Cynical Nation

I don't know that there's anyone who doesn't think we would have been better off if things had gone slightly differently in 2000.

"I know it's stylish for the very same liberals who were gaga over McCain in 2000 to openly despise him today.But if they were honest about it, they'd have to admit that they've changed in the past 8 years more than McCain has. "

As someone who used to like McCain in 2000, let me assure that I have not changed at all. I was as liberal then as I am now. But McCain DID change (or at least he tried to give tat impression). From someone who was standing up to religious lunatics and special interests in 2000, he degenerated to someone who was worshiping Bush and Jerry Falwell in the last couple of years. But that did not help him at all, as I discuss here .

The chumming up to Bush, after what was done to him in South Carolina in 2000, made me increasingly uneasy. It's fine to let bygones be bygones, and it IS politics, after all. But it seemed a little too expeditious at times.

My main thing as I watched McCain the past several months on C-SPAN at campaign stops was that he seemed old. I'm not on board with him on the Iraq issue, and his tour de market (and look how safe I am!) in Baghdad was idiotic.

It is a damn shame that he wasn't able to replicate in some way the 2000 effort, so now the GOP is stuck with an ex-Senator with no accomplishments, a slick game-show host from the Bay State and a great big city mayor who is wholly unqualified to be president.

Blue, some of McCain's tactics have shifted with the changing political landscape, but his actual positions have changed not one whit.

Fred, I agree with much of what you said. We're all worse off without McCain in the race. Honest liberals would have to agree, I think. The Republicans are going to nominate somebody, after all, and by taking McCain out of the picture, you're all but guaranteed a poorer set of options.

And thnak you Barry, thank you. Thank you for finally posting a new topic!!!!! Bloomberg degenrated into a 9,000-post catfight about god-knows-what...

I'd have been as happy at a McCain nomination as I would be at a Giuliani nomination. I even bet five bucks that he would get the nomination, and I am ticked off that he blew it so spectacularly, or at least seems to have blown it. That's gonna cost me five bucks.

Actually, I can't say any of the current crop of Republican possibles upset me. I'm looking forward to the '08 race.

"Blue, some of McCain's tactics have shifted with the changing political landscape, but his actual positions have changed not one whit."

Hmm...are you saying that McCain did not change, but, let's say Jerry Falwell did? From an "agent of intolerance" to someone tolerant? Or that the "special interests" stopped being bad? Maybe because they switched their support to McCain? Sorry, but the whole behavior of McCain the last 2-3 years has been pathetic.

What I mean is that McCain's positions on the issues of the day have remained largely consistent.

Sure, he's changed over the past 8 years. We all have. But I'm saying he's changed *less* than his fickle fans on the left. Even back when he was doing his Hail Mary attacks on the religious right, he still agreed with them on many of their key issues. That's why the liberals' infatuated with the guy never made any sense.

Fred said: "The chumming up to Bush, after what was done to him in South Carolina in 2000, made me increasingly uneasy. It's fine to let bygones be bygones, and it IS politics, after all. But it seemed a little too expeditious at times."

If someone could ever show me that Bush, Rove or the Bush Campaign, or any of Bush's authorized suppporters had anything to do with "what was done" to McCain in SC in 2000, I might actually change my mind about Dubya.

I worked on BC2000 campaign and I can tell you that the word from the top was very emphatically: Don't engage in such tactics, don't get involved with people who do, and don't just stand by when you see it happening. I'm not suggesting that this had anything to do with moral rectitude or politcal scruples. The campaign thought that the stuff Richard Hand was pulling in SC (and elsewhere) was more destructive to BC2000 then it was to McCain.

McCain lost in 2000 because he made a point of antagonizing the base and giving the impression to fundraisers that he hated Republicans more than he hated Democrats. The "Straight Talk Express" campaign was a case study in how not to get your parties nomination.

Well, Barry, since McCain made that infamous statement on behalf of "the value of illegal immigrants" - "They do the jobs Americans won't do. Americans wouldn't do these jobs for $20/ hour, not even $50/hr..."

A ststement that was recently been proven to be a lie (it's been proven a lie many times) when a Swift meant packing plant was raided by ICE last December and they had to quickly hire a new workforce to replace the "undocumented" on they'd just lost.

They raised salaries slightly and offered productivity incentives and there were lines of American applicants around the corner.

Especially coming from a border state (a state that's currently leading the way in going after "illicit employers" to choke off those "illicit jobs," and barring illegals from all manner of state programs), I expected McCain to be down with a more pro-American program.

I tend to agree with Fred's assessment of McCain looking old and tired, etc., I agree with most of what Fred said except this, "a slick game-show host from the Bay State..." about Romney.

At this point, hell, from the start, Romney has been the best qualified candidate from either Party. A guy who ran the Executive branch of a major state, a far more successful businessman than Edwards was (OK Edwards wasn't really a "businessman, just a "hedge fund manager") - Romney took a fund out of near bankruptcy and turned it around.

Romney's also far and away the smartest candidate in the race (probably by better than 20 IQ points on his nearest competitor) NOT that intellect alone is a major qualification - Jimmy Carter was undoubtedly a very bright and sadly, also very inept.

(Sorry about bringing yet another Carter reference up, Fred, I know the mere mention of his name gives you aggita)

Romney, like Rudy also ran and won in an overwhelmingly Blue area, in fact a more Democratic region than Rusy did.

Sadly, I don't think Romney will be the Republican nominee (hell, if I had my druthers, it'd be Tancredo/Brownback) and I still hold out feint hope for a late jump-in by Newt Gingrich, but Giuliani's been a teflon guy.

Recently the IAFF, to their shame, went after Giuliani, calling his 9/11 tenure - "an Urban Legend."

Thankfully their are guys like Lee Ielpi (whose son, from the firehouse in which I currently work, was killed on 9/11) who strongly support Giuliani, so I think the teflon will hold through all that.

I'm more tepid on Rudy than Lee Ielpi and others, but I guess I'd take him over the alternatives - both Edwards and Obama would attempt to bring back Keynesian policies, and while I'm virtually certain HRC would continue along the Supply-Side path travelled by her husband (one of the reasons I'm glad she's the Dem frontrunner), I think she'd promote the same kind of pathetic social agenda that Bill did - Reno's out-of-control DOJ, Laura Tyson, Donna Shalal, Robert Reich, etc.

"What I mean is that McCain's positions on the issues of the day have remained largely consistent."

I disagree with you. He clearly capitulated to the religious lunatics and far-right extremists within the republican party. His whole power in 2000 was the fact that he was honestly attacking the special interests and religious extremists (that now control the republican party). I think that he decided to become "one of them", believing that he can win the election in 2008.

Not only he did not win anything with that change, but he lost the respect of the American people. Noone (with the notable exception of Barry) likes McCain after that, left or right.

Blue, John McCain's appeal went far beyond calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson bad names (which, BTW, he only did in earnest after his campaign had already begun to go south.)

For a "symbolism over substance" kind of a guy like you, I can see why you're turned off on McCain. But the fact remains that in terms of substance, he was a conservative, pro-life Republican in 2000, and he's a conservative, pro-life conservative now.

"he was a conservative, pro-life Republican in 2000, and he's a conservative, pro-life conservative now"

That's not the only thing that defines a candidate. But you are right. If I knew he was "pro-life" then, I would probably not like him even then.

"If I knew he was "pro-life" then, I would probably not like him even then." (BW)


OK, then, now we're getting somewhere.

When did you start hating life?

I support abortion, except for third trimester/partial birth (where the infant could survive outside the womb), in fact, I support mandating birth control and where necessary abortion for "unfit parents" - if you can't afford to care for that child withour public assistance, you are, by definition, an "unfit parent," at least at that time.

Even so, I don't revile pro-lifers.

"When did you start hating life?"

After I started reading your comments here :)

Well BlueWind, you were quite chummy with Bailey and I’ve seen enough of his posts to find him completely despicable. I am glad to hear you’re no friend, because he seems to be the one malignant person I’ve seen here, after going over the archives the past couple of days.

As much as I disagree with JMK, he makes me think. He challenges my core beliefs and I’ve seen that he constantly challenges his own, and I think that’s refreshing.

On the gay issue, I think you’re mischaracterizing JMK’s view on homosexuality.

From what I've read, he called all those things you mentioned including homosexuality “sexual deviancies,” and as all of those behaviors do deviate from the norm, they are sexual deviancies.

JMK never called any of them “perversions,” which is how my Pastor refers to all such things. I think you’re using “perversion” and “sexual deviancy” as synonyms, when I don’t believe they are. One (perversion) implies an illicit or wrongful act, while the other (sexual deviancy) implies an act that just deviates or differs from the norm.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a very sad lifestyle and it’s something that probably should be “curable,” in some way. Maybe in the future gene therapy may find a way to do that?

No one should have to live like an outcast, often with their entire immediate family shunning them.

The idea that “we can change society” doesn't seem very realistic, because such things rarely, if ever change. I don’t know if all those programs that seek to change homosexuals to heterosexuals work, or not, but I’d think that some kind of cure would really help those people re-connect with their families and with many in the larger society, as well.

I know a couple of gay students (males) on campus and both of them were isolated from their families. That’s a big deal in many parts of La, even in large cities like Baton Rouge and Shreveport.

A roommate of mine, named Melissa is on the women’s basketball team and she’s openly lesbian and she has the same problem, at least with her dad and brothers. Melissa, Rollins and James are all great people, I just think all of them deserve to live happier lives, that’s all.

I don’t think JMK sees homosexuality as a “perversion,” (which involves a negative value judgment) just a “sexual deviancy,” an act that deviates from the accepted norm (without any value judgment). I think he’s actually argued that all such sexual deviancies should be protected from those who’d abuse or discriminate against them in housing and employment. I haven’t seen a single post where he spoke of any of those things pejoratively.

OMG, what a ditz!

I'm so sorry! I posted this in the wrong spot.

I am embarassed. Sorry!

Those were pretty funny posts BlueWind and JMK

"When did you start hating life?" (JMK)

"After I started reading your comments here :)" (BW)


Well, for what it's worth, I DO feel your pain.

I believe that if one checks the GOP primaries of 2000, one will find that McCain never won a pure primary - i.e. without crossovers or indys.

He became the darling of the MSM because he attacked the conservative icon of the Religious Right, hated and feared by the left for years because of their power at the polls.

My gut always told me that had he been nominated, the left and the MSM would have:

a) breathed a sigh of relief

b) started to nitpick his record which was then largely conservative and

c) not voted for him.