The American Spectator

Mary| 11.26.08 @ 2:34PM

No, it's not just you. And I don't think his campaign was either the "straight talk express" or particularly honorable.

I'm shocked at how stupid I was in accepting his campaign suspension at face value. You know, no matter how old you get, you can still go stupid in the blink of an eye.

That said, I grew so very sick of hearing both him and Palin refer to themselves as mavericks. They whipped that mule until it bled. What meaningless drivel!

Watch the Palin debate again and see if you can get through it. I couldn't, and the point at which I had to stop was reached when I heard her call him a maverick.

"Will no one rid us of this meddlesome maverick?"

He wasn't concerned about Ayers because he was a "washed up terrorist." It was just a question of judgement. Probe him on that, you'd just get less and less.

Spengler said McCain didn't have 1/10th the "synaptic firepower" that Obama did. I'm not sure about that, but McCain's handling of the economic collapse was as left of the bellcurve as it gets. Nothing there. Absolutely nothing there.

I'm not impressed by Obama either. I don't see him as so many others do. I don't see or hear a great orator. I'm not moved by his writing. But he seems to be a much better thinker than McCain. And as race was a major factor in his election so might it prove to be a major factor in cautious governance. I can't imagine he wants to be the first A-A president who everyone looks back upon as the man who took a weakened Country, and made her permanently disabled. If he's not thinking of his peeps in this way, he should be.

While I'm ticked at McCain, I still applaud his love of Country, and have empathy and much respect for his suffering in the cause, but it can't be, as Sowell wrote, a get out of jail free card. And because of that, and depending on who his opponent in Arizona is, I just might contribute to McCain's retirement fund.

McCain's not alone. Jeremiah Denton's When Hell Was In Session will introduce you to more names, and even to one who refused to leave his cell because he didn't believe (after so many false alarms) that he was really going to be released. It's a shame that I can't remember his name. But there he stayed, and there he died.

Quin Hillyer| 11.26.08 @ 3:33PM

Mary,
Thanks for your comments. Matter of fact, I read "When Hell Was in Session" just a couple of months ago. Great stuff. Mobile, AL just honored Denton on Veterans Day with some sort of big award. Denton is a very nice man, by the way. And I used to get to talk to him because my phone number was one digit off from his golfing buddy, and three different times he dialed mine by mistake! Lucky me. What a hero.

Mary| 11.26.08 @ 7:17PM

His name was Ron Storz.

Admiral Denton writes:

We were leaving it all behind: Heartbreak, New Guy Village, the Mint, Little Vegas, the Gate, Zoo, Alcatraz.

And Ron Storz, Atterberry, and others buried somewhere in North Vietnam.

Edwin Atterberry, another aviator, I believe, was beaten to death.

Of memory eternal, Ron Storz and Edwin Atterberry and those whose names I don't know.

Gin789| 11.26.08 @ 7:36PM

I do not agree with you at all. I voted for McCain because he had sense enough to put Palin on his ticket. I do not trust Obama at all and I think it will not be long before everyone will agree with me. I think he is very dangerous and I hope and pray that he will never become president because he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S.

William Beach| 11.26.08 @ 7:53PM

McCain is, like me is a old man, who should retire.
Of course, I've not been in Congress for almost forever, so I'm still are a real conservative, not a man who brain has be eaten away by Washngton and the hated fed govenment. He should retire or die while campaining. He's not needed, we need new conservative people! The Repub party is sick and dying like someone with colen cancer, and some in it don't or refuse to know it!

John fitness Austin tx | 11.26.08 @ 9:12PM

Strom, "Sheets" Byrd - I don't understand how the people could reelect these guys. McCain - just leave

Alan Brooks| 11.26.08 @ 9:28PM

um, it's called tradition, guys.
tradition isn't always good, but it's tradition.
world isnt here to make us happy. conservatives should know that.
were being TESTED.

Patrick M| 11.26.08 @ 10:27PM

I am a conservative Republican who in favor of term limits. These politicians of both sides always get worse the longer they are in office.
When I saw crawl screen news that McCain made a statement, and knowing that Janet Napolitano wouldnt be running to take the seat, I had a glimmer of hope that maybe he was going to hang it up. False hope I guess. I would like John Shadegg to run and win AZ Senate seat. Maybe we should send McCain notes encouraging retirement. His friend Sen Phil Gramm served 3 terms, and he was a good man. If 3 terms was enough for Gramm, it should be enough for anyone.

It is further distressing that in a situation where we need every vote for filibusters on key items like cap-and-trade legislation, illegal alien amnesty and wasteful new-deal-2.0 type spending, that McCain will be out to lunch and on the side of ruining the GOP brand by agreeing to these bad ideas.

moon.bandit| 11.26.08 @ 10:33PM

Is McCain a Republican? The RNC should make sure Democrats can't nominate our candidates in the future.

BD57| 11.26.08 @ 11:06PM

Yes, I wish he'd retire.

On balance, McCain's weakened the Republican brand over the years. He's never been a leader - he's too busy being a "maverick" (thereby telling the rest of the world that Republicans - and only Republicans - are corrupt, etc.).

McCain would do the party less harm if he declared himself an independent.

J.A. Davis| 11.27.08 @ 10:57AM

I understand the frustration with McCain, but I do think he can still be an important voice for the Republican party during the Obama years. But, then again, maybe not. Anyway, I do think he should be respected for his service as Navy man, and a real Reagan foot soldier in the '80s.

Joe| 11.27.08 @ 12:33PM

"I understand the frustration with McCain, but I do think he can still be an important voice for the Republican party during the Obama years."

Really? WHY? He was never an effective voice for the Republican party during the Bush yers, the Clinton years, the first Bush years, the Reagan years, the Carter years... OMG, how long has he been there, anyway?

With all due respect for his military service and his suffering, as a politician he has never been an important voice for anyone or anything other than John McCain. The term RINO was invented for him. If you're the favorite Republican of the New York Times, you can't be much of a Republican - and McCain isn't. (Of course the NYT turned on him and tried to destroy him when he had the temerity to actually win the GOP nomination and challenge their darling. McCain was genuinely surprised and even a little hurt by this, which should tell you everything you need to know about John McCain.)

We need to start raising money NOW to support a Republican primary chaellenger for McCain - and for the rest of the RINO caucus. What is the point of having "Republicans" in the Congress who agree with Obama on 85% of the issues and who are powerless to stop him on the remaining 15%? Better to have a smaller caucus who can honestly fight the Democrats on all the major issues, for them to create a voting record, call them out on their lies, and then make a case to the American people for "throwing the bums out" in 2010 and 2012 after everyone's had a good look at Jimmy Carter II: The Sequel.

Joe

Bob| 11.27.08 @ 12:48PM

While I cannot support McCain, especially for his choice of Palin, it is easy to see that you anti-intellectual reactionary ideologues don't understand anything about politics. Let me state it plainly -- if you don't get the centrists to vote for you, you can't win. Reagan did it because people knew he would push his right win social views on them, George Bush did it because of his compassionate conservatism. This year Obama won by moving to the middle while McCain, through Palin, moved to the extreme right.

Ideologues are often blinded by their own radicalism. Well, you social conservatives have relegated Republicans to the back row for the next generation.

McCain won the nomination because Republicans, and some independents, voted for him in the primaries. If he was the wrong guy, he wouldn't have been voted in.

If the Republican party listens to all of you whiners, it will continue to lose. The growing demographics including the younger generation, Hispanics, blacks, and yes, homosexuals, are going to become more important, not less. Those of you that post here are dinosaurs and are dying off. The Republican convention had the fewest number of blacks and Hispanics in decade. It is a party of older white folks. (One of the reasons McCain did well was because of seniors, who would not vote for a young black man.)

Stop your whining, stop blaming McCain (except for choosing that know nothing, Palin), and start asking your representatives to come up with conservative solutions to problems instead of just complaining about Democratic initiatives.

Obama will govern to the center because he knows that governing to the left will hurt him and the party. That's why he has chosen a center-left cabinet. Proof of this is that his most vocal critics to date have been the ultra-progressive left.

A Republican is a Republican. I consider social conservatives to be the real RINO's since they obviously don't want to win.

Kapalua| 11.27.08 @ 2:28PM

"...you anti-intellectual reactionary ideologues don't understand anything about politics. Let me state it plainly -- if you don't get the centrists to vote for you, you can't win..." -Bob

Newsflash Bob:

"Let me state it plainly"...

Conservative Republicans win--and will continue to win--by... running as conservatives.

Moderate Republicans lose--and will continue to lose--by... running as moderates.

Bob| 11.27.08 @ 4:10PM

Newsflash Kapalua -- it seems that you don't understand history -- but then again, I expect that of hard right social conservatives. Reagan did not run as a conservative ideologue. He had lots of Hollywood friends that were liberal and gay. He was not a threat to liberal causes. Reagan, or his handlers, knew enough not to alienate moderate Republicans or conservative Democrats. The same is true with the "compassionate conservative" W. And in this cycle, McCain was chosen by Republicans. Most of the people posting here say that he wasn't conservative enough.

So, Kapalua, history proves you absolutely wrong -- unless you want to rewrite history. The truth is that conservative Republicans can ONLY win if they have the backing of moderate Republicans and independents. A "true" conservative, whatever that is, if they have a hard social conservative leaning, cannot win.

Republicans have done a good job alienating young people, Hispanics, blacks, and half the independents through their embrace of social conservative in their platform. It's time to bring the Republican party back to the middle so we can win again.

James C. Eaton| 11.27.08 @ 4:54PM

Bob, with all due respect, and at least 'til now I do respect you, do you have anything else in your quivver? It's always the same old schtick:Social conservatives are stupid, social conservatives are dul, social conservatives are doltish...same old song, different day. Your deep thoughts on social conservatives have long-since ceased being useful; your stuff has long since ceased having even a whiff of perspicacity. Please sir, something new or stop! Best, Judge E

Joe Richardson| 11.28.08 @ 3:27AM

I cast my first votes for Renaldo Maximus. I held my nose as I voted for GeoHBush.....twice. I hohummed 'Im a Doooole man' while voting for Bob. Being a Texan, I voted for GW with hope and conviction. Then went back to holding my nose while casting that ole vote the 2nd time around. I held my nose AND closed my eyes and voted republican this last time around.......and now I feel soiled. No more voting republican. I will only be voting conservative in the future and if there aint one....well guess what? I write in Alfred E Newman. The republicans go left towards the center and they lose me. Im Joe the Telephoneman and theres a bunch of us out here and baby when the party goes left of Ronald Reagan we are GONE.

Roger Ross| 11.28.08 @ 9:20AM

Well Quin, you could move to AZ and help him fade away! Or at least register there and help, I'm sure ACORN has a presence there. Until we have term limits people will blindly keep incumbents in place and while he'd have lost my AZ vote long long ago, McCain doesn't see himself at all like we see him. He appears to actually believe he fights the goodd fight. AZ, you get what you deserve.

Bob| 11.28.08 @ 9:27AM

Judge E - thanks for your point, and it is a good one. I do have visceral anger at social conservatives, not for what they believe, but for what they have done to the party. You would think that religious people would want to work with people, not against them. They use the term RINO more than anyone which is exclusive, not inclusive. They rail against people who are highly educated when I'm telling my children that education and success in school is important. Perhaps even more, they are the most intolerant segment of the party and exclude anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

The Democrats do have principles that push them into the direction of big government, which is wrong headed, but in my opinion, that is far more acceptable than the intolerance and anti-intellectualism of so-cons.

We need our country run by the best and the brightest -- people that can bring us together and not tear us apart. This is contrary to the actions of so-cons.

You are right to call me out on this because while I am objective on most issues, on this one I am as biased as they come. I do see the hatred and name calling of Obama (and McCain/Powell/Weld/etc.) and it reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.

The Republican party has actually been dumbing down for years now, but there have always been the very smart Buckley/Will/Brooks/Frum conservatives with principled views. Now, these people hare being thrown out primarily by the so-cons.

The Democrats need a principled and smart competitor that believes in limited government and fiscal responsibility. The party is becoming inhospitable to those of us who believe in that combination of attributes.

After this election, I decided to fight back instead of doing like most moderate Republicans and staying quiet. Most moderate politicians will not say what they really believe because they need so-cons to win so they just remain quiet and tolerate their views. I've lived my life and don't have that fear, so I will be one of the few voices for tolerance and moderation.

For those who are not so-cons and who are thinking Republicans, there are two basic points of view -- we need to be more conservative or we need to be more inclusive and tolerant. The people in the former group tend to be more ideological and the latter more pragmatic. The ideological group believes that they can convince people that they are right and most people SHOULD think like they do. The pragmatists believe that you don't have the means to change peoples minds and you must have a governing majority -- they are much more realistic about polling research and the numbers. I was a math major in college and did a lot of marketing research in my working life, so I'm obviously a pragmatist/moderate.

I do have a strong ideological belief that if we get away from the religious intolerance, and concentrate on true secular conservative principles, we can unify and win -- the research and numbers show that this is possible. But how do we get there?

Remaining quiet among the vociferous so-cons is not an option. That said, I'll try to scale my tyrade back a bit. Again, many thanks for the comment.

Quartermaster| 11.28.08 @ 10:37AM

The social conservatives are not the problem. Bob history is at best deeply flawed, ignorant at worst. Moderates don't win elections except in blue or purple states. McCain lost because he really had no conservative principles to stand on, and he has been showing since he got burned by the Keating mess. The Reps didn't start winning elections regularly until the SoCons started getting involved.

The laundry list Bob gave us consists of people that will not vote for a Rep unless they engage in the same trash the left engages in. That's why they don't vote Reps.

So, go ahead Bob, run us out of the party if you can. Just get ready for the left to laugh their heads off at you naivety. The list of RINOS you made, are simply Dems that like to run as Reps. They share nothing with the modern party but would fit very well with the corporatists that surrounded Lincoln and other leftists.

My desire for McCain - Go. Home. Stay. We don't need your type. We already have enough unprincipled leftists in office.

Bob| 11.28.08 @ 11:53AM

Quartermaster, you are funny... Here's your quote:

"Moderates don't win elections except in blue or purple states."

Politicians call these "swing states" because if you win them, you win the election. Thanks for showing us how little you know about politics.

You provided the laugh of the day.... Thanks...

James C.Eaton| 11.28.08 @ 1:57PM

Bob, thank you for your civil and gracious response. We have some fundamental perspective and ideological differences. One, religious people or so-cons, have had to deal with the likes of Reid and Pelosi, and now the most abortifacient president in the nation's history. These folks and especially the latter have shown no inclination to cross lines, to compromise ,to engage us. Rather they seek to crush the efficacy of our perspective and exhibit not the slightest reticence in doing so. Imagine have much more disappointing it is for our so-called allies: Ahhhnuld, et al. to say what they say and do what they do. So-cons are not against intellectualism nor higher and truthful education[I know you appreciate the distinction], and although I speak for no one but myself, be assured I too want my children and grandchildren to enjoy comprehensive, competent,a nd authentic education. I just happen to think the Ivy League doesn't enjoy a monopoly on the commodity and think that turning our National governance over to Harvard is foolhardy and will lead us nowhere. Bob, you[and you are not alone here] use the word "hate" too much. My father and grandfather had a cross burned in front of their home, that sir, was hate. Criticizing Powell and Weld for what we perceive as repellant pusillanimousness is not hate. I tend to agree with you that the official Republican Party is dumbing down, but I don't blame that on, nor equate it with the so-cons. I blame it on an excessive desire to be "liked" rather than respected.S ort of like an incompetent and ineffectual parent. Bob, you say we should be pragmatic. As you know, that is an old word, much overused which has come to mean win but really means cause and effect. Perhaps you do intend to use it in its "practical " sense but if so, your request is, with due respect, unappealing. So-cons believe certain acts such as abortion are grave and intrinsic evil. Being the bright and even-handed guy you are, I do not believe YOU would accommodate that which you believe is likewise evil: at least not if you could help it. Finally, judicial canons prohibit me from belonging to any partisan party, frankly, I'm not unhappy about the prohiition. And I agree with your implied suggestion that the official Republican party is self-immolating. What I disagree about is where the blame lies. I think it is not at the so-cons' feet. Best, Judge E

Kapalua| 11.28.08 @ 4:55PM

Bob, HTH:

"Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain

Did you catch that your royal Bobness? 91% of REPUBLICANS have a favorbale view of Governor Palin...

Which tells us that you sir, and your very small segment of the Republican Party, are the problem.

Bob| 11.28.08 @ 5:40PM

Kapalua -- 91% of Republicans also voted for McCain/Palin. If they had a negative view of Palin, that would not occur. The problem is that the Republican party now represents only 28% of voters. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ONLY REPUBLICANS. In fact, you need over 60% of independents to win. Polling showed that 59% of TOTAL VOTERS said that Palin was unqualified to be a VP. That is the problem.

You indicated that 20% of Republicans throught that Palin hurt the ticket. I haven't seen any polls that thought Biden hurt Obama. Big difference there.

The Republican party has dropped from 37% of voters in 2004 to 28% in 2008. While a few of them became Democrats, most became independents. It is no longer relevant what Republicans think of candidates, you need to win over independents. You really need to know how to evaluate the numbers.

In fact, nearly 2/3rds of independents saw Palin as unqualified. Now how can you argue she helped the ticket with those numbers? You can't.

Judge E -- I find little evidence to show that so-cons are not anti-intellectual. "Authentic" education, as you use it, is just another way to demean secular education and justify lower levels of academic competence. Test scores almost universally indicate that the best students go to Ivy League schools and high quality state schools like the University of California. There are no objective measures that indicate otherwise.

I do blame the dumbing down of the Republican party on the anti-intellectual rantings of so-cons. In fact, I find that your post attempts to justify this but has no analytical merit.

Do I use "hate" too much? Probably, but I'm tired of listening to "qualified" conservatives who lack analytical skills. This includes people like Rush Limbaugh who continually makes arguments on spurious facts.

I'm not going to change the minds of ideologues -- i.e., people who substitute belief for reason. But this results in voting for people who lack competence and intelligence because those are secondary factors for them.

I do believe in reducing abortions -- no one in their right mind could make a positive of that action. However, the goal should not be to change one's ideology as it currently exists in the Republican party, but to find the best methods, based on testing and science, to achieve that result. Abstinence is not the only method, nor has it proven better than sex education and contraception.

I also have no love loss for Reid and Pelosi. They are as incompetent as Boehner and McConnell. I would not support any of them.

Kapalua| 11.28.08 @ 11:31PM

Bob,

Some highly recommended reading for you...

"Myths of Moderation" by Robert Stacy McCain (latest blog entry here at AS)...

"The moderate argument that Republicans lose independents because of specific conservative policy stances -- on immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc. -- simply does not fit the reality of who these voters are. (And there is plenty of evidence that independents tend to be conservative on social issues.)

HTH

ruth| 11.29.08 @ 2:32AM

Good luck, Bob, if you think you're going to run SoCons out of the republican party. We own it!

Bob| 11.29.08 @ 1:46PM

Kapalua -- I've read the article and commented. It is not intellectually cohesive and specious in its use of data. Read my responses. If you are taken in by what he said, you need to study rigorous analysis.

Kapalua| 11.29.08 @ 8:29PM

Bob,

"I've read the article and commented. It is not intellectually cohesive..."

LOL... That is just priceless...

Give it up your Royal Bobness... Go have a drink with Peggy, Kathleen and the like and celebrate your loftiness...

ruth| 11.30.08 @ 12:19AM

'Your Royal Bobness', I like that one.

Bob| 11.30.08 @ 3:53PM

Thanks, guys. I guess I'm going to have to start using the royal "we". Let me get some practice:

WE THANK YOU FOR PEASANTRY AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM. YOU ARE EXCUSED.

adagioforstrings| 11.30.08 @ 7:01PM

Bob,

What do you feel should be the major planks of the Republican party & how should it differ from the Democrats' platform?

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 7:48AM

Adagio --

I believe Republicans should stand for limited government, fiscal moderation, non-interventionist foreign policies, competent management, and individual liberties and opportunities. That's it. No religious platform, no moralities (I'm better than you) platform, and no neo-conservative nation building.

We need to get away from a simplistic view of economics as a "low taxes" only method. That should morph into fiscal responsibility. If you want to go to war, you pay for it and tax people. If you want to expand government, you pay for it. Deficit spending is not the answer. Making people feel the pain for the services they want is a far better answer.

We also need to get away from the hatred of smart people. Our leaders need to be the best and the brightest. They should have done well in school, studied the issues, know the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and how things get done in Washington.

No matter how you view it, Democrats are for bigger government which will require higher taxes. Competence is one of the big issues and we ought to look at one's history to see if they were competent. McCain has always been an individual, and not a leader. Bush was a business failure during most of his career. Romney, for example, was always successful and very competent. Bobby Jindal has a lot of promise. They are both smart, successful, did well in school, and study the issues. They are both intellectually curious. Both of them fulfill my definition above.