Hillary v. McCain
I am always happy when my political predictions turn out to be wrong. My gravest errors usually result from the failure to heed Mencken's dictum that nobody every went broke underestimating the American people. In a very real sense, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, if they maintain their momentum, will be the least credible charlatans who have ever sought the White House or aspired to rule the world.
Some months back, I was naive enough to believe that Hillary's negatives--about half the population finds her unacceptable--and McCain's eccentricities would inspire the leaders of their respective parties to find a way of eliminating them. The Howard Dean treatment would work as well for Ms Clinton. But, as I observed when Obama entered the race, it was as if the Clintons had gone out looking for a candidate who would make Hilary look like the safer alternative. Indeed, I found myself breathing a sigh of relief as the Wicked Witch of the White House took the white vote away from him in South Carolina. Obama can bring all the white cousins out of Kansas he likes, but he cannot entirely erase the memory of the Barak and Oprah show.
In the case of McCain, the revival of his campaign is slightly more complicated, but only more slightly. Looking backward, one can see that each of his serious rivals was doomed. Rudy Giuliani was smart enough to know that his New York shtick could not play in Iowa or New Hampshire, but not smart enough to know that his New-Yorkness would cost him the nomination, first and most obviously in giving momentum to his rivals, and second by alienating many of the mainstream moderate Republicans who are the core of the GOP. If they want a pro-abortion liberal tough on defense and strong for Israel, they have McCain, a war veteran who has specialized in defense issues.
Romney and Huckabee divided the pseudo-conservative vote, and neither has a sufficiently broad appeal to win an election. Catholics and Evangelicals were suspicious of Romney the Mormon, and McCain's campaign made good use of his zig-zagging record on the issues. Too often Romney revealed himself for what he is: a spoiled rich kid who think the world owes him the White House. Bragging about his success in business should have been the last straw. If George Romney had been my father, I could have got richer simply investing in an across-the-board S&P portfolio. I am reminded of an old New Yorker cartoon from the early 1950's. Two men are sitting at their club, and one of them remarks: "There's young Smedley. He started with only $4 million, and now he's a rich man." In those days, a million was something.
Huckabee, by contrast, achieved some resonance with Evangelicals and with ordinary voters who do not necessarily think that the White House should be sold to the highest bidder. But Mike's experience and even his knowledge of the big issues is so limited that he could not do a convincing impression of a national statesman. Country club Republicans also had to be put off by his relentless references to his religious faith. I know I was. Clever and slick as he was--a true son of Hope--Huckabee simply failed to persuade voters that he was ready to defend the country or manage the economy. I know, in looking at my own response to these early contests, that I was happy to see Huckabee smack Romney and equally happy to see Romney smacked by McCain, a politician who does a better job of pretending to be a man.
When I saw some interviews with South Carolina voters who said the country "needs a leader," I figured the jig was up for everyone but Hillary and McCain. When the estimable and right-wing Stephen Tonsor told an interviewer some months back that he supported McCain, I think it must have been because professor Tonsor, now in his 80's, simply could not imagine a country governed by Republican Party children. Carter and Clinton were bearable because they were liberal Democrats, and Republicans could always say, "I told you so." George W. Bush is, to be sure, a perpetual callow youth, but he talked tough and talked conservative, and in America it does not matter if you walk on the wild side so long as you talk like a man. (Pop song references intentional.)
The outlook might change in February, and it is possible that Obama and, especially, Romney will stage rallies. But if Florida proves to be the deciding state, it will be a relief to get the kids out of the race, but in another it should be profoundly discouraging that after so much money and time we are facing the two of the most despicable human beings and corrupt politicians who have ever run for high office in the United States. But it is not. Elections are usually settled by answering the question, "Which candidate is the better liar." I should have known the answer to that one from the beginning. In the next few months it will be amusing to listen to all the conservatives telling us that we have to back McCain in order to keep Hillary out of the White House. I will be equally tempted to back Hillary Clinton in order to keep John McCain out of the White House. Whatever happens, I am happy to have been proved, once again, to have overestimated the American people.
Entries(RSS)
If Ron Paul were to decide to run independent, that would guarantee Hillary the office. In the long run, maybe it would help to replace the worthless Republican Party, either from within or perhaps with another party altogether. Let us pray. I doubt Hillary can do much to prop up the crumbling empire.
JOHN MCCAIN IS SCARY. HE NEVER MET A MILITARY INTERVENTION HE DID NOT SUPPORT. PAT BUCHANAN DESCRIBES HIS FOREIGN POLICY VIEWS AS "BUSH ON STEROIDS." I PREDICT MCCAIN WILL NOMINATE JOE LIEBERMAN (I TEL AVIV) AS HIS SECRETARY OF STATE. IF MCCAIN IS ELECTED, I SUSPECT THE GOVERNMENT WILL MANUFACTURE A "PROVOCATION" AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR AN INVASION OF IRAN OR SYRIA OR ANY ARAB/MUSLIM NATION THE NEOCONS DEEM ENEMIES OF ISRAEL.
Dr. Fleming,
I have forwarded your article to a world renowned psychotherapist by the name of, Dr. Common Working Man," he replys that you are suffering from the following type IV neurosis which can be found in diagnostic Manual XV of the http://www.urbandictionary.com.
January 30, 2008: Electile Dysfunction
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Electile+Dysfunction&defid=2799264
The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either party during an election year. As in the patient who might respond in the following manner :
"Is anyone appealing to you in this years presidential race?"
"Naa... No one excites me. I think I'm suffering from Electile Dysfunction."
Where is poor Bob Dole when we need him ? Cheers
I guess I will likely be voting for the Constitution Party nominee assuming the CP is wise enough to nominate a non-interventionist.
I can't see anything on the horizon that even suggests that Israel doesn't own all of the candidates except Ron Paul. The last fort on the planet that we get kicked out of, unfortunately long after I am dead, will be in the Middle East trying to enforce Israeli domestic policy outside of Israel. What is most depressing is that I don't even believe that a depression could save us.
The real interesting question is how many of the big mouth "conservative" pundits who have been complaining about McCain will actually refuse to support him. My guess is not many.
John McCain's win in Florida is disturbing for any sort of conservative but the oxymoronic neo-conservatives. I had to down another beer and read still another book comparing the decline of the Roman Empire and our own just to fall asleep last night. And yet I awoke in a McCain-induced nightmare at 3 AM anyway.
McCain strongly supports Bush's debacle in Iraq. McCain accepts the mass hysteria of the "War on Terror" that reminds me of the Two-Minutes Hate of Orwell's 1984. McCain will attempt to further the demographic revolution in America with his support of the Kennedy-Kyl amnesty plan. Woe to the United States and the Republican Party for handing McCain a crown.
Mitt Romney was no prince but at least he was chameleon enough to alter his views to suit a different constituency than the cesspool of Massachusetts. Politicians are about as honorable as actors and much less trustworthy. Yet Romney seemed willing to stay bought, at least most of the time. He was about as good as could be expected to win the office of the president today.
The odious Hillary Rodham Clinton may be a better choice for president than McCain. McCain may be able to cobble deals with the Democrats to degrade the nation in bipartisan fashion. But Madame Defarge is not a popular person, loathed in fact by tens of millions of Americans, and will probably thrash about unsuccessfully as president. She will wear badly with most Americans and weaken not only her own position but that of the office of president, an office that needs to be cut to size.
"how many of the big mouth “conservative” pundits who have been complaining about McCain will actually refuse to support him."
Well, I certainly hope that at least Pat Buchanan will say emphatically , "This is why we left the party and why it was our finest hour."
(( Woe to the United States and the Republican Party for handing McCain a crown. ))
Woe to the United States for handing *anyone* a crown. Wasn't that one of the lessons we supposedly learned from de Montesquieu?
Ron Paul is not fit to be king. Neither am I. Neither (and I trust he will agree with me) is Dr. Fleming. Human nature includes both good and bad impulses. In the absences of checks and balances like those in our late, lamented U.S. Constitution, the bad ones tend to gain control.
The solution to our problem, to the extent that there is a solution, is not to elect "a better man" as absolute ruler. It is to reject the idea of having an absolute ruler at all, and to go back to our founding principles.
Scott, the president has developed into an elected king of sorts. He has troops in dozens of countries and can manipulate himself into a war wherever he chooses. And the First Lady has been transformed into a position much like a queen-consort. The public relations machines that have given us Barbara and Laura Bush almost makes me pine for the days of Pat Nixon and Mamie Eisenhower. The inhabitants of the White House are as royal as the King and Queen of Norway not to mention Lord and Lady Macbeth.
@7
I understand Hillary quite differently based on my experience with her machine in Arkansas. If she has not already done so, she will have her people in absolute control of organizations such as NOW, Planned Parent Hood, the gay organizations, the NAACP, the ABA, etc. Using the control which she then has over these organizations, she will take absolute control of the DNC and the Democratic Party. Then she will get control of the Democratic factions in Congress. She will use the power which Bush and Cheney have given her in the Patriot Act and attendant statutes in ways that Bush and Cheney never considered. She means what she claims when she says that she will begin "governing" from the first day.
Were McCain to win, which I doubt, he will have, I believe - forth telling not foretelling, for I do not wish to be stoned as a false prophet - Huckabee as his VP; Lieberman as his Secretary of State and Rudy Duce as Attorney General. Some believe that Rudy will be Secretary of Defense; however, I believe that McCain will go military and call up "The General of the Surge" to serve.
Dr. Fleming,
Is your rendering of "Hillary" as "Hilary" in the title as well as in the text of the article a typing error, an alternative spelling which is well known in Illinois but unknown to the rest of us, or a play on "Heil!" and a name often associated with that word? Leave us in the dark and we'll probably expend two hundred posts trying to figure it out!
Hilary Clinton and John McCain, if they maintain their momentum, will be the least credible charlatans who have ever sought the White House or aspired to rule the world.
I thought Dubya had that trophy retired.
Listening to Limbaugh and Beck and the other talkers, one would think McCain is a mortal danger to the "conservative movement." I am not a supporter of him but how can he be a mortal danger to a thing already dead?
Rush and Beck and Hannity have been in the bag for Bush since the get go and if he is a conservative I am an astronaut.
johnt (#2) is 100% right about McCain. But what can be said about the people who vote for a candidate who promises more wars and a ten thousand year occupation of Iraq? Compared to McCain, Hillary is the lesser evil, which is not to say I would ever vote for her. But she would only go to war as the opportunities presented themselves; McCain would create the opportunities.
Thanks to Mr. Peters for correcting the repeated spelling error. Usually I get her name right, but in a hurry I default to the correct spelling of a name derived from Hilaria. Sorry. Yes, I also agree that the Clintons are very good at penetrating and using cells and networks to get muster support, but those networks by themselves are probably not sufficient to win the nomination. Not that it matters in the least, but Obama may seem more threatening to dumb white Democratic females than Hillary does.
Yes, if there had been no Huckabee, Romney would be in a better position to get the nomination--and then what? I'd just as soon make George W king of the world as to back a person like Mitt out of my own free will. Who cares what he is willing to say when he thinks he can lie his way into a few more votes?
We did once live in a republic, and now we live in an oligarchy which gives short-term power to a monarch--something like Venice--and the monarchs work to make the power heritable, while the oligarchs seek to instrumentalize the monarch in their own interests. My reading of the precedents suggest that it is the oligarchs who usually win in the end.
As for conservatives and McCain, I think most will hop on board, if not the band wagon at least the gravy train.
We live in a Bureaucratic National Socialist state, where power is given only to those who are acceptable to the large campaign donors---and, more importantly--the pressure groups (AARP, NAM, etc.) who are the real rulers of the country. Clinton, McCain, Tweedledee, Tweedledum; it matters not who sits in the White Palace.
That having been said, I suspect that what passes for politics in the Empire will, over the next dozen or so years, be driven predominantly by demographics, particularly by the upcoming conflict between retiree-parasites and the dwindling number of workers left to support them. The manner of paying for Medicare, SocSec and the rest of the so-called "entitlements" will be the primary, if not only, subject of serious discussion.
There will also be something of a racial component, too, since most of the younger workers will be Hispanics and Blacks, while the retiree-parasites will be predominantly white.
How to divvy up the swag will be the question of the day. Until the Crash comes, that is. Then it will be Katy-bar-the-door, break out the guns, and time to sit back and watch the fun start......
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Edwards withdrew. Does that mean he will be the Clinton's running mate? That would be a move for the red states; and blacks will never cross lines to the Republicans.
Mr Leaberry makes a good point, one that I came to grips with early this morning. With Romney, the best of bad lot, out of it by Wednesday next, we are faced with McCain or Hilary. The Black racist Obama never had a chance...not enough blacks and brainwashed white 20 something useful idiots around...yet. McCain is a necon maniac whose election will likely bring us to war in Iran at the behest of his masters in Tel Aviv.
That leaves me thinking that I will actually vote for Hillary, a corrupt and despised self server who will do nothing in the end. Yet she my serve some good a a four-year national enema
Kamka @ 18
One could go the route which you suggest, i.e. vote in Hillary, but I am afraid that it would be more than a four-year, national enema.
I suppose one could rationalize that it is better to have an end with terror, i.e. voting in the Democrats, than terror without end, i.e. voting in the Republicans with their one hundred years of war.
Or, one could think like Hagen in the Nibelungenlied as he cast the priest into the Rhine and the priest came back to the surface an thrashed his way to the western shore as the Burgundians went eastward thereacross and on to Vienna to the court of Attila: the era of his, Hagen's, pagan culture was over and the Christian age had begun; therefore, when in Vienna at the gracious table of the host Attila, Hagen decided with his foreknowledge to get done with the niceties. He rose from the table, retrieved his sword, moved swiftly to the table, and cleaved the small son of Attila in half. The fight was on and the Burgundians died. Thus, I suppose, a vote and an election of Hillary would be somewhat like cleaving the son of Attila into: the fight will be on and it will be, in relative terms, over quickly! We won't be plagued with the niceties of the Republicans who tend to drown their gullible kittens in the warmest of milk.
Mikil tíðindi eru þaðan at segja ok mǫrg. Þau in fyrstu at vetr sá kemr er kallaðr er fimbulvetr. Þá drífr snær ór ǫllum áttum. Frost eru þá mikil ok vindar hvassir. Ekki nýtr sólar. Þeir vetr fara þrír saman ok ekki sumar milli. En áðr ganga svá aðrir þrír vetr at þá er um alla verǫld orrostur miklar. Þá drepask brœðr fyrir ́agirni sakar ok engi þyrmir fǫður eða syni í manndrápum eða sifjasliti. Svá segir í Vǫluspá:
Brœðr munu berjask
ok at bǫnum verðask,
munu systrungar
sifjum spilla.
Hart er með hǫldum,
hórdómr mikill,
skeggjǫld, skálmǫld,
skildir klofnir,
vindǫld, vargǫld,
áðr verǫld steypisk.
Juan McCain would be a bad president.
Lets not elect JUAN McCain.
"How many of the big mouth 'conservative' pundits who have been complaining about McCain will actually refuse to support him. My guess is not many."
The exact number is zero, I'd say. These guys are not Russell Kirk, writing in obscurity in support of a philosophy or a well thought out point of view. These guys want in on the political action, period. In 18 months they'll be pro-McCain like they are pro-Bush now (most of them).
McCain's candidacy may just be the shot in the arm the neoconservatives are so desperately in need of at this juncture. Bill Kristol wanted him over Dubya way back in 1999/2000 (remember, this was back when Dubya seemed to be a semi-rational big government Republican who opposed nation-building and urged the country to implement a "humble foreign policy," as Ron Paul reminds the other candidates routinely). With McCain, the neocons can either reassume their direct line of power in the White House or at least go down in a temporary blaze of glory in losing with him. (Temporary because many of them would doubtless find ways of worming into Hillary's administration.)
McCain is a terrifying figure. His defense of his horrendous amnesty agenda way back in the summer at one of the debates, in which he went into a long, nonsensical blather about what Hispanics have contributed to our nation, reminded me of the United States Senator in The Godfather: Part II making his speech about the greatness of Italian immigrants. Little wonder he confuses Michigan and Mexican voters so easily.
"In the next few months it will be amusing to listen to all the conservatives telling us that we have to back McCain in order to keep Hillary out of the White House. I will be equally tempted to back Hillary Clinton in order to keep John McCain out of the White House. Whatever happens, I am happy to have been proved, once again, to have overestimated the American people."
Over a year ago I vowed that if it was a contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, I would vote Clinton, because I wanrted a man for president. I registered Democrat eight months ago just to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries on the pretext that of all the candidates who had a realistic shot (i.e., those who play essentially the same Ivy League-liar's poker, regardless of whether they actually attended an Ivy League university [although many if not most did]), she was the most likely to be removed from office by a coup d'état. It was a futile move, of course, because Florida was subsequently stripped of its delegates and in any case I was in the process of moving abroad right as the deadline to request an absentee ballot was passing.
It wasn't a total loss, though. It got me back to my ancestral Democratic blue-collar industrial roots. In any case political parties in the U.S. have always been more about interest-group splits than ideological factional feuds. I seriously doubt I will campaign for Ms. Clinton, but I will almost certainly be voting for her, because it'll be bad enough to watch the "conservative" elements of American society shilling for classically liberal-corporatist Mr. McCain out of the White House for the rest of the year without having to watch it for four years thereafter as he is actually in the White House flooding this country with illegal aliens and flooding the world with my unsuspecting peers in uniform.
I'm maintaining my support for Ron Paul despite my annoyance at his standard politically correct nod to MLK. Dr. Paul's record in the office he has held is consistent and principled; Mitt Romney has been all over the map on everything. In any event it would be pointless for me to support Romney. Because the state I live in holds its primary relatively late, the issue will be decided well before I can cast a vote and he certainly does not need my money. I have contributed both money and time to the Ron Paul campaign, knowing that he has no chance of winning, just to get his ideas out there and under a least some public discussion. Given the opportunity, I'll vote for him in November as well, but this seems unlikely because he will probably not run in the general election and technicalities in Texas law would prevent him being listed here as a third party candidate. Between the McManiac militarist and the white witch, I'll just sit it out. Not a new experience for me - I've sat out the past couple of presidential elections.
(( Mikil tíðindi eru þaðan at segja ok mǫrg ))
Say what?
Could we keep the posts in English, or at least in Western European languages? In deference to Dr. Fleming, I suppose that we should add Latin and Attic Greek to the list.
I am curious to see what Buchanan will say if/when McCain is nominated. I voted for Buchanan in 2000, then Bush in 2004 (yes, I know . . .) on the basis of Buchanan's recommendation in TAC. Why? First, I am a citizen of Illinois, so unless I was voting for Kerry my vote was going to be pointless anyway. So no one can blame me for actually re-electing the guy. I merely wished to manifest my supreme and personal abhorrence for John Kerry, and I didn't like Peroutka.
But will Buchanan endorse McCain? I rather doubt it. If the candidate were Romney, or maybe even Huckabee, I think that he probably would. He has always had a sort of fascination with Romney, and his sister works for the governor's campaign. If and when Romney drops out, will Buchanan then come to Ron Paul's support? I am still scratching my head about Buchanan's relative silence regarding all things Paulian. Maybe he does not wish to oppose his sister's candidate? Maybe he has had enough with quixotic campaigns? Maybe he honestly preferred an anti-immigration candidate like Tancredo and/or does not approve of Paul's economic libertarianism? If anyone has a clue, please bring it to my attention.
Re: Mr. Moses,
Are you serious? So many people write similar things, and I rather doubt that all of them are joking. I really find it objectionable to vote for so manifestly evil a candidate as Hillary, for any reason. I tend to prefer a facade of normalcy to out and out, blatant evil. As long as the government is going to destroy us, I for one prefer some anaesthesia.
But if there will be a coup, why not invite Musharraf in? He has kept the bomb out of the hands of the crazies in Pakistan -- maybe he can do the same for us? Musharraf in '08!
I'm not so sure that this country needs a "leader." In fact, I'm positive that if the Constitution were abolished, along with the federal government that it established, that we'd all be about, oh . . . I dunno . . . maybe about 100 times freer than we are right now.
Who couldn't see this McCain vs. The Hillaroid thing coming? The puppetmasters want unending war. McCain and Hillary are the biggest warmongers out there. Whichever of them wins, the puppetmasters win. My money's on The Hillaroid, because they need a Bush or Clinton in the White House (business slogan: "One or the other occupying the White House and pissing on the Constitution for more than a quarter of a century!) to keep the lid on the drug-running operations of the government, much of it centered in Mena, Arkansas.
With the incredibly blatant theft of votes in each primary so far, using these Orwellian touch-screen machines, it's plain that the puppetmasters aren't even trying to hide what they're doing. It's gonna be war for Israel, baby. ALL WAR, ALL THE TIME!
Honestly does anyone here think McCain will win the general election? Since white men can only be appealed to on ideological grounds, and for McCain those grounds are based on two small islands of war and cheap credit I give the advantage to Hillary and her barbarian hordes of identity politics. It's Roman law or barbarian loot.
@29: Be careful what you wish for: from what I can deduce PcH is posting in Icelandic. I do agree with you, though...
@31: Object, then, if you believe you must, and I will take your disapproval to heart, but I am as of yet unswayed.
In the first place, I sincerely doubt McCain and Clinton are not substantially different from one another on any matters that have to do with our immediate survival. As a matter of fact, given our increasing dependence on foreigners, the Clintons' ability to attract diplomatic goodwill, however cynical on their part and idiotic on the part of those who buy it, may give them an edge over McCain in that arena.
(I'm not saying I want us to be ruled by China, OPEC or the E.U.; only that that is going to be the reality of the twenty-first century. In any case, whether or not they get along with them the Republicans will continue to sacrifice our cultural and economic might over to various interests in the Eastern Hemisphere on the altar of the deracinated American plutocracy.)
In the second place, what makes you think that a "façade of normalcy" is at all possible or desirable at this point? The U.S.A. is melting before our very eyes. We can talk about all the damage of the last twenty, fifty and hundred years, but as a young man, I have seen a serious free-fall begin just in the last five. I could go on forever, but the fact that I had to move out of the country to find what I considered stable, gainful post-graduate employment says a lot on its own.
Viewed from this perspective, considering the massive economic, foreign policy and immigration nightmares now descending, nightmares in which he has been an enthusiastic participant, I couldn't believe John McCain was normal if I tried.
If it's anaesthesia you want, ethanol works miracles.
Finally, Hillary Clinton is hardly more manifestly evil than a great many politicians. The difference is that she is not particularly good at glossing it over. I used to hate her guts until I realized that it is hardly worth it to take out one's frustrations on someone who tries so hard and fails so miserably at being likeable.
Most decent people will not find it in them to do the dirty deed of pulling the lever for Senator Clinton, and good for them. They are less cynical and Machiavellian than I, and that is probably a good thing. Coming of voting age at the time that I did, it has been hard for me to view the electoral process as anything but a circus (and therefore somewhat difficult to take it seriously). Perhaps the best thing I could do on Election Day would be to repudiate voting in action (as I have done in word for some time) once and for all, travel to Germany and do hommage to our king, Francis of Bavaria.
Mr. Moses, I'm not saying that McCain would supply much of a facade of normalcy, nor do I intend to vote for him. Yet the idea of voting for Clinton -- that is participating in her evil. That is more than being cynical. That would be similar to a Czarist in Russia saying, "Well, Kerensky clearly cannot keep hold of the country in the face of the Bolsheviks. Ergo, I will fight with the Bolsheviks simply to spite Kerensky and get the job of destruction done sooner." It is one thing to be resigned to the inevitable and another to contribute to it.
You could say I did something similarly objectionable by voting for Bush, in which case I would I answer 1) I knew full well that my vote wouldn't actually re-elect Bush, and 2) see Pat Buchanan's arguments for why Bush is/was better than Kerry.
I wrote an article for Etherzone.com(http://etherzone.com/2007/scall062907.shtml) about Republican voter's desires for "leadership" in supporting Rudy Guliani. It's just as true with John McCain. If anything they're happy to support McCain because they won't have the cognative dissonace of voting for cross-dressing, pro-abortion New Yorker. Now they can have the authroitarian military autocrat they've always wanted.
Ron Paul's the only person I know who's run for President who really doesn't want the job. This confuses voters. "You don't run the economy or lead the world? What are you running for President for? Isn't that what President's do?"
A few years ago there was an entire issue in Chronicles devoted to the "Imperial Presidency" and how Presidents began to be viewed as "Leader of the Free World" Nobody would have called Warren Harding a Leader fo the Free World. That's not who he was or what that Presidency was about back then. In fact the voters rejected that kind of presidency by electing Harding and repudiating Woodrow Wilson. But since FDR, the office of the President has taken on such god-like status that Presidents like Harding seem ridiculous in stature because they conducted themselves in way the Constiution says a President is supposed to conduct himself. Thus, Harding was seen as a bad president because he didn't try to stride the world like a colussus. Yet when he died in 1923, he was quite popular because he was who he was and fit the times he was in. Unless those times come back, persons like Ron Paul will never get elected President.
"If it’s anaesthesia you want, ethanol works miracles."
What I mean is, I prefer to buy time and space before things get worse. Is homosexual "marriage" going to be imposed on the entire country some day? It is likely, but I want it to happen later, not sooner. If all I can do is forestall it, I will do even that, and I will not be dismayed by my ultimate failure. I want to give my elders time to die before such things happen, so they won't have to see them, and time for any family I may have to come into being before this happens. Granted, so much is already wrong. But if you despair, then you are sinning against hope. I am not saying we should be unrealistic optimists, but pessimists tend to spurn even the opportunities they have. "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness," as the saying goes. If you really think Hillary Clinton is a menace, then it is simply ridiculous to vote for her. You seem to have taken the bait that Dr. Fleming warned against -- "Vote for Hillary to avoid McCain."
Hillary 2008 is not the enthusiastic Marxist student Hillary circa 1967. She is as jaded and corrupt as any professional politician. She will play to her Marxist, welfare trash and senior benefit grabbing constituencies, but, like hubby Bill, will do nothing other than use the Office to self aggrandize. She will not likely be able to work with Congress to accomplish anything substantial. I can understand such people. McCain, on the other hand, seems to actually share in Bush's ideological Israeli -necon madness. Agreed, he will surely consign more young Americans to death and maiming at the hands of islamic garbage at the behest of his masters in Tel Aviv. He will also further the North American Prosperity and Security plot to eliminate this nation as a sovereign entity through invasion of our southern boarders, all fanning war in the middle east as an excuse to bring about this North American security sphere. Keep us focused east, while we are gutted from the south. I believe Patton termed it "Hold him by the nose whilst kicking him in the ass."
I will choose standard corruption over ideological madness, thank you very much.
Hear hear! #37
@35: "That would be similar to a Czarist in Russia saying, “Well, Kerensky clearly cannot keep hold of the country in the face of the Bolsheviks. Ergo, I will fight with the Bolsheviks simply to spite Kerensky and get the job of destruction done sooner.” It is one thing to be resigned to the inevitable and another to contribute to it. "
The obvious mistake in this case being to liken the Republican Party to the Kerenskys. If anything they are the Trotskyites--and it is not a coincidence that the first wave of neoconservatives were called "neo" because they WERE former Trotskyites!
No, I do not despair against the possibility for eternal salvation or against the possibility that things will get better. I am not committing suicide or using contraceptives. I am indeed seriously worried about the future of this world for my children. But the simple fact is that both Clinton and McCain will actively steer us toward disaster.
If I vote based on ideological principles, I would not vote in the next election. If I want to make a meaningful contribution to this election, it will be in view of the fact that a) our only hope is a sudden, grinding and dramatic halt to whichever one gets the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a year from now, b) lynching is a mortal sin, and c) Hillary is more likely to get her comeuppance, whether through Congress or the military.
"But since FDR, the office of the President has taken on such god-like status that Presidents like Harding seem ridiculous in stature because they conducted themselves in way the Constiution says a President is supposed to conduct himself. Thus, Harding was seen as a bad president because he didn’t try to stride the world like a colussus."
Amen, Mr. Scallon. I think we should amend the Constitution so as to require severe punishment for all Presidents when leaving office. They should have their money confiscated, be imprisoned, have all kinds of false and nasty things written about them...I don't know exactly, but the point is that this would weed out all the self-serving narcissists and blowhards and limit the office to those who actually cared about their country enough to suffer for it.
Mr. Moses,
So do we vote for Stalinists over Trotskyites, in that case? IF we had a Republican Congress, then a vote for Hillary might make some more sense. I don't mind a deadlocked, hamstrung government. But a Democratic President with two Democratic houses -- I would not support that either. Directly voting for a pro-abortion candidate when one has an alternative is a mortal sin, just as lynching is.
You are right that Hillary is more likely to get here comeuppance, though. And opposition to Clinton might keep the Republicans rather disciplined for awhile, just as her husband did. But that's just a facade, more anaesthesia -- will a "comeuppance" really change things all that much?
Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, neither of whom are perfect, both of whom are much better than anyone Gore or Kerry would have appointed. I rather expect that McCain will make better selections than Hillary, even though the selections will also probably be worse than Bush's.
The Middle Eastern campaigns are disastrous, yet our current stated enemies really are bad people, to put it simply. I prefer misguided, disastrous attacks on villainous people (i.e. Islamic revolutionaries) to strategically and tactically successful attacks on good people (I am not here discussing the losses in American life and treasure, or losses of innocent lives caught in the middle). Hillary seems like the type who would support the UN in imposing sanctions on Nicaragua and other anti-abortion governments in Latin America, etc. John McCain would vacillate and leave that type of militarism to the next Republican president. Even in this, I prefer stalling. I am not saying we should vote for McCain, who would start unjust wars, but rather that Hillary really isn't so much better as to justify voting for her, which is perversely counterintuitive.
"But a Democratic President with two Democratic houses — I would not support that either."
Then again, you mentioned a possible comeuppance from Congress. Maybe Clinton II would cause a second Republican sweep in 2010 to match the one Clinton I effected in 1994. Hopefully Ron Paul and not Newt Gingrich will lead this resurgence. Oh well, I clearly am not an expert.
# 40 Nowicki
Get out and don't let the door hit your a$$. You are a whiny little brat. None of us give a damn about your feelings. This is an electronic affair not a whorehouse. Hell, nobody in their right mind cares who comes and goes in cyberspace and neither should you. If you want serious attention come to a few gatherings, get to know the folks and then decide. If not, then get better or get lost. In the meantime quit ranting about injustices that everyone must suffer with this type of media communication.
Well, my streak of never voting for a winning presidential candidate will survive another 4 years. I don't know who will be the nominee of the Constitution Party, but he has my vote. If they disband I might give the Greens a try this year.
As proud as I am of this streak, I am even prouder of this fact: I have never voted for the Stupid Party in a presidential election.
Bernie @47
"As proud as I am of this streak, I am even prouder of this fact: I have never voted for the Stupid Party in a presidential election."
In all seriousness and with sincere respect ( but using the words of Marshal Rooster Cogburn,) "I would like to shake your hand and buy you a Daniel Webster cigar." I am with you in spirit.
Bernie, I think there is a lot of confusion within CP ranks about who their nominee is going to be. I think they would love for Ron Paul to be it, and what he is going to do has sort of frozen the field.
My hunch is that it will end up being Chuck Baldwin. Corsi and Sen. Bob Smith have both been suggested but they were/(are?) either pro-War or have interventionist bagage.
Bladwin is not a theonomist, which has been Dr. Fleming's objection in the past, so maybe Bladwin could get a little love from the Chronicles crew.
Neither is he a philosophical libertarian which might help sway some paleos who are skeptical of Ron Paul.
As Dr. Fleming suggests, it will be amusing to listen to all pundits (I'm looking at you Hugh Hewitt) turn on a dime and tell us how only Senor McAmnesty can save the Republic.
The reaction of McCain MSM buddies to his nomination will be even more interesting. How will they turn on the "Maverick" in order to help Hillary? And what stories and McCain quotes, buried to now, will suddenly come to light.
I suggest that once Nominated the MSM will suddenly discover what an intemperate, cranky, mad bomber McCain is.
Thanks for the offer, Robert Reavis. I may take you up on that some day.
But I can' take all the credit for my streak. Where would I be without the likes of Michael Peroutka, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips and Ron Paul? They deserve all the credit.
I don't even know who Hugh Hewitt is but an online editorial of his was sent around by Muslim apologist Grover Norquist, and the whole thing was sent on to me by a friend who is a great popular artist but a political naif. When I pointed out the absurdity of reading anything said by or even endorsed by Grover, my friend responded that the point was still valid, to which I responded but did not hit send:
Which point--back the evil Romney to check the more evil McCain? The next move will be to back the more evil McCain to check the most evil Hillary and back the most evil Hillary to check the mostest evil Putin, then back the mostest evil Putin to check the more mostest evil Emperor Ming the Merciless on the planet Mongo?
There is this difficulty in backing the lesser of two evils: You are still supporting, by your own definition, evil. There are, I believe, circumstances when it is necessary to do what is wrong, for example, in telling lies to a terrorist or potential suicide or stealing to preserve the life of one's children, but in those cases we are constrained by necessity. We have such necessity in the case of voting. Indeed, it is not self-evident that voting for one's rulers is always even a good thing. Decades ago I had such discussions with people who accused me of a lack of patriotism in refusing to choose between two unpalatable politicians. My response then is my response now: In a system like ours the right to vote is the right to act as a prison stoolie or concentration camp capo.
Despite what you may have read about my arbitrary way of ruling Mong, Ming wants your support. Vote or my men will eat your family.
I once knew His Majesty, Ming
Who ruled wrong in Mong
And was thus an example in time
On why all should vote for Cline.
But later as Cline grew old,
And his relatives all grew bold
(We were astonished to learn)
It was Cline who stole
All of Mong's women and gold !!
"Directly voting for a pro-abortion candidate when one has an alternative is a mortal sin, just as lynching is."
Here's maybe where the generational gap shows through. I grew up in a system that was not only rotted, but quickly becoming visibly rotten. It is therefore difficult for me to take the process seriously as a means by which legalized abortion will be ended or continued.
McCain's judicial nominations, as you suggest, are indeed likely to be somewhere between Bush's and Hillary's in terms of nastiness. And Republican opposition to Hillary would, indeed, be quite the façade. I'm not, however, personally convinced that McCain is a substantially anti-abortion alternative.
Also, where do you draw the line when it comes to "pro-abortion"? Is it a mortal sin to vote for the candidate who will outlaw only a few abortions when there is one who supports banning the procedure wholesale? If so, then you must concede the ex-Catholic crypto-theonomist Michael Peroutka was the only palpable candidate in 2004. (I voted for Mr. Peroutka, but I knew full well that it was not going to win anyone the election, nor be noticed by anyone who mattered, nor, even if he HAD won, be the salvation for America. Suspending reality and supposing he could have won, the chain of events that would have followed were, however, in my own personal self-interest--more or less.)
Or should we make a utilitarian argument here: would McCain as president appoint a judge who would overturn Roe vs. Wade and by implication, reduce the number of annual infanticides? I seriously doubt it. There is no doubt in my mind that once he has the nomination clenched, he will no longer pay anything but lip service of the weakest sort to religious conservatives. Furthermore, it is pretty well-known that a disproportionate number of abortions are by recent Hispanic immigrants, who often could not get them if they were not able to come to America, so his record on immigration could arguably make a utilitarian case against him as far as abortion and Latin America are concerned.
As far as UN sanctions are concerned, something gives me the feeling that cheap oil may well cause the whole international new world order to collapse under the weight of its own fat and self-denial. Beyond that I can only argue that, yes, we are (in theory) targeting BAD people at the present, but there are plenty of other bad people whom we are not attacking but climbing into bed with (and plenty of Republicans as well as Democrats to thank for that--Bill Clinton's meddling in the Balkans was an extension of George Bush's nanny-sitting Serbo-Croatian skirmishes and it is difficult to see the latter acting any differently on Bosnia) and many good people that we are not lifting a finger to help.
One last issue: same-sex marriage. Again, here, McCain's judges are not likely to be too much more reliable than his counterparts. But traditional marriage and family are largely defunct in much of the country and in many places homosexual couples freely roam the streets pulling P.D.A.'s in front of no matter whom--and many of the largest employers grant them marriage benefits for the amazing feat of shacking up for more than one night in a row.
So it all boils down to this:
1. What is the likelihood either candidate will nominate a judge who will overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Clinton - none
McCain - possible but doubtful
2. What is the likelihood that Republican congressmen would oppose a pro-abortion leftist judge?
Under Clinton - conceivable
Under McCain - highly doubtful
3. What is the likelihood either candidate will attempt an immigration expansion and amnesty?
Clinton - hard to tell
McCain - almost certain
4. What is the likelihood that Republican congressmen would oppose the aforementioned disaster?
Under Clinton - highly likely
Under McCain - possible
5. How do you rank each candidate on foreign policy: competency, morality, prudence?
Clinton - almost certainly negative
McCain - awful
I've made this extremely long-winded, but the bottom line is that I cannot conclude that one candidate is more dangerous than the other. One thing I am certain is that both are dangerous, extremely so. The other thing I know is that Hillary Clinton is a terrible manager and would make an abominable president in terms of running routine executive tasks. That is why I find her slightly preferable: incompetent evil is not only more amusing but more easily reviled and defeated than competent evil.