Will the Right Sit It Out?
If John McCain wins the presidency, his comeback—after the bankrupt debacle his campaign had become in the summer of 2007 with his backing of the amnesty bill—will be the stuff of legend.
And as nominee, he is entitled to conduct his own campaign and be cut slack by a party whose brand name is now Enron.
That said, McCain seems to have decided to win by love-bombing the Big Media and putting miles between himself and the base.
Consider his "Forgotten Places" tour of last week.
It began in Selma, Ala., where McCain went to Edmund Pettis Bridge to hail John Lewis and the marchers night-sticked and hosed down by the Alabama State Troopers on the Montgomery march for voting rights.
Now that was a seminal movement in the fight for civil rights.
But this is not 1965. Today, John Lewis is a big dog in the "No-Whites-Need-Apply!" Black Caucus. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is sermonizing White America. The Rev. Al Sharpton is trying to shut down the Big Apple. And the fight for equal rights is being led by Ward Connerly.
With no help from McCain, Connerly is trying to put on five state ballots a Civil Rights Initiative that declares white men are also equal and not to be denied their civil rights because of the color of their skin.
And where does McCain stand?
From Selma, McCain went to the Gee's Bend Quilters Collective, where black ladies make the famous blankets. The stop could not but call to mind the hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs in the Carolinas and Georgia lost after NAFTA and Most-Favored Nation for China, both of which McCain enthusiastically supported.
McCain's next stop was Inez, Ky., where LBJ declared war on poverty. But LBJ's war was a politically motivated scheme to shift wealth and power to government, which led to a pathological dependency among America's poor, his own abdication and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign against Big Government that ushered in the Conservative Decade.
McCain then went to New Orleans to backhand Bush for failing to act swiftly to rescue the victims of Katrina.
But the real failure of New Orleans was of the corrupt and incompetent regime of Mayor Ray Nagin and the men of New Orleans, who left 30,000 women and children stranded in a sea of stagnant water.
No doubt Bush hit the snooze button, but why the piling on?
Then McCain headed up to Youngstown, Ohio, to tell the folks their jobs are never coming back and NAFTA was a sweet deal.
But why, when America's mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth—in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel—aren't those jobs coming back?
Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.
An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.
But we no longer put America first.
The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.
Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?
Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?
So the feds can teach them how to shovel snow?
Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole's help, now gets it.
Then McCain took a time out to denounce the North Carolina GOP for ads tying the Rev. Wright to Obama, and the pair to two Democratic congressional candidates. To their credit, the North Carolinians told McCain where to get off and are running the ads.
What does a McCain victory mean for conservatives?
Probably a veto on tax hikes and perhaps a fifth justice like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or John Roberts, to turn two pair into a full house. Fifty years after Warren, it could be game, set, match for the right.
But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.
In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
No they should not sit it out. But will they by default? How are those tails-?-doing?
___________________________________________
*A thought (conscious or unconcscious) is something complete in itself and something we can do.
*Only humans beings via our capacity for imagination arrived at the conceptual pause or level, wherein we can notice what we are thinking anyway, and so Begin to refine thought consciously in search of more salutary results via our actions or activity.
*Beliefs i.e. open-ended ideas, wishes, dreams are best when we notice consciously they are a’priori to thought, and in tandem with thought allow us further refinement of thought and thus activity.
*A clearing or meadow for thought per se should be carved-out as distinctive from the surrounding forest, even though inevitably in tandem with - the open-ended (and so not doable themselves) ideas, wishes, dreams etc. Only when such a clearing has been made and identified as such can thoughts i.e. the doable be appropriately complemented by the undoable open-ended (a function of imagination), and thus thought CAN be appropriately refined further. Without such a clearing we are fated (not destined) to continue to wander aimlessly hit and miss not knowing forest for trees. E.g. oh golly, where Was my campsite, again? … (Humor lowers blood pressure.)
*Religion is viatal to all cultures, since based on the passage of time (experience) it at least indicates what has been more rather than less propitious to the vital group, based on our wanderings in this current state of affairs.
*Both thought (misnamed the rational) and belief or perception i.e. open-ended ideas, wishes, dreams (misnamed the irrational) are inextricably bound together in human beings. Since it is how conscious thought evolved in us in the first place and is how conscious thought in our species continues and will always be further refined.
*To us humans it is experientially (and thus the case) a world of opposites when we notice degrees of difference between one thing and another to make them seem opposed. They are really both and the same thing like two sides to one coin. It is a world of inches (as well as miles) and thus of degrees of difference.
*Such experienced opposites when noticed sometimes can be synthesized in a dialactic of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis…while at other *occasions in time it is a binary choice of one OR the other, in other words which side of the coin ought to be facing Up.
*Causality for human beings in Fact does *not result and thus also conversely does not stem from purpose. But rather is always at a given juncture in time an *occasion for indebtedness and responsibility. This is our lot when we are honest and do not lapse into evil, which does not change our reailty but often makes it worse. (E.g. in the news, Iraq.) Thus morality is built into not apart from causality. Neither is the lack of morality apart from causality whether purposed (evil) or by default.
*Once there is a clearing for thought per se - that which is patently doable, it can be newly considered that for something to be ‘rational’ it must also contain the *appropriate amount of the irrational since that exists too and is an inextricable part of the human factor, if it is in Fact to be considered ‘rational.’ Otherwise what we want to call rational is again only imagination or instead highly irrational.
*Inevitably we are always both consciously and unconsciously bound up with our own balance and that of the group. Perfect or absolute blance though is Not possible in our world, albeit Approximate balance is requisite. That is obviously because we and the world are alive (dynamic) and not something dead or static upon a pedestal. (E.g. in the news plastic in the seas could kill the planet.)
*Until philosophy is completed (via a clearing for thought per se) we are subconsciously always acting philosophically without being aware of it and irrationally calling it reason.
*On account of how we evoloved and thus ARE and will always be for as long as we are Human, we are conceptual creatures [i.e. both], in our world & NEVER either.
*A penny saved is a penny earned … wait no, non-sequitur, how did that get in here? Well, it’s an imperfect world and we’re all an imperfect part of it.
*As for imperfection it is also a part of the world since it and we are dynamic and thus alive and the most we can say in this very broad regard is that imperfect’s perfect.
*If we want to call something ‘perfect’ thus inevibably it must be within a given context. Usually that would mean complete.
* ‘Complete’ is what we ought to now realize is what we mean by essence i.e. the thing in question’s - totality. Thus essence or totality is very difficult, if not impossible, to KNOW we have ascertained, especially when in a very broad regard.
*As Aristotle pointed out it is possibly the defining meaning of being educated when to ask for proof or evidence of anything as opposed to when not to. That is the difference between apprehending when something is knowable and when something is unknowable. (E.g. in the news the Twin Towers because proof might have been something knowable if the evidence wasn’t promply carted away.) That few asked is evidence of a highly uneducated society, sadly; and of a particularly uneducated journalistic class (or frightened/corrupted.)
*Education (even prior to the definition of thought per se as above; and subsequently a clearing made for it) is yet the greatest thing since the wheel, and will always be thus.
*The perfection of philosophy is its inevitable completion, since although that is currently not yet our fate as a group, it is our destiny.
*Matters of faith are always valuable and never disprovable otherwise there would be no *need of the word faith-regardless of evolution and of the how we came about-if all things were in Fact knowable. They are not. We can only know the difference between when we are thinking and when we are choosing to believe and what is the mix involved on any given Occasion (for indebtedness & responsibility.)
*When we think consciously it is more akin to work and less endorphins are released (the brain and body’s natural painkillers), than when we believe because the open-ended is more promising always and it is also what we did consciously and almost exclusively prior to being ready for conscious thought.
*The truth is sometimes difficult to find but not impossible if in a knowable context.
*Wisdom is an ability to make fine distinctions that are actual.
*Questions are important (of course) in our process (possibly the most important aspect.) However just because we can ask a question does not automatically mean it is real or actual. We can always move our mouths even when *exclusively motivated by our imagination, and that is good too. Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it? TIME is a factor. More appropriately pain defines us whether felt or unfelt, since it informs accurately and inaccurately in our imperfect world.
*All things are also vibrations with their own signature frequencies including our thoughts. Thus in our world of degrees of difference, thoughts too only in that regard are things. Don’t kick a rock, its vibe and signature frequency may be stronger than your toe. However if at an opera and sneaking in beers in your pockets, make sure they’re in cans. The signature frequency of glass is weaker than some very High notes, but not stronger than aluminum, apparently.
*”Peace, out - dog.”
P.S. mother Nature is both cruel & kind AND saw fit to make us conscious of what we’re thinking (like the rest of her kingdom does unconsciously). What shall we make of her blessing and her curse, under God? Did she want it so, or only God? Sorry, unknowable, here. Faith. But think consciously now - KNOWING the difference. Where was that campsite? Oh, we haven’t carved it out yet, ok! I’m down with it.
_______________
Pat is overly optimistic at the end of this post. The truth is there will be no rewards for the Right. So McCain will veto tax hikes, big deal. I thought the American Right stood for responsible spending, meaning a balanced budget and low national debt, above all things. If an entire administration screws up and spends the country into $9 trillion of debt, tax hikes will be NEEDED. There will be no escaping it, unless America's tax base is shifted from income back to imports, where it was for five quarters of a century, and of course that will never happen under the rule of these federal government masters.
So McCain will nominate a fifth judicial originalist to replace Stevens, who has to go sooner rather than later due to his pushing 90. Is Pat forgetting that at the legislative level of our federal government, the GOP will be reduced to no more than 40 seats in the Senate, if not this election year, then definitely in 2010? And that's not even taking into account the Rockefeller Republicans from the northeast, who often vote against Scalias, Borks, and Thomases. After his nominee gets chewed up and spit out by the Senate, McCain will happily lay a Souter on their laps, and his rear will be graciously kissed by the Senate for a couple of weeks before his nomination hearings, where there will be more rear-kissing.
The point is, Pat is denying what his sharp and educated brain knows to be true: only the Left and their close ideological cousins, the neocons, will benefit from a McCain presidency.
A McCain defeat discredits neo-conservativism, greatness conservatism, compassionate conservatism and all the other nonsensical marketing schemes the official right has in their bag of tricks to retain office. A McCain victory will only embolden Bill Kristol and his little gang of scribblers and K Street gladhanders. A McCain victory will only weaken conservatism in the long run.
Whatever is left of conservatism needs time out of political office in order to figure out what we want to conserve and, maybe more importantly, what we want to jettison. Sit out the election. Pour ourselves a strong drink or three election night and watch America elect either Obama or Hillary. It should prove to be a fun four years. Furthermore, maybe American troops will be out of Iraq sandpit four years hence. They'll still be there if John McCain is elected president.
"Pat is denying what his sharp and educated brain knows to be true: only the Left and their close ideological cousins, the neocons, will benefit from a McCain presidency."
Yes, and it is sad to watch. I love Pat and always will. The old bull has no quit in him and has, through a lifetime of courage, exemplified some of the better qualities of the country he loved and served. But the truth is that his followers were escorted out of the party in 96 when Viagra Bob ordered a" separate peace". It was reiterated in 2000 when McCain offered a Greyhound bus to Pat and his brigades. The party is over and truth be told, it was a crashing bore anyway.
"Jim Fellows" (?) @1
Do you have any clue about what are you talking?... Whatever your psychological or gender problems are ... kindly do not pollute with them this site, or any site...
The party is indeed over. The entire GOP machine will vote for McCain and fall into line - from the pseudo-intellectuals at NRO to the pseudo-populists on talk radio.
I urge intelligent citizens to take up creative projects in the arts or literature and make a positive contribution to Western culture. The critique of the neocons and liberals will get us nowhere; we need to BUILD something for the future and forget about these fly-by-nights politicos who will be lost to history. There is no salvation through politics. Michelangelo and Mozart were above this fray; I hope some of us can also do our small part. Less hand-wringing; more creative work!
If conservatives made films, wrote novels and contributed to the arts instead of offering only criticism, a culture could in time be rebuilt.
If conservatives made films, wrote novels and contributed to the arts ...
Can some of us just tend orchards, raise cattle , harvest our own hives, read old stories to our children, attend Mass at dawn, go for a long ride on horseback and defend our friends in public, or must we all be pretentious and attempt to save civilization or what is even more ludicrous, attempt to create another one ?
There is no need for the right to set this one out. We should all support Constitution Party nominee, Chuck Baldwin.
Hopefully Pat will endorse him.
Brock @#2 is right on and Sebatsian @#6 is absolutely right on regards politics being no salvation - a necessary evil, perhaps; also, as Chronicles has been counseling for years and Sebastian points out - more creative hard work, always trying to educate our fellow man.
An interesting piece Pat and, as always, thought provoking.
I hate to dash Dr. Phillips' hopes (#8), but as I predicted, Pat Buchanan is edging in the direction of an endorsement of McCain. The only issue now for the office pool is exactly when it will be given. I'm still learning about Chuck Baldwin, but so far he is looking like a good choice for November. Unhappily the CP is not on the ballot here in Texas and is unlikely to get ballot qualified, so for me a vote for Baldwin would have to be write-in.
Ron Paul received more votes in PA than Huckabee, and that point needs to be stressed. A base of opposition to the status quo could never be built on Huckabee's candidacy; he represents more of the same two-faced politics with which Bush the Younger squeaked by in 2000.
Regardless of how one feels about paleo-libertarianism, Paul's campaign represents to most decisive "change" of policy and reversion to original principles. I hope Mr. Baldwin will seize upon the themes raised by Paul and build on the solid 10% remnant who are fed up with state-corporatism as usual. This is where the long road back begins.
"Pour ourselves a strong drink or three election night and watch America elect either Obama or Hillary."
I think I like this suggestion, although one should keep in mind that the Iraq war is at this point largely a matter of rhetoric. The U.S. will literally not be able to afford funding for the war as the finiancial crisis grows deeper; regardless of who is president it is easy to imagine a Democratic legislature blocking funding, a welcome move to be sure, albeit not solving the Social Security and Medicare crisis that will ultimately default the federal government.
The only real issue at stake in this election is who is the most likely to fire Bernanke and appoint a Fed chairman who will usher in a tight monetary policy. (This will not happen in time to salvage the real economy but it will be necessary to seize the destruction and begin the long and painful process of rebuilding capital.) Paul Volcker has endorsed Barak Obama, but he was already a Democrat and made clear that his endorsement was not based on "the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties." Offhand I'd have to suggest John McCain is probably the best hope on this front.
(Although whether this justifies voting for him is another matter; whomever is elected is likely to be thrown out in 2012 in any case.)
"I hope Mr. Baldwin will seize upon the themes raised by Paul and build on the solid 10% remnant who are fed up with state-corporatism as usual. This is where the long road back begins."
Perhaps it will be worth voting Constitutional again. At any rate, any useful legislation is likely to be declared unconstitutional in the short run. I can only hope that solid 10 percent is not lost in the rising demographic and financial tide before both parties really start to feel its pressure.
Yes, I'll admit that resuscitating the political corpse of John "Where's my Diaper?" McCain is quite a feat. Apart from the fact that the entire electoral process in this clown kingdom is a banana republic sham, it shouldn't be any huge surprise that McCain would be where he is, or close to it. The GOP is a party of warmongers (oh, but those Democrats are real peaceniks, right?). That being said . . .
McCain is a war criminal. He is also a punk. If he didn't have connections in high places, his ass would have been sent to prison for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. It's becoming known by more and more people about his involvement in abandoning POW's in Vietnam, and believe me, even though The Hillaroid has so many skeletons in her closet that she's more or less a human dartboard, McCain will be swift-boated over it.
If anybody were actually to participate in the election, which would be a perfect display of weak character and low intelligence, the only logical choice for a person who wasn't looking to Daddy Government for their every need, or a preening fascist, would be Ron Paul.
In McWar's home state of Arizona there's a weekly newspaper called The New Times. Check out the February 17, 2000 issue, on Senator John McCain and his in-laws, some of whom (on his *current wife’s side of the family) were convicted outlaws in terms of bootlegging and tax evasion in Arizona. Which needless to say does not necessarily disqualify spouses running for public office. Usually as a practical matter, that's a boost?
Sometimes what inevitably diqualifies people running for public office is the candidate themselves, once their real self eks-or-oozes-out from behind the façade of their carefully researched image; as happened to John McCain in 2000 in the aftermath of his loss in South Carolina. When during his concession speech, he was decidedly less than gracious or sweet, but suddenly *ugly.
Shades of that alleged temper perhaps only the people in Arizona who know him are aware of?
I agree with Big M (above) & feel a little bit sorry for us here in America where these Presidential campaigns have all of the depth and verisimilitude of one interminably long Infomercial.
(Infomercials used to be illegal the reason being any *commercial, essentially lies or 'puffery' - running that long is tantamount to brainwashing.) What else has 'politics' via television in America become these days? And the only semblance of truth to come out in a campaign is when they are inevitably punctuated by an abberation, namely an honest or human mistake made by the candidate(s)...Even if as in McCain's case it's his ugly nature suddenly rising Up to the surface from the shallow depths, an animal within - Mr. Hyde. I can see that starkly ambitious visage leaving behind the POW's in Vietnam. People don't improve with age nine times out of ten, only wine apparently does that automatically?
Finally I don't know the answer to this so I'll ask it here-?- Is it just a rumor or a bad joke that as a technical matter McCain is not actually a citizen of the United States, his having been born on the banks of the Panama Canal? I don't know the rules on that. Sorry.
When will we see the ads though about his wife's side of the family - and the underhanded ways they went about accumulating the fortune McCain so deftly re-married into? Perhaps that is why he was also able to get into bed in Arizona with Keating? I don't know. Isn't that how it all gets done? If it's true he's not a citizen of the U.S. then he couldn't even be Governor of California, could he? I'll ask Arnold. Arnold will probably say in private, 'I don't know...he's a girly-man anyway. He left them behind in Vietnam. He's no Stalone.'
It's great today to be an American! 'Don't have to run through the jungle and scuff-up our feet.' Get out those snow shovels in Ohio, looks like it may be the only gainful employment for many for the next 8 years, that or paperboy? Extra-extra read all about it McCain the comeback kid.
All based on the assumption that the Democrat party is an omnipotent force of political nature.
Who or what is "the right" that one should be mindful of it?
It certainly is not and never has been the Rockefeller Republicans.
No serious person can consider the neo-conservatives to be of the right with one wing of them being old Scoop Jackson Democrats and Trotskyites and the other wing thereof being, soft versions thereof though they may be, fascists if not Nazis with an objective correlative thereunto flowing through Leo Strauss right to Martin Heideigger.
Most of my fellow brethern among Christian fundamentalists do not know their right from their left any more then they know their Christ from the god of war Mars, after whom all too many of them have gone a whoring, having left their First Love for that abomination and not having the good sense to even know what they have done. They will vote for McCain because he mongers war and is the paladin for Israel which is the idol of the dispensationalist heresy.
Most of my fellow Southerns are still in the thrall of Nixon's Southern strategy and actually believe that the Republicans will some day deliver on state sovereignty and affirmative action. They are as stupid as the young oysters who went for a walk with the walrus and the carpenter. (Dr. Clyde Wilson is that "old and wise oyster" watching the young ones go off to their folly.)
That leaves, with a few strays, those of us who frequent the fora of Chronicles. Some of us like the little pigs in the toes rhyme will stay home, some will attempt to write in Ron Paul, others might vote for Chuck Baldwin and some, although they would never admit it on these fora, will cast a wary vote for McCain because they fear Hillary and Obama so much.
Thus, finding "the right" is hard enough. Figuring out what it is going to do is nigh on to impossible. Of greater importance, I believe, is the fact that the mayhaws and the dewberries are ripe, and there awaits me toward the weekend mayhaw jelly on biscuits and a dewberry cobbler.
Mr. "Censor" in #5 resorts to the smear. Well don't we all. But I wouldn't be surprised if philosophically Mr. Censor is yet invested subconsciously in the Platonic/Semitic facade. Wherein we never stay with the things themselves and investigate the-thing-itself. But rather what those things are 'like'; and thus subsequently need to defer afterward as direct outcome of that philosophical mistake and its attendant vagaries and confusion to fascistic figure/s of 'authority,' usually the Mr. Hyde(s) of our world.
To answer him, yes I know what I'm talking about. But doubt you, Mr. "Censor" could even frame the appropriate question, chump. Don't worry you're in the vast majority. He probably knows that, and knows he's being disingenuous, of course for political 'reasons.'
In time, the "Right" over 40 will say, "we must support McCain to stop the Leftist takeover."
The Right under 40 will say, "we must defeat McCain" as they battle each other in a virtual world of their creation, Baldwin or Barr?
The only question that remains to be seen is if the Conditioners can keep the thing convincingly close in the 'battleground' states and sell the whole McCain is of the Right angle.
Genius in Bowen's #18 above (quote): "The only question that remains to be seen is if the Conditioners can keep the thing convincingly close in the ‘battleground’ states and sell the whole McCain is of the Right angle." (end quote)
And the only 'reason' there are Conditioners possible is: 1.) the Platonic/Semitic facade as our culture's remaining philosophical mistake & 2.) yet the apparent 'need' for it, sadly. - That is our current fate, not our destiny, thankfully. So I say as I always do: thank/s God. That's just me. And some others, the all important 'numbers' grow. Thanks God. Although I'm group oriented i.e. the better the group the better the so-called individual CAN be. It is also a truth one WITH God is a sort of majority. Thanks God, and there's humor too. Cool. I'm down with it.
D Simmons writes :
"All based on the assumption that the Democrat party is an omnipotent force of political nature."
D Simmons,
The demo rats could ride a stick donkey to a win in this race or even offer a faceless paper pinata as the alternative to more endless wars in the Middle East --- and still win !! Once twiddle dee is nominated, the dems will start advertising reruns of all the things that repubs promised would happen in Iraq compared to all the things that have happened.
Repubs, twiddle dum, will start reruns of Rev. Wright's sermons from southside Chicago contrasted with pictures of McCain in Vietnam. Or maybe we will see some of the past interviews and television footage of Lady Hillary standing by her man as he lied and cheated. One things is for certain, it will have nothing to do with anything of any importance what-so-ever !!
Right now I am looking forward to hearing how Chuck Baldwin has been excluded from any televised debates or air time because of the conflict between Church and State -- correction I meant to say Church and Empire.
It is not certain that Barr will be the LP nominee. If not, that is good for Baldwin.
Read Chuck Baldwin's archives. Paleocons will find very little there to object to. Like all products of movement "conservatism," Baldwin uses more liberal idiom than I would like, but I think we are stuck with certain liberal idiom for the indefinite future.
On matters of policy, he is right on.
Bob, yes they have [your] press & media. They are not dedicated to free speech but rather only to 'the narrative.' They know we are conceptual creatures... But we only believe in what things are 'like' not in what they are themselves first (like America first) etc. And then ok, let's also/at the same time listen and strive via refinement of thought and prayer toward God. (Because of undeniable limb which stands we stand, under God.) First things first. ... In the meantime they stole God (in effect) along with everything else you once owned. But it may have been a fortuitous 'fall' as it were - since you had that remaining mistake embedded, after all in your culture i.e. the Platonic/Semitic facade.
If you handn't found it out (thanks to me & a few others) - you may have ended being your own and the world's worst enemy.
Problem IS they have the mistake too - so yet it's six of one half-dozen of another. Get it? They ain't much better, probably worse or not - than you. Look in the mirror. Yup.
Given an outcome that will be certainly unacceptable, we have only one duty---to do as much destruction to the Republican party as is possible, in the hope that it might be replaced by something better. The only purpose it has ever served so far as conservatives are concerned is to neuter them.
I wonder how many of the useful idiots who voted for Bush TWICE will play the sacrificial goat once more for McWar? People must be encouraged to overcome the planted delusion that the Republican party is or ever has been "conservative."
Mr. "Fellows", you are tiring out my hand and wearing out my mouse from fast-forwarding past your drivel.
Plato it's to be expected. re:#25 ... ain't easy to get real. Is it? Try Aristotle, it's like a whole new person. He's better than I & dare I say you? Is it why even though you 'should' have won, you lost the war? What about those bathtubs full of gin you confess to regretting that nonetheless got you here, to your credit. It's an imperfect world Clyde, cut yourself the appropriate slack.
Mr Wison you are not alone!
Lemmings... even with a sign - that's the edge. Whatever rallies ya'll I'm in FAVOR of - good. There's those 'numbers' again, they ARE important. They show up everywhere. Ok. Why not discuss it, if you're educated - greatest thing since the wheel.
Why? Belief feels better - releases more of those endorphins we now KNOW. oK. gOOD. iT'S also under God. Thanks God.
Dr. Wilson,
Mr. Fellows is obviously on another unfortunate bender with the booze. He has apologised for this at times during sober moments but then apparently reads the idiotic drivel he has posted under the influence and becomes so ashamed he seeks another round of drinks to sooth the consequent death wish. It is a damned shame, I like his posts when he is serious and sober but he is beginning to become the Otis Taylor from Mayberry, and will soon have his ticket punched permanently -- either by drunken stupidity, search and destroy censors or sober conversion. IMO, the sooner the better.
No Bob - I'm sober - why not discuss it? Since your fearless leader has thrown down the gauntlet? Then you all 'chime' in to save face i.e. 'belief' - for yourselves, since it FEELS better within your own personal selves. You know there's an old saying that once a loser always a loser. It's not though absolute there's the turn when it's appropriate. If you have the guts. And in this case it's the conversation of civilization - no big turn. Just that. ? I'm reminded of my real "idol" figuratively speaking. Sam who noticed ya'll ONLY beautiful losers. You prefer it. Ok. Thanks God. I guess you will sit it out - still wearing off those tails. Good. Wear'Em off.
Obviously the real "censors" of this site don't desire it to be only a mutual admiration society. Oh, you guys are so 'purty.'
p.s. north is lucky i weren't around then. ROAR. and screw you all, and have a merry christmas. that's love.
Fellows, you are not relevant, interesting, or acting in good faith---merely tedious. Find another hobby.
Dear God, i.e. Clyde - relevant is something you could be right about (TIME is a factor); interesting - a matter of taste; acting in good faith that's my call - yes; and tedious - your opinion. Grow-up even at your advanced age. Like McCain are you full-circle in diapers yet? Sir? That's the circle of life no teeth, diapers - no teeth, diapers...platonic, or not. Love'ya though. I think you know that? I think you 'like' me too - tickle-tickle. ? Who would you trust, gutt, now - you know it's me.
Fellow is Serdar Argic reborn, or recoded.
Grumpy - I went to that link - what are you under Fire and have to give up someone so might as well be the stranger... i.e. moi? I hear ya. Hey I don't want a place by you'all fire - i'm just calling a spade a spade. Rest again, sweet peas. One day you'll have balls again; in the meantime I'm routing you on - even strap on a pair... grumpy or not. Hot. or not. vhatever.
In answer to Pat's question, Will the right set it out ?
Tom Fleming said months ago, ( after apologising for always over estimating the will of the people )
"As for conservatives and McCain, I think most will hop on board, if not the band wagon at least the gravy train."
Another indication this might be true is that Clyde Wilson is a wise man and says "
"People must be encouraged to overcome the planted delusion, that the Republican party is or ever has been “conservative.”
We have only one duty—to do as much destruction to the Republican party as is possible, in the hope that it might be replaced by something better."
Combining the wisdom of these two statements, greed and delusion vs honor and self respect, is there really any doubt under what banner todays conservatives will rally ?
Dr. Wilson @24:
Name-calling, Professor. That's how the delusion was "planted." If a party has the luxury of being the party that DIDN'T create the New Deal or the Great Society, and DIDN'T embrace the civil rights/affirmative action movement as a religion, then that party will be in the perfect position to exploit the consequences (surging crime, economic stagflation, major cities turning into wastelands, families tearing apart, poor public school test scores) for their own political gain. They point the finger at the "liberals", i.e., the Democratic Party which was in power all that time. Soon, the word "liberal" becomes a curse word and those who claim to oppose them and their policies, i.e., the GOP which hasn't been in power for a few decades, earn the label "conservative."
Nobody in 1980 or in 1994 ever bothered to ask if the smiling faces and talking heads on TV that were about to go to Capitol Hill were really serious about earning the label of a true American conservative . . . or if maybe they just wanted their party to be in power. The point is, name-calling and word-association are powerful Orwellian tactics to use on the campaign trail. By using them well enough, Professor Wilson, one man can "plant" a permanent set of ideas into another man's weak and inactive mind concerning what a "conservative" and what a "liberal" is. And like a plant, those ideas will grow and flourish with proper sustenance.
Fellows, your style is flamboyant and self-referential and your content subjective and personal. You are an alien here.
Bulls-eye C. Bowen, you hit it dead center! It's sad to watch the so many of the elders march off a cliff to their own destruction and doing so knowingly. Do they really think there's that much of a difference between McCain/Obama/Clinton?
More doom and gloom it seems you are not a real conservative till you concede that all is lost. Maybe a Sovietologist could come out of retirement and compare the current crop of nothings to the last Soviet dicatators. McCain as Chernenko, Clintoon as Andropov and Obama as the Gorbachev mesiah figure. I hope I got the names right since all I really can remember of that era is the Burger King commercial "Soviet fashion show." If the doomers here would stop trying to finish the sentences of liberals, and learn to laugh at these clowns then maybe they could be of some use to real Americans.
"More doom and gloom it seems you are not a real conservative till you concede that all is lost. Maybe a Sovietologist could come out of retirement and compare the current crop of nothings to the last Soviet dicatators. "
I've had similar thoughts with respect to our own dear leaders. That being said:
I will under no circumstances vote for McCain.
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate I will vote for Ron Paul.
If Obama heads the ticket he will receive my vote.
The illusion of a two party system is one of the most dangerous lies in American political life. I see no advantage in having an unrestrained media whore like McCain looking to score pander points for his "growth" and "statesmanship" while carrying the left's water. I want the blame to fall squarely where it belongs, on the race hustling blacks (et al.) and morally preening liberal elites. McCain just provides four more years of cover for the forces that seek to wreck my nation and my country and I'll not oblige them.
What is a "real American"?
Some humor may here be meet: Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early
"Real Americans" are a people not an idea. An imperfect question to be sure and we should be thankful that it never could be "perfected", but germane to any political discussion that takes place. But since America has been reduced to cults and seemingly everyone has placed themselves into one or another replete with the holy words it is probably a question left outside the Holy Citadel of Political Correctness. Myself I'm going to sit back and watch the cult of Israel attack the black liberation cult and have a good laugh as a "Real American."
I know that "Americans" are a people and not an idea. But what makes a REAL American? George Bush? Gerlad Ford? Earl Warren? Bob Dole? Rush Limbaugh?
Might want to ask them. I would hazard a guess that their answers would sound like they go door to door exhorting people to join them in exhalting the "Truth."
Sorry I interrupted earlier; I thought this question was rhetorical and made a statement both unimpeachable and complete.
For me, the first real American settled in 1607*. The last real American will be one of "our Posterity" mentioned in 1789. Laws, precedence, and assumptions up until the disappearance of the Constitution in 1861 fill in the details.
A real American cannot be anyone guilty of treason; this eliminates most of our presidents and congressmen. A real American cannot be someone who uses government as a personal siphon from the pocketbooks of real Americans to his own; this eliminates anyone the Nashville Agrarians warned against (I think).
*(Yes, I'm skipping Virginia Dare and lone English trappers for simplicity's sake.)