Cynical Nation

There is a long list of McCain haters. You forgot, for instance, those who supported the swift vets who hate McCain for working with John Kerry and for making the POW deal with Vietnam.

The advantage that McCain does have is that three of the four other candidates (Guilliani, Thompson, Huckabee) think well of him. Guilliani and McCain are friends, so is he and Thompson, and Huckabee has consistently praised McCain. Plus he might be able to serve only one term anyway.

And, oh by the way, that reality you are talking about...

It sucks.

Mc Cain is not electable. He is 71 years old and looks almost 80. Put him next to the democratic candidates (any of the 3) and he looks like he is outdated and from the past. But the main reason he is not electable is that the religious right hates him. If any republican could pull a miracle and win in 2008 it would be someone with heavy support from the religious right. Someone who could mobilize them to go to the polls. McCain can not do that.

Believe it or not, the most electable republican candidate is Huckabee, exactly for this. Because he can massively mobilize the religious right. And also because at the personal level he is a likeable guy. Want proof? The whole GOP establishment is going after him with intense hate (almost as much as they hate Hillary) and still can not bring him down (at least so far).

Anyway, you need a reality check. The next president of the USA will be the winner of the democratic primaries. And, effective yesterday, it could be either Hillary or Obama. And I will love it (despite losing money myself) when they will reverse the Bush tax cuts so we can pay for health coverage for ALL Americans. It is simply the right thing to do.

Blue,

Didn't you say the same thing about Bush in 04 and about Lieberman in 06?

"Believe it or not, the most electable republican candidate is Huckabee..." (BW)


Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Huckabee is the GOP version of Obama and neither is realistically electable (unless, of course, they were running against each other) and yet, it's whimsical for many people to believe that they are. It allows a lot of not so nice people, on both sides of the aisle, to feel good about themselves. It comes down to a little emotional masturbation.

The reality is that Obama is an extreme Leftist with very direct ties to a Black nationalist Church, run by a former NOI member (the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright, a mentor to Barack Obama). It's a Church admittedly based upon Liberation Theology (an anti-Christian doctrine popularized during the 1960s), one that advocates, among other things, "economic parity."

What exactly is "economic parity? Pastor Wright gave an example with, "In West Englewood, one of the five worst areas in the city, McDonald's restaurants abound, while fresh food stores are lacking. The same resources should be made available in each and every neighborhood in this city."

For his part, Huckabee is a economic populist who, like the "foreclosure meister" (John Edwards), has bashed Corporate America (despite the fact that Corporate America is the reason we enjoy the prosperity so many of us take for granted), but unlike John Edwards, Mike Huckabee might actually BELIEVE some of that pablum!

What both Huckabee and Obama have going for them is a good deal of personal charisma and an abundance of optimism. While the latter is not all that rare among Conservatives, Obama's the first Democrat since JFK to offer an affirmative, optimistic worldview.

The primary problem that both of the have is that their Party hierarchies DON'T want either of them leading the charge for their sides.

The GOP hierarchy wants either Giuliani or Romney because, rightly or wrongly, they believe (probably rightly) it would be easier for either of those two to raise the money and attract the Independents needed to win a national election.

The Democratic establishment much prefers Hillary to either the smarmy Edwards or the inexperienced and (thankfully) relatively unknown Obama (it's GOOD, for him, that more people don't know Obama's past positions and affiliations), of course the downside is - they will.

Iowa was a smack at both Party's establishments, but it's unlikely that either Huckabee (a distant third in NH) or Obama will win their Party's nomination.

Just look at the delegate count to date; On the GOP side Romney leads Huckabee 30 to 21 despite losing two Primaries (OK, 1 Primary and 1 Caucus), while on the Democratic side, Hillary leads Obama 183 to 78.

BW, I admire your ideological flexibility. One day soon, the Dems are going to run a certified "Blue Dog" Conservative Democrat (one that might well be more Conservative than his GOP rival) and I anticipate your supporting that "Zell Miller" Democrat.

As for me, I'll continue to vote for the most Conservative candidate....so in that case, we may both find ourselves supporting the same candidate!

Now THAT is something I can honestly say I look forward to.

JMK,
You support fascist dictators like Pinochet and you know it. So, you are the last to criticize my "ideological flexibility" :-) As a first step you have to realize that democracy is the best system and dictatorships suck.

>
You support fascist dictators like Pinochet and you know it.

Do all liberals deliberately distort the positions of their opponents, or is it just you?

"Do all liberals deliberately distort the positions of their opponents, or is it just you?"

It must be only me. Especially when I do it for fun :-)

First, I complimented you on your noted "ideological flexibility," BW...as I'm certain, one day soon, a bona fide Blue Dog Conservative will be the Democratic nominee and I'll applaud all you "team sports" folks who'll support even someone so ideologically antithetical to you because of Party affiliation. Here, I applaud you in advance.

Second, you seem a might confused about the roots of fascism.

As I've noted many, many times the two most noted fascists of the 20th Century (Hitler & Mussolini) were, in fact, SOCIALISTS. I know that many Leftists seem to refute that. All I can say about that is, they're wrong.

I know I've given that 1927 Hitler quote here many times, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Adolf Hitler). That is STILL one of the most disgusting Hitlerian sentiments I've ever run across....and that covers a lot of ugly ground.

Likewise, Mussolini's platform was rooted in socialism. It called for a minimum wage (one of the first in Europe), the expropriation of property from landowners, the repealing of titles of nobility, creating a state run secular school system and imposing a progresive income tax. Mussolini was, in every way, a "secular man of the Left."

Anyone who'd doubt that should read Jonah Goldberg's new book, entitled Liberal Fascism, http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199927478&sr=1-1

Moreover, as I've said many times, I support Milton Friedman and have challeneged ANYONE to prove either; (1) that his economic policies were intrinsically linked, in any way, to Augusto Pinochet's political policies and (2) that those policies (which are, pretty much, today's Supply Side policies) are somehow tainted because of some perceived connection to Pinochet.

To date, no one has been up to either challenge - they are two distinct challenges, each one standing alone and each requires specific proofs.

The fact of the matter is that Allende's Chile was an economic basketcase BECAUSE of failed socialist economic policies. Thousands of Chileans suffered and died because of those failed policies.

Pinochet wisely, albeit surprisingly, adopted Friedman's economic policies and life for literally hundreds of thousands of Chileans improved dramatically almost overnight.

Why did Pinochet adopt Friedman's policies?

Perhaps he saw the disaster that Allende's socialist economic policies wrought and hoped an improving economy might placate the vast majority of Chileans.

Without question Friedman's Moneterist/Supply Side policies saved untold thousands of Chilean lives!

If you're claiming that you revile authoritarianism (big government statism), higher taxes, more social programs and redistribution, that have been the hallmarks of such socialist regimes as Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's and Mussolini's, then you probably agree with ME, far more than you disagree.

Perhaps it's only my way of putting things that you find disagreeable?

JMK,
Whenever you write that Hitler or Mussolini were "socialists" you lose credibility. I know you can not understand it, but they were on the extreme right, not the far left. That quote of Hitler means nothing. So that you understand, essentially ALL dictators like to pretend to be acting in the interest of democracy. To "protect democracy" from various threats. Even monsterous Pinochet when was in power in Chile and was killing thousands, was making clear that he was doing it to "protect democracy". If you dont get that, you never will.

"Whenever you write that Hitler or Mussolini were "socialists" you lose credibility..." (BW)


If I were in some distinct and extreme minority of people extolling that truth, I'd understand where you're coming from BW, BUT I'm NOT a lone voice stating that truth (and it IS the truth, unless you figure out some way to prove it otherwise, though it's going to be tough to prove that "national SOCIALISTS" weren't, in fact, SOCIALISTS, same as soviet SOCIALISTS, etc.), as I noted, Jonah Goldberg is now only the latest to write about that very simple and obvious truth, just as I explained it to you.

And even HE'S far from alone in understanding that basic truth.

From a review of Goldberg's Liberal Fascism; "Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist."

I've heard nutcases long claim that "Hitler was NOT a true socialist." Of course, NONE of those conspiracy freaks ever offer any proofs of this, they simply state opinion (their own opinion) as fact.

Hitler's own hideous words ("We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance...") mark him as an ardent socialist and anti-Capitalist.

In fact, the Nazis were the first society to seek to ban smoking, they were among the first to push for a government-run, national healthcare plan, they were strict gun controllers and supported a "progressive income tax." Everyone of those things is antithetical to individual Liberty (America's Founding Design) and an afront to human freedom and dignity.

And for your information, Pinochet NEVER lauded "democracy."

He led a military Junta and made no bones about his dictatorial stance. Neither did socialist tyrants like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Hitler was elected with a plurality of the vote and no elections were ever held during his tenure after that....similar to what Hugo Chavez (another "darling of America's fascist Left") is currently doing in Venezuela.

I'll also note, once again, that we in America THANKFULLY do NOT have anything close to a real or pure democracy. Perhaps you're just using the term "democracy" flippantly, or loosely? Still, it's the wrong term to apply to what we have here in the United States.

What we have is called a Constitutional Republic, in which legislators are elected into a "representative democracy." We have the Electoral College to shield us even further from the "tyranny of the majority," America's founders feared.

That Constitution was written specifically to thwart the will of the majority and severely LIMIT government action, so that 51% of the people couldn't (democratically) vote to redistribute the wealth of the other 49%...or even 90% of the people couldn't vote to confiscate the wealth of the other 10%.

You never learned that America is a Constitutional Republic and NOT a real or "pure democracy" in Civics class???

What are they teaching you kids now-a-days?!

OK, JMK. I just want to get this straight.

1) The Nazis were socialists.

2) Universal healthcare is socialism.

3) Canada has universal healthcare.

4) The Canadians are Nazis.

>1) The Nazis were socialists.

2) Universal healthcare is socialism.

3) Canada has universal healthcare.

4) The Canadians are Nazis.

PE, I'm afraid you have committed the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." ;-)

Great job fellas...turning a discussion on John McCain into a Fascist-Yes or No debate...unreal.

Getting back on track...of the 7 or 8 clowns on the GOP side, I'd vote for McCain with little problem.

It is interesting to watch, though:
Huckabee is detested by the establishment Repubs like Rush and the Fox Newsies and the rest of the right-wing media (Yes, guys, you ARE the establishment now...you are part of the media elite now...you're no longer outside the gates) for not being true-blue enough on economic policy and (yawn) immigration, and for making too much of his evangelism, even though a healthy swath of the Repubs have been appealing to them for years.
McCain is hated because he has dared challenge Republican orthodixy in some cases and is not enough of an ass-kisser to the party elites.
Romney is hated by the party's religious bigots for being a (yawn..who gives a crap?) Mormon.
Rudy is suspect because of liberal social views.
Thompson can't win because a President cannot work only mornings.

Hilarious watching Republicans eating each other up...I want to save all their nasty quotes about each other so they can be compared to what they're saying in the fall.

"Hilarious watching Republicans eating each other up...I want to save all their nasty quotes about each other so they can be compared to what they're saying in the fall.

I think it has become clear that sooner or later the republican party will split in two. The "corporatists" hate the "theocons" and vice versa. The implosion of that party is in progress and will be complete after the upcoming humiliating defeat in November.

Four years from now, after the Hildebeast wins, it will be interesting to see how the left spins the ruined economy, resurgent terrorism, and our loss of civil rights.
Not that they will need to. The fairness doctrine will silence any dissenting voices.
Some of us are old enough to remember the "triumphs" of the Carter years.

Nazism is socialism PE. That's a fact. Does that make the minimum wage, government-run healthcare and gun control "nazistic?"

No, it makes all socialist policies, INCLUDING nazistic policies (which included one of the first anti-smoking campaigns, government-run healthcare and gun control) SOCIALISTIC.

The reason socialism doesn't work is that due to an intractable human nature, it CANNOT work. Its policies almost universally serve as a disincentive to productivity.

Fred, your endorsement of McCain is a backhanded endorsement. For better, or worse (I say BETTER, and it would seem you'd say WORSE) the GOP's base is CONSERVATIVE, so yeah, those candidates who are suspected of even being to willing to compromise with Liberals are often deemed unacceptable.

And Romney's primary problem with Conservatives isn't his Mormonism, but his "Bay State values" and his flip-flopping on so many major issues.

You're not a Conservative, Fred, so it's understandable you'd be non-plused about the modern GOP. It hasn't been easy being a non-Conservative Republican for some time now....just ask Link Chafee.

And BW, again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. I suppose I'd be considered a "Corporatist," in that I support an unwavering allegience to America's global Corporate interests...and yet, I have no problem with the Religious Right.

Disagreements with them?

Yes, many.

But not near as much, nor as viscious disagreements as I have with Leftists.

If the Arabs came to stone to death the Western Liberals, I can say without all that much hyperbole, that I'd probably load them up with rocks...and there is only slight sarcasm there, as I truly see the Euro-socialists and the American Left as greater enemies to freedom and the Western tradition, than the Islamo-fascists.

Paul, the sad thing is that many of the very same people who laud the Moore-Gore-Soros Axis would ultimately be it's worst victims.

Young BW here, would willingly support a huge wealth transfer FROM his generation to MINE, in the form of nationalized healthcare. The sad thing is that my generation is, even at this point in time, far wealthier than BW's.

Paul said: four years from now, after the Hildebeast wins, it will be interesting to see how the left spins the ruined economy, resurgent terrorism, and our loss of civil rights.
Not that they will need to. The fairness doctrine will silence any dissenting voices.
Some of us are old enough to remember the "triumphs" of the Carter years.

Whatever about your calling a woman a hildebeast because you don't like her. I've given up trying to understand the extremes both Clintons seem to inspire. But I think you can relax about the mere idea of the fairness doctrine being reimplemented and how that might affect Rush, et al. For one thing, the world is a pretty different place from the '70s. So even if your fears about him being driven off the airwaves are correct (and somehow I think he'll survive), there's always the internets. :) As far as I can tell, blogging isn't going anywhere.

"If the Arabs came to stone to death the Western Liberals, I can say without all that much hyperbole, that I'd probably load them up with rocks...and there is only slight sarcasm there, as I truly see the Euro-socialists and the American Left as greater enemies to freedom and the Western tradition, than the Islamo-fascists."

JMK believes this.
No conservative presidential candidate believes this.
Therefore, JMK isn't a real conservative.

"If the Arabs came to stone to death the Western Liberals, I can say without all that much hyperbole, that I'd probably load them up with rocks...and there is only slight sarcasm there, as I truly see the Euro-socialists and the American Left as greater enemies to freedom and the Western tradition, than the Islamo-fascists."

JMK espouses this doozy of a sentiment.
No American presidential candidate has ever espoused this.
Therefore, JMK isn't a real American.

Lots of American Conservatives have expressed that EXACT sentiment, to wit, that the "radical Left" (the Moore-Gore-Soros Axis) is even more dangerous to America than are the Islamo-fascists.

It's a legitimate, albeit quite a divisive sentiment.

Like who? And they have to be 'respectable' ones--Tom DeLay doesn't county although I can't imagine even a psycho like him would think such a thing.

A movie director-an ex-VP-and a rich guy....I'm quaking in my boots.

Actually, it's a fairly widespread viewpoint. Even academics like Dinesh D'Souza have expressed it.

Look, it goes back to the 1940s when most Americans embraced the view that a sincere belief in Collectivism of any kind was a threat to Liberty and Individualism which are "the ESSENCE of Americanism."

There have long been various pernicious "utopian" ideologies that stood proudly anti-Capitalist, anti-Individualist and anti-Liberty, ergo, "anti-American." All I'm saying is that it's right and just that those ideologies and yes, even those who espouse such ideologies be seen and treated as the "enemies of America" that they are.

Oh, the same D'Souza whose book a few years back blaming the cultural left for the 9/11 attacks was himself pilloried by many on the right for his views?

Who else besides Ann Coulter's ex-boyfriend falls in the "fairly widespread viewpoint" category?

As vexing as D'Souza's view, that the West's debased culture (it's pro-gay, sexually libertine, alcohol swilling, porn-addicted "Liberal culture") is what's generated so much of the intense wrath of the Islamists, may be, it's not all that controversial, Fred.

In fact, it's a rather obvious observation on D'Souza's part.

The correct retort to that isn't that, "That's just NOT true," (as it most certainly IS), but that it matters NOT what "makes the Islamists mad." In short, "We WANT to make'm mad!"

And yet that's not the response you get from the idiotic "multi-culturalists" among us. In my view, even more proof that these lemmings deserve to, as they almost certainly will, go the way of the Do Do bird.

All I've stated in that above, and admittedly unsavory way is that I too revile multi-culturalism and would like to see the entire modern Leftist tradition expunged from modern Western culture.

That's probably because I consider 1950s America about the high-water mark for Western culture, as that was a culture heading rapidly toward post-industrial modernity, while still carrying the tried and true values and vestiges of a "better time."

It could and probably should be noted that Sayid Qutb, one of the founders of the Islamic Brotherhood (the group that spawned al Qaeda), was in the U.S. during the late 1940s and found even THAT verison of Western culture to be both revulting and debased...and from a strict Sharia-based viewpoint, it most certainly was, what with alcohol being freely consumed and women allowed out in public unescorted, etc.

So, why do I revere that earlier version of Western culture (one that was also reviled by the Islamists), while myself only reviling the current (I would think unquestioningly far more debased) version?

As simply as I can put it, I suppose I accept the earlier version of American culture as "authentic" and "American," while I see the current "multi-culturalist, politically correct" version as an "effete European convention" inanely and disastrously being adopted by what SHOULD be a "better (at least more individualistic and "rugged") people."

Now, that is indeed a personal viewpoint, but I believe it's one that is difficult to argue with substantively.

I think it is sometimes difficult to talk of such things without risking massive miscommunication and/or treading heavilly on some folk's "cherished principles." I recognize that, inanely enough, many people claim to hold much of the current multi-cultural, politically correct culture dear to them.

Of course, that neither changes nor softens my views on that in any way, nor does it allow me to respect conventions that I see as artificial and foreign ("un-American"?), therefore opening up the possibility for some very emotionally charged responses from those who'd disagree and "hold the Western Leftist tradition dear."

In short, that doesn't make those who'd extoll the virtues of multiculturalism and political correctness necessarily "bad people," in my view, merely because we disagree. I am quite certain that there were many Stalinists and Nazis who also weren't necessarily "bad people."

It's just that likewise, despite that fact, I have no respect for those ideologies either and would've liked very much to have seen the adherants of those ideologies, and those folks who espoused those views "stoned to death," shot, hung, or otherwise removed from posing a danger to what I consider to be "our cherished American values."

Hmmmm, I guess that could be translated into, "While I respect a nazi's or communist's right to espouse those views and values, once they did, I'd support hanging them by the neck ("until they cheered up," as they say).

Well...yes, I'm comfortable with that. I mean, in my view that doesn't actually violate the essence of "freedom of speech," as nowhere is it written that there are no consequences for such views (nazistic, communistic, multiculturalist, politically correct, etc).

See what I'm saying? You can't existentially argue the "free speech rights" of someone who's speech, is, in effect, "I'm going to eradicate your culture," which is what the Stalinists, Nazis, Islamo-fascists and Multi-culturalists are ALL pretty much saying.

There is a proper response to such utterances or viewpoints and it's generally a brutal and bloody one.

I guess Jesus was actually a Conservative Republican, right JMK?

Go ahead and "prove" it ... I just know you can!

Where'd you read that anon-y-mouse?

Jesus lived 2000 years ago.

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 or 1855...

I agree that America's Founders based their concept of Americanism (LIMITED governance, private property rights, open, free markets, etc) on sound "Biblical principles," and I'll further agree that today's Conservatives (I'm a Zell Miller Democratic Conservative) are very much in line with the principles of America's Founding Design, but I'm more a follower of Nietzsche's views, than those of Jesus (although I consider Jesus to be an interesting philosopher, as well).

Still, NONE of what you bring up here has any bearing on what was posted before...unless there's more that's missing from your post???