I would say that the McCain hating Conservatives are not as big a deal as they think they are. They need to grow up and realize the Republican party is a political party, it has to win elections to get anything done anywhere.

If they want to do is be part of some purity movement and not be sullied by compromise etc, then they can just forget about politics and international affairs. I am more worried about those crazy Islamists than I am McCain Feingold.

Spare me.... the American people {and that includes American conservatives} were more than willing to just sort of ignore the whole immigration issue for years. And then they went nuts about the whole thing overnight. And what is more they are pissy that everyone else did not go sufficiently nuts with them. Fine, whatever, but it took years for this problem to get to where it is and it will take years to deal with it.

As for who to vote for, it should be remembered that Obama is looking good in the polls right now and he supports drivers licenses for illegals. So it seems most Americans are more than willing to let that whole immigration thing slide. Keep that in mind... there are a lot more liberal views on immigration than McCain's.

"And then they went nuts about the whole thing overnight. And what is more they are pissy that everyone else did not go sufficiently nuts with them. Fine, whatever, but it took years for this problem to get to where it is and it will take years to deal with it."

And it didn't happen overnight. It happened after 9/11 when our borders should have been secured. 6 years on we have McCain-Kennedy giving illegals INCLUDING Arabs and Muslim coming over the border "amnesty".

You folks sound like you have McCain as a Messiah. He is not. And I will criticize him from now to November when I vote for him.

Hey, I heard we did not need new laws, all we had to do was enforce the old ones. The laws you are talking about are new laws passed by the states of Arizona and Oklahoma and thus far the major impact has been a slower economy. Whatever, both of thoses states could have passed those same laws a decade ago and did not. As for self deportation, there are 12 million illegals in this country, some of them have been here for decades. I do not doubt that some people who are transient will move on to some other place or even go home if they feel it is too hard for them...that is not the point, it never was, the point are the millions who have roots in the country.

So what? Are people going to stay home and let Obama win because McCain did not opt to lay land mines at the border or something? This issue has not won the hardliners any elections, it has cost them. Tancredo did not even manage to break the margin of error in his own party.

I am just saying that when it comes to voting for president in a time of war, there are more important things to consider than whether or not some nannies and landscapers and nurses aides and roofers get deported or get to be in a guest worker program.

And you know what? There are thousands of miles of border in this country..when I hear someone say, we should have secured them after 9/11 as if that were no more complicated than turning off a light switch I smell demagoguery.

"You folks sound like you have McCain as a Messiah. He is not. And I will criticize him from now to November when I vote for him."

I think that's fine, jrdroll. John McCain is certainly not the Messiah. In fact, by my books...

More than that... here is my favorite quote on Messiahs by Franz Kafka (way smarter than any politician I ever heard of)...

"The Messiah will come only when he is no longer necessary, he will come only one day after his arrival, he will not come on the last day, but on the last day of all."

Every time I reconcile myself to voting for McCain, one of his arrogant supporters convinces me otherwise.

"It's not fun, bgates. It's deeply depressing that you didn't grow up after 9/11."

Great comment -- all you have to add is the typical leftist rant about the US being at fault for being attacked. You're no different than them in your name calling.

"The only thing that can pressure you to vote a certain way is your conscience. Which I suspect is why you're so mad. Because you know the war against Islamic terrorism comes first, and you know you have to do the right thing."

Another arrogant attempt at "persuasion" by a McCain supporter. Wonderful. Attack bgates because you suspect he actually has a conscience and wants to do the right thing for this counrty. Mock him. That'll make him a McCain supporter.

No, life isn't fair, and I'm afraid that, given the attitude of the candidate and his supporters, we'll have a Democrat as president in 2009.

First of all, wadikitty, it was bgates who attacked our host. I was responding to his very rude, ignorant and incorrect attack on my husband.
You are an adult, an American citizen, I assume. You will vote for whomever you choose (or not vote).
Many of us are sickened and disgusted by attitudes like yours. You complain about our arrogant attempts to persuade you to "do the right thing." Guess what? A lot of us have/had to hold our noses and vote for candidates who hold radically different positions on issues we care every bit as much about as you care about immigration and McCain/Feingold. People who are longtime passionate supporters of gay marriage and a woman's right to choose have put those issues on the back burner because they know that Islamic terrorism has to take priority. They have lost friends, families have been rent apart, people have been "unofficially" blacklisted because they put first and foremost their responsibility to make sure our country and the western world is safe and free. So excuse me if some of us find it selfish, immature and unpatriotic that a bunch of hostile self-described conservatives can't do the same.

Odd...everyone agrees that it is crucial for us to defeat the Islamic nut jobs. Everyone agrees that there are no Democrats that are suitable for beating Islamic Nut jobs.

So did Republicans like Bush and McCain see this as a good time to keep the base by their side by NOT trying to amnesty 20 million illegals? Nope. But its the fault of the base that we are a bit upset about finding fingers in our eyes every single time we look up. Bush and McCain didn't seem to have any guilt or trouble pissing the base off twice on an issue that is so rancorous that my Mother, an FDR democrat from the 40's, registered as Republican to vote for someone, anyone who might stop illegal immigration. But instead of acting like Republicans and honoring the base those two stuck their fingers in our eyes and are now puzzled that we are angry.

Furthermore those folks who worry about the Islamic Nut jobs are mad, not at the ones who stuck their fingers in our eyes, they are mad at those of us who declared we didn't think it was a tremendous idea for Mexico to become the 51st state. Why wouldn't you be using your powers of persuasion to convince McCain and Bush to stop pissing us off? We don't ask for much. We simply don't want to duplicate Monterey, Mexico in Monterey California. It is our country...not the worlds. Mexico is the 5th highest on the glorious ladder of most murders per capita how about we not try and bring that sort of fame to the US.

TerryeL, you say McCain is a strong "fiscal conservative". That is complete BS. He has voted against taxes and for more spending throughout his Senate career. He has never had a private sector job and has no clue about how to meet a payroll.

bgates is not completely wrong. The point I treied to make earlier is that McCain can do a lot to build bridges with conservatives who are rightly apoplectic over his record highlighted by McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy (amnesty), votes against taxes, the Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (ostensibly a patients bill of rights but really a trial lawyers road to riches bill), the Keating Five and so on.

McCain is in a position where he can build bridges and make amends with conservatives. It is the key to this election.

My fear is McCain isn't smart enough to figure this out and that we could all suffer greatly under a BO administration.

Roger, if it's ok with you, I'm going to respond to the attacks on me myself instead of getting my wife to do it for me. I hope this doesn't violate blog policy.

Sheryl, about all those tv and movie portrayals of the truly awful wife of the rich Hollywood guy - how do you and Laurie David split the royalty payments on those?

You seem to assume that I'm in lockstep with the Republican party platform, or somebody on Fox News, or somebody with a radio show, and I'm incensed that McCain isn't. I'm not, and more to the point, I recognize that McCain wouldn't be better off if he were. Most people think global warming is a big deal; most people think 'the Gang of 14' is a John Woo movie. For McCain to move closer to the National Review position on those issues would make his positions more like mine - but that wouldn't win him votes. For McCain to move closer to Andrew Sullivan's position on gay marriage would mean his views became more like mine - but that wouldn't win him votes.

I could talk about problems I've had in defending my somewhat eccentric political views, but nobody really cares, just like I don't give a damn about the financial setbacks suffered by a millionaire who decided in his 50s to start doing the right thing politically. I'm more interested in why John McCain supporters have less enthusiasm for pressuring John McCain to make the single policy change that I think would win him the most votes than they have for belittling people like me who are, after all, likely to vote for him anyway - provided we aren't blinded by overexposure to his insufferable supporters.

I wanted Fred Thompson to win the nomination, but he didn't. McCain did. Well I have problems with McCain but they pale in comparison to the problems I have with Hillary, and Obama is even worse than Hillary. A lot worse, imo. So McCain's my guy now. For the people who think the party needs to be taught a lesson and that the Democrats will screw things up enough to pave the way for a return to Republican power, be advised that screwups of the type the Democrats are likely to make may possibly be catastrophic for the nation. Both their foreign and domestic policies are prescriptions for permanent damage to America. I am used to people on the left putting party before country. Hell I'm used to people on the left despising the country and lusting for it's comeuppance, but I expect the right to be more patriotic.

Who said you were the base? And btw, I am not sure it is politically possible to make some people happy. They prefer melodramatics and claims of betrayal. If the self anointed base is prepared to sit out an election and let someone like Obama win then I think it is time the Republcan party found a new base.

It seems to me that McCain has shown a lot more of an inclination to make changes in certain policies than many of his critics give him credit for.

Will he change enough to pacify people like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity? I hope not, because if he does he will lose the election. They keep forgetting about that whole tedious winning elections thingee.

It seems to me that McCain has shown a lot more of an inclination to make changes in certain policies than many of his critics give him credit for.

We shall see. But the hiring of Juan Hernandez does not make me think he is serious about "securing the damn border first".

Principles matter. Issues matter. McCain will get my vote but I am tired of folks trying to tell me that the smell I smell is that of roses. Sure the others smell worse, no doubt. But none of those smells should be bottled and sold for anything other than what they are...big piles of crap.

Terryel your defense of the RINO wing of the Republican party has been amusing for the last 2 years. Voting for a candidate because he stinks less than the other candidate strikes me as a dangerous prescription for success for the Republicans. That was RINO policy before Reagan.

Reagan stood for ideas and principles that drew you to him. McCain stands for avoiding a bigger error with either Billary or Osama/Obama.

Those of you urging McCain to 'build bridges' and 'move closer' to your position -- you do realize, I hope, that if McCain modifies his position on any issue, he will then be accused of 'pandering' and of being a 'flop-flopper'.

In fact, I have already heard this accusation. I have pointed out to a number of anti-McCain conservatives that in his speech at CPAC, McCain essentially admitted that the approach taken by the McCain-Kennedy bill was a mistake and that border security had to be achieved before any effort could be made to deal with the status of those here illegally. Their response was that this was merely pandering and did not represent McCains actual beliefs on the matter.

I think conservative hostility towards illegal immigrants is misplaced. Had you fought as hard against the creation of the welfare state as you have recently fought against granting 'amnesty' to illegals, chances are the welfare state would be a lot smaller and you would have less reason to worry about people coming across the border to take advantage of free healthcare, free education, free food ( food stamps), WIC, etc. etc.

In any event, it makes no sense to oppose McCain when, on every point where you disagree with him, his two opponents are far, far worse.

p.s. Can anyone tell me why the software at this site replaces quotation marks with question marks?

For some of us, Pierre Legrand, McCain stands for a strong, forward action in the War on Terror - and that's what we care most about. We're not as concerned about other matters. That's our privilege, is it not? You are certainly free to care more about other issues. It's a democracy.

(BTW, I cannot think of any politician that smells like a rose. If I were that much of a purist, I would never have voted in my life.)

Perhaps you missed the point of the post I am responding to...but Roger is lamenting that I am not getting my party pants on and dancing in the streets about McCain. His post, I guess, is an effort to shame me into doing such a thing.

That's our privilege, is it not? You are certainly free to care more about other issues. It's a democracy.

When you come across a conservative trying to tell you NOT to vote your conscientious let me know. I am merely responding to another misguided attempt to gain my vote by heaping abuse.

Michelle Malkin stalwart hero to me on most matters political has never demanded that anyone vote anyway. She has merely explained McCains positions. Coulter herself has not demanded that anyone vote anyway...she has merely explained why she won't vote for McCain. And she was making a point that bears mentioning...Republicans who try and pander to Democrats have done the most damage to the principles of the Republican party. Witness Bush.

And before anyone jumps up waving their hand to tell me how well he has done on the War on Terror...explain to me why we are at war with a tactic? Explain to me why Bush finds it wise to dine with our enemies? Are we at war with a principle or merely at war with a distasteful way of achieving that principle? Explain just exactly how we are winning the war when Europe will soon be following Sharia?

I will vote for McCain but no one I have heard this far into this election has given me confidence that the war will be waged against our enemy.

Regarding the flip flop charge, I'd like to see a show of hands of those who have not changed their views over time. Everyone has.

I believe McCain said that he had misread the views of the American public after the immigration debacle. For example, he could say he learned from that experience and supports the enforcement of existing laws and promotes legal immigration. That's what the majority wants anyway. It's a net gain in votes.

McCain could take a couple of key issues and reach out to conservatives. He has already talked a little bit about taxes. It's a start and he needs to do it.

Wow, that's rich, bgates. You've managed to throw in a little sexism, a little class warfare, and a whole lot of projection and cognitive dissonance. All in one anonymous post.
As for your question "why John McCain supporters have less enthusiasm for pressuring John McCain to make the single policy change that I think would win him the most votes," two reasons come instantly to mind. First, the candidates who were closer to your favored position on this issue didn't get enough votes to win in most Republican primaries (and let's not even get started on what will happen in the general election). So either more voters agree with McCain's position, or they don't care as much about that issue as they do about others.
Second, and I believe even more significant, many voters actually respect that rare politician who sticks to at least some of his own principles, even when they disagree with them. That is exactly why McCain has a wide base of appeal across the spectrum.
I am pro-choice for instance, but if Mike Huckabee suddenly started reaching out to me on that issue, trying to accommodate my views, I'd lose all respect for him. I know what he believes and I expect him to be a passionate advocate for those beliefs. If he started "reaching out", it would be craven pandering.
Obviously, as an agnostic, socially liberal Independent, I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but if I felt he were the best or only candidate in the race who could lead us in the war against spreading Islamism, I'd hold my nose and vote for him... even though I disagree with him on almost every other issue. It's called prioritizing. Fortunately, most voters end up doing it.

Like many people here, I also think that Ronald Reagan was our best modern president. However, I'm not gettng the logic behind giving him a pass on his amnesty program versus McCain's. Is it a numbers game? Letting Reagan off the hook because the estimation was that only a low number of illegal immigrants were in the country at that time, and that it was expected that they were just going to stop coming across the border, or that the administration, led by a president from California, just didn't have a handle on the scope of the problem, and so can't be blamed for what continued to happen?

I'm not saying that Reagan's amnesty program was a bad thing. In fact, on a dispassionate and rational and moral level, I had no problem with his granting of amnesty, which is very different from how I felt on a emotional level. Though the naivety (if that what it trully was) that the Reagan administration had about the future is a little hard to swallow, requiring quite a bit of naivety on the part of the swallower, imo.

So, for the anti-McCain people, how does comparing McCain to Reagan support your villification of McCain's illegal immigration stance? A stance that McCain has already amended to include securing the border first.

Sheryl, about all those tv and movie portrayals of the truly awful wife of the rich Hollywood guy - how do you and Laurie David split the royalty payments on those?

February 16, 2008: Pakistani Madness: They Have Nuclear Weapons, Ladies and Gentlemen

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post