McCain grumbles about having to build “the goddamned fence”

posted at 9:47 pm on January 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

Vanity Fair profiles St. John, a man of conscience who strayed from the path by joining the Republican Party. What doth it profit a man to gain the Oval Office, asks author Todd Purdum, if he should lose his soul to Bush’s theocrat war machine?

You know what, Todd? You can have him.

A day earlier, in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.” Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”

Don’t worry; no matter how much we may want it, no one’s building the goddamned fence.

Here’s something for the “Christianists” among us:

“Yes, he’s a social conservative, but his heart isn’t in this stuff,” one former aide told me, referring to McCain’s instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion. “But he has to pretend [that it is], and he’s not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can’t fake it well enough.”

And of course his fatal attraction with the left:

The battle between Bush and McCain in 2000 was bitter, with Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading rumors that McCain was insane and that he had fathered a black child. (McCain and his wife, Cindy, are the adoptive parents of a girl from Bangladesh.) Bush and McCain traded insults involving each other’s moral standing. A year later, with bad feeling still so high that strategist John Weaver had been virtually blackballed from working in Republican politics, Weaver went so far as to sound out Democratic Senate leaders about the possibility of having McCain caucus with them. This would have put the Senate, then divided 50–50, into Democratic control. Aides to two senior Senate Democrats say it was never clear how serious McCain himself was about the proposal, and any possibility that it might actually happen was short-circuited when another Republican, James Jeffords, of Vermont, made the move first, in 2001.

Romney’s people e-mailed me the link to his exploratory committee’s new website today and I was going to ignore it, but after this? Go on — explore Mitt.

As with all pieces about McCain, inevitably there’s something to admire too. The surge is going to happen, and it’s unlikely to do much good, but at least it gives us a chance. And that chance is exceedingly important:

He went on: “My difference with these people who are saying, ‘Threaten the Iraqis with leaving and then they’ll do more’—that assumes that they can or will do more. And there’s no way that you’re going to have any kind of stability without security. Political progress cannot take place unless you have the fundamental elements of a security situation. So, do I know it would be a tremendous strain on the army and Marine Corps? Absolutely. But I saw the kind of impact of a broken army, a defeated army and Marine Corps, after Vietnam. And I’d much rather have ‘em take a strain and have some success than be defeated.“…

I look you straight in the eye, my friend, and tell you: I want to be president of the United States. I don’t want to be president of the United States so badly that I’m going to do something that I know is not right for the security of this nation and the young men and women that are defending it. So, if this position [of supporting a troop increase] makes me viewed as too militaristic, or unrealistic, or whatever it is, I will more than happily take those political consequences, because I’ll sleep a hell of a lot better.”

I believe him. Read the whole thing. And look out for the description of the injuries inflicted upon him by the VC, followed by the “workout” anecdote involving Bush which I hope to god is apocryphal. Although I kind of suspect it isn’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Yawn. Todd Purdum? Is he still Mr. DeeDee Myers?

JammieWearingFool on January 3, 2007 at 9:53 PM

One and the same JWF! Vanity’s whole purpose for being is to destroy the Republican party month by month!

Pam on January 3, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Here’s something for the “Christianists” among us:

What the heck is this new term you are trying to coin, “Christianist”? There is no such thing as a “Christian-ist” IF you’re referring to most of the fake churches, meaning non-pentecostal Apostolic, Jesus name baptizing, tongue talking, then the term would be “Christian-ISH”, but I don’t get what the “IST” is supposed to denote.

Soothsayer on January 3, 2007 at 10:03 PM

I think he’s using the term, coined by Andrew Sullivan as a pejorative, sarcastically.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 10:05 PM

It’s simple: The day John McCain gets the Republican nomination, that’s the day I form the Republicans for Hillary Committee. And I mean every f*ing word of that. American has proven it can survive the Clintons. But if McCain got elected, he would destroy what’s left of the Republican Party and that would be the end of hope.

Ali-Bubba on January 3, 2007 at 10:10 PM

I think he’s using the term, coined by Andrew Sullivan as a pejorative, sarcastically.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Good to know what is an acceptable pejorative.

McCain. Campaign finance reform was his white whale and he extracted that mess from Bush for political fealty. That is enough for me. But it will be fun to listen to Rush mock him during the campaign.

Doesn’t anybody see shades of Ross Perot in this guy?

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 10:10 PM

McCain has and always will have my respect for his service to this nation, his military service. I admire the man for the personal strength it took to survive what he went through. It’s tough to be critical of someone you respect in that way. But, I’m afraid I must. When it comes to being a Reagan Republican, a Reagan Republican he ain’t. If the 2001 story is true, and I have no reason to believe it’s not, his potential switch to caucus with the dems only proves what I suspected for years..this man puts his ambition above his parties principles time and time again. I cannot forgive him for McCain-Feingold no more than I forgive Bush for signing it. His belief on interogation tactics make no sense. He, above all others ought to understand the difference between interogation and torture. His silly claim that allowing certain interogation techniques will put our troops in harms way? What? Have you been hanging around the coke machine with Obama? In case you’ve missed it senator, our troops and contractors were already being mistreated. To think that beasts and animals are going to change their behavior because of how we conduct our interogations is beyond assanine. You just have to shake your head at his reasoning on some issues. Immigration is another short-coming of his, working with Ted Kennedy to get an amnesty bill through the senate? Again, you shake your head. I hope and I pray this is not the best we have to offer…

ritethinker on January 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM

But I saw the kind of impact of a broken army, a defeated army and Marine Corps, after Vietnam.

Mythologizing self-aggrandizing Horsesh*t.
He saw no such thing. It’s not what happened.
But it’s the perfect horsesh*t to sell to a Vanity Fair douchebag.
McCain was a hard-to-kill missile magnet aboard Forrestal and in the skies above Viet Nam. All credit for being there at all, for surviving it and for surviving as a POW. But as noted above, the people closest to him know he spends a lot of his day pretending to be someone he is not. A lot of us have always seen his acting as inadequate.

Stephen M on January 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM

McCain is an idiot and only an IDIOT would vote for him. He’s the same as BUSH, sometimey conservative and sometimey Christian, who the hell needs him? Who cares what he thinks about the “surge”! The fact that a “surge” is needed speaks directly to the utter INCOMPETENCE of the Bush Administration and serves as a stark reminder that Donald Rumsfeld should have been fired TWO YEARS AGO! His masturbatory vision of a “smaller, sleeker fighting force” was obviously WRRROONNGGG as WRONG can get. And any idiot who subscribed to this theory should be fired, INCLUDING Bush’s punk ass. Here was a country held together by MURDER, RAPE, and INTIMIDATION, it was ruled by the MINORITY of the country, which accounts for the BRUTALITY, since the smaller number had to have fear and loathing on their side in lieu of numbers. The very fact that any buffoon sought to replace the Irag army WITH A SMALLER NUMBER and YET maintain order, was as they say, patently ABSURD. The overthrow of the Powell Doctrine, which was WINNING BY OVERWHELMING force, should be an impeachable offense. As a conservative I would love to see Bush get his ass kicked all over town on this one. Because it is my belief that his bending over and grabbing the ankles for his fellow LIBERALS, lead to things like, sending pamphlets out before we raid, knocking on doors to see if Terrorists are home, not wanting to “offend” the savages we should have been SUBJUGATING, oh yeah, and for giving SADDAM fourteen months to hide the weapons!. For all the above Bush should be removed for office for being incompetant as a “Commander in Chief”. What a joke.

Soothsayer on January 3, 2007 at 10:17 PM

He, above all others ought to understand the difference between interogation and torture. His silly claim that allowing certain interogation techniques will put our troops in harms way? What? Have you been hanging around the coke machine with Obama? In case you’ve missed it senator, our troops and contractors were already being mistreated. ritethinker on January 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Absoulutely RT, Not only should he understand the difference between torture and interrogation, but he should be honest and admit that TORTURE WORKS! McCain by his own admission was BROKEN BY TORTURE, but all he whines about is how the intell it results in will be “outdated” blah, blah, blah,. What about Mohammed Atta? If we could’a turned the screws on him around the time we were fagging around and unable to look at his friggin’ LAPTOP, we might’ve got some “actionable Intelligence”! Torture does work because if they lie, they are still in your custody right?

We can continue to fight a user-friendly war or we can try to win, but we can’t do both.

Soothsayer on January 3, 2007 at 10:23 PM

… not wanting to “offend” the savages we should have been SUBJUGATING …

Attention, Beltway conservative elite: This is what real conservative Republicans sound like. I have never heard a conservative outside Washington use the phrase “religion of peace” except sarcastically. The phrase “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” is the kind of “tactical paradigm” we want to see put to work in Anbar Province, and let CAIR and HRW suck it!

Ali-Bubba on January 3, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Stephen M is correct, we had no “defeated army and Marine Corps”. We never lost a single battle in VN. And as I’ve said a million times … Operation Linebacker Two. Hey McCain, go look it up! South Vietnam lost the war after we left. We left because the North promised not to invade (never trust a commie), they made that promise after we destroyed their ability to fight, we destoyed their ability to fight with Linebacker Two. The Dems cut funding to S.V. and that was the end of the freedom in S.E. Asia and the beginning of a communist nightmare that cost the lives of untold millions in the region. Dems, always on the wrong side of history.

Tony737 on January 3, 2007 at 10:44 PM

well I guess you guys covered it.

see ya tomorrow.

shooter on January 3, 2007 at 10:46 PM

RHINO POS!! I hate McCain.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 3, 2007 at 10:48 PM

See, he’s just another Democrat who left the party because it’s too wacky these days. The Republican party has a chance to be what it should be in ’08 but not with RINOs like McVain and Guiliani.

We will only win if we aren’t wishy washy, right of freakout leftists. We need to embrace our identity. McCain reminds me of the Manchurian Candidate. He talks some good game (as in the last quote) but produces the McCain-Feingold JOKE and attempts amnesty with Kennedy!?!

After looking over Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues, I think our only chance at winning a true conservative Republican presidency is with a Romney/Gingrich or vice versa ticket.

As for the “goddamned fence” remark, well, that just added a goddamned brick in the wall between me and a ballot with his name on it.

NTWR on January 3, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Mcain is brain damaged from being a POW, he a socialist RHINO Republican Illegal loving politican…

he’s a pain in my ass.

he seemed really likeable, truthful and good, but he loves the illegals and hugs them…

retired on January 3, 2007 at 11:17 PM

“By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”

Somebody better build the goddamned fence! But I’m not trusting McCain to do it. I as others, respect his service to this country, (unlike kerry) but I don’t trust him running it.

R D on January 3, 2007 at 11:33 PM

McCain is an effective middle-manager who can do what he’s told quite successfully. He does not, however, have the ability to step up to leadership qualities that would allow him to take risks and truly lead the country. Romney, Gingrich, Guiliani – all better candidates.

thedecider on January 3, 2007 at 11:53 PM

After looking over Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues, I think our only chance at winning a true conservative Republican presidency is with a Romney/Gingrich or vice versa ticket.

OKAY! I can live with that. Gingrich/Romney though, for me. I believe I said on another thread Gingrich/Lott, but now I think the idea is comming through. Gingrich is ready to run, but I worry about the smear machine out there. The msm will dig up all the old crap from his past, and then there we go again. I think Nute Gingrich would be a great president.

R D on January 3, 2007 at 11:56 PM

There’s still a post lost in space, but, Gingrich/Romney sounds pretty goddamned good!

R D on January 4, 2007 at 12:00 AM

If McCain gets the nomination–seriously–I’m not voting.

urbancenturion on January 4, 2007 at 12:08 AM

McCain is an effective middle-manager who can do what he’s told quite successfully. He does not, however, have the ability to step up to leadership qualities that would allow him to take risks and truly lead the country. Romney, Gingrich, Guiliani – all better candidates.

A quibble: We live in a republic, a representative form of government. Therefore, what I want in an elected official is a concern for, and a respect for, the people. What I do not want is “leadership qualities.” The American people do not need “leaders,” we need representatives.

Ali-Bubba on January 4, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Aides to two senior Senate Democrats say it was never clear how serious McCain himself was about the proposal

He was going to jump ship over getting involved in a dirty, mudslinging campaign..the kind that goes on all the time. Did he think he was above it? Didnt his people give as good as they got? YES on both accounts.
I respect him and appreciate his sacrifice and his bravery. However that doesnt translate as voting for him. I wouldnt even vote for him on a local level. Just too much about him screams “opportunist”…and his complete DISDAIN for people who ascrible to many Republican views: illegal immigrant control, fences, lower taxes, freedom to support monetarily those you agree with in an election..those people he disparages and defames.
No thanks Mr McCain..my vote and I will be looking elsewhere.

labwrs on January 4, 2007 at 12:12 AM

labwrs, happy new year! How are you? Long time, no talk!

2008 has a good chance of a 3-way. McCain and Lieberman will be on the Independent ticket, Edwards/Obama on the Left and no idea who on the right.

Which will win in such a scenario?

Entelechy on January 4, 2007 at 12:15 AM

He does not, however, have the ability to step up to leadership qualities that would allow him to take risks and truly lead the country. Romney, Gingrich, Guiliani – all better candidates.

thedecider on January 3, 2007 at 11:53 PM

GIULIANI SUCKS EVEN BIGGER THAN MCCAIN! What kind of a piece of crap moves his adulterous whore into the same house as his CHILDREN? What kind of “better candidate”, thinks that it’s okay to induce labor and stick a pin in the head of a partially born baby? The biggest threat facing this country may not even be Al Queda! It COULD be all the sick and twisted shit that the liberals are teaching your children that have your daughters eating out their girlfriends as a FRIGGING FAD!!!!!! Children are sponges, blank slates with no innate “morality compass”, morals have to be taught, Giulianis “morals” are not what I want my children to know. He’s a Sodomites best friend and was always doing puff pieces (pun intended) for The Advocate a leading homosexual periodical. An ABORTION LOVING friend of SODOMITES is not a suitable candidate for a conservative party.

I agree with you about McCain’s lack of leadership ability, he seems to have some kind of personality disorder. Just look at his reasoning, he says that to risk “offending” the Hispanics, the party will “pay” in the long run. But what about right and wrong? What about the fact that we don’t need millions of GRADE SCHOOL DROPOUTS clogging our emergency rooms, STEALING food stamps for AMERICANS that have fallen TEMPORARILY on hard times and impregnating each other with ANCHOR BABIES! We have poor and starving American’s that need help dammit, New Orleans ring a bell? Every time I see vids from New Orleans (except the Superdome), it looks like six days after Katrina! And why the hell should we REWARD a bunch of LIARS, IDENTITY THIEVES and RACISTS who dream of AZTLAN, subjugating Whites, Blacks and Asians and returning this land back to the Conquistas?

Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 12:24 AM

HAPPY NEW YEAR to you too Entelechy! We are moving soon so been very busy! And that WURKthing..we need to find a way to chitchat!

ARGHH..your 3way scenario is giving me a headache..NOOOOOOOO !

labwrs on January 4, 2007 at 12:25 AM

A quibble: We live in a republic, a representative form of government. Therefore, what I want in an elected official is a concern for, and a respect for, the people. What I do not want is “leadership qualities.” The American people do not need “leaders,” we need representatives.

Ali-Bubba on January 4, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Well, good luck on that. Ever since the politicians started getting paid for their service, they thought their opinion mattered more than JQPublic. Then when they decided they could make a career out of it, things got even worse. Now a low rent POS politician in anytown USA, can retire with a fat pension and benifits. A short job in the public eye reaps big rewards. Longer stints…well just look at them…

R D on January 4, 2007 at 12:26 AM

labwrs, it’s a likely scenario, though. I just commented to your “like to watch” on the Cindy thread.

Ask AP for my home e-mail address.

Where are you moving to? Atlanta/vicinity still, or another city? Missed you,

Entelechy on January 4, 2007 at 12:27 AM

*is getting dizzy*
Entelechy..moving to Nashville..another “opportunity of a lifetime” like the one that took us to Paris. Go ahead and ask AP for mine too..no problem. I gotta scoot to bedtime..late here EST! Missed ya too! Talk soon!

labwrs on January 4, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Allahpundit, you are an evil man! How do you do that?

R D on January 4, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Allahpundit, you are an evil man! How do you do that?

R D on January 4, 2007 at 12:33 AM

I meant holding a post ’til I post another one. :-) Just to be clear.

R D on January 4, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Seems a little early to be making all these conclusions.

Griz on January 4, 2007 at 1:04 AM

McCain was a different man when he was in the Navy. That man is long gone now. A defeated military? Pardon my cynicism, but I think he’s got ulterior motives. We lost Vietnam in the halls of Washington because of lazy, elitist fatcats like what McCain has become. The fact that he even agreed to do an interview with Vanity Fair should be evidence enough that he is way, way out of touch.

PRCalDude on January 4, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Exactly, PRCalDude. We can look back at the man he WAS and admire THAT man but what he has become deserves no admiration, adoration, or recognition. He’s just another empty suit, pandering to whomever he believes will get him the most political points without thinking of the consequences for our country.

I won’t vote if he’s the nominee. And that’s saying a lot.

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 1:34 AM

Exactly, PRCalDude. We can look back at the man he WAS and admire THAT man but what he has become deserves no admiration, adoration, or recognition. He’s just another empty suit, pandering to whomever he believes will get him the most political points without thinking of the consequences for our country.

I won’t vote if he’s the nominee. And that’s saying a lot.

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 1:34 AM

Ditto!

R D on January 4, 2007 at 1:56 AM

Here’s something for the “Christianists” among us:
“Yes, he’s a social conservative, but his heart isn’t in this stuff,” one former aide told me, referring to McCain’s instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion. “But he has to pretend [that it is], and he’s not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can’t fake it well enough.”

First slap us in the face with your biting sarcasm over the SPP’s far reaching, (curiously vauge and lacking of framework or specifics) goals; acting as if the establishment clause that has given us the Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, FCC, SEC, Dept of Commerce, FDA, and FEMA, (one little sentence mind you) could never, ever, in anyway become a EU style economic/political block. That’s just crazy!

Question Allah: How do you suppose to combine and standardize the currencies of Mexico, Central America, and South America? The “Amero” maybe. Tell me I’m wrong. Tell me I have misread the history of the formation European Union. Please put my mind at ease.

But now you come up with this “Christianist” bull****! What did I miss Allah? Was this country not founded on Judeo-Christian principles by Christian men? Did I miss the fact that this country and every other country legislates their collective morality to whatever degree the society deems neccesary. I must have ben reading historical texts that have been cleverly altered by “Christianists”…

So with your new phraseology you effectively alter the current lexicon. “Islamist” is just a guy that wants Islam reflected in his society. Oooo shame on him, especially if he lives in a majority muslim country. How, I say how, dare he!

Since you see fit to create new terms to suit your personal feelings please bless us with your new term for those that want Sharia in every land at all cost, because “Islamist” is not going to fit the bill any longer.

Where the heck is See-dubya and Brian, I grow weary of Libertarianesque prattle.

*waits to be banned*

Theworldisnotenough on January 4, 2007 at 2:12 AM

Wow! Just an opinion, but, you must REALLY like McCain! And being just a poster here, and not an expert, you really have to give a better effort to getting banned. Throw in a few cuss words, insult more muslims. Hey, I’ve got it! If you’re really waiting to be banned, why don’t you insult Michelle? Sheesh! getting banned is easy, you just aint trying hard enough..,,

R D on January 4, 2007 at 2:40 AM

Like McCain? Pffft. How do you figure? What about my post leads you to believe I like McCain?

Theworldisnotenough on January 4, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Like McCain? Pffft. How do you figure? What about my post leads you to believe I like McCain?

Theworldisnotenough on January 4, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Well, nevermind. I see it’s a little more personal that that. I will stand down now. Good Night.

R D on January 4, 2007 at 3:16 AM

That was just not right. A civilian does not stand down. I don’t even know where that came from. I’ll sit down and then wander off to sleep. Good night.

R D on January 4, 2007 at 3:26 AM

Worldisnotenough:

You must have missed Slublog’s response to Sooth earlier re: “Christianist” –

I think he’s using the term, coined by Andrew Sullivan as a pejorative, sarcastically.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Sully came up with that term some time after gay marriage became the only issue in his universe, it was kind of a big deal at the time he came out with it.

But – and I am only saying that because I care – there’s a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing. :-)

Laura on January 4, 2007 at 4:03 AM

2008 has a good chance of a 3-way.

Yeah, I think so, too … if I can meet the right two chicks …

Ali-Bubba on January 4, 2007 at 5:08 AM

Having seen the estimates for the border fence (billions and billions of dollars), I say just hire more Border Patrol. More uniforms on the border will deter illegal entry better than a fence than can be cut through.
Further, set up more check-points inland of the border to catch those that manage to cross the immediate border-line.
Also never hire a homeland security chief that sounds like Chertoff.

gary on January 4, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Take the 30,000+ US troops on the border with North Korea and put them ALL on the border with Mexico, before we become AMERICO.
As for McCain, he, along with with a long list of other RINOS, are destroying what is left of the GOP.

mountainmanbob on January 4, 2007 at 7:53 AM

I’m not impressed with John McCain and no amount of heroism is going to change that. Respect, yes, absolutely.

BUT JANE IS NOT IMPRESSED.

seejanemom on January 4, 2007 at 8:53 AM

Last summer, he hiked the Grand Canyon rim to rim with his son,

I think that qualifies as a workout.

mikeyboss on January 4, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Last summer, he hiked the Grand Canyon rim to rim with his son,

I think that qualifies as a workout.

mikeyboss on January 4, 2007 at 8:59 AM

I think that qualifies as one giant rimjob.

James on January 4, 2007 at 9:12 AM

2008 has a good chance of a 3-way.

Yeah, I think so, too … if I can meet the right two chicks …

Ali-Bubba on January 4, 2007 at 5:08 AM

AB, that’s sick and perverted! I can’t believe you said that! (And if you do find the right two chicks, as them if they have a couple of friends…)

rmgraha on January 4, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Take the 30,000+ US troops on the border with North Korea and put them ALL on the border with Mexico, before we become AMERICO.

You mean CANAMERICO, don’t you?

rmgraha on January 4, 2007 at 9:16 AM

What the heck is this new term you are trying to coin, “Christianist”? There is no such thing as a “Christian-ist” IF you’re referring to most of the fake churches, meaning non-pentecostal Apostolic, Jesus name baptizing, tongue talking, then the term would be “Christian-ISH”, but I don’t get what the “IST” is supposed to denote.

Soothsayer on January 3, 2007 at 10:03 PM

Not that it surprises me, but you’re really behind the times ‘sayer. Sullivan’s been proudly using his new word every chance he gets and it’s quickly spreading across the lexicon. For all of those still confused, let me try to help you out.

Muslim–a person practicing the religion of Islam.
Christian–a person practicing the religion of Christianity
Islamist–a Muslim who wishes to impose his religious beliefs on others (ie. Sharia law)
Christianist–a Christian who wishes to impose his relgious beliefs on others (ie. ban gay marriage, outlaw the teaching of evolution)

Clearly the tactics used by Islamists and Christianists are radically different, most notably the fact Christianists haven’t blown up any buildings or killed any civilians lately. The similarities lie in that both wish to impose the moral standards and practices of their personal, relgious faith to society at large.

JaHerer22 on January 4, 2007 at 9:29 AM

The battle between Bush and McCain in 2000 was bitter, with Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading rumors that McCain was insane and that he had fathered a black child.

Funny, being in South Carolina during that campaign, having Bush come and speak at my college and being involved with politics, I never heard that, especially the whole black child comment.

But of course, Vanity Fair had to throw that in because all us South Carolina hick Christians hate us some brown people.

Now about being insane – I never heard that as a rumor, but I often wondered about it myself.

wardrobedoor on January 4, 2007 at 9:35 AM

And we have to listen to his g*ddamn back-biting whining.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM

The “straight-talk” express rides again, huh? McCain is just the Ted Kennedy of Arizona.
I’d rather have Jeb Bush run against the Hillary person.

gary on January 4, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Romney saved the SLC Olympics, Gingrich created and destroyed the Con majority Congress, while Rudy Giuliani made NYC livable, subdued the Mob, fought the NYT and the Manhattan Libs on social issues, and stood tall on the darkest days in American history since WWII. But yeah since Rudy had some marital problems he’s undeserving of the office.

Back in the real world, the best ticket out there combines a thrice married abortion and gun rights wet with a single 50 year old black woman professor. Of course she is what Charlton Heston would have called a gun nut and a 2nd Amendment absolutist, while he is a very conservative Catholic that fights for family values, against government funding for “Piss Christ” and elephant dung flecked icons of the Virgin, and tells Saudi Oil Parasites just where to stick their anti-american and anti-semitic checks and heads. Giuliani-Rice 08, Iran, then Syria, then France!

libertarianuberalles on January 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Here’s something for the “Christianists” among us:

I saw that one coming a mile away. Frankly, if he gets the GOP nomination I’m not voting for him OR the dem side. Count me in the write in catagory. Not over the social conservative issues, but more so over immigration and the whole social security going to people who dont BELONG here thing.

America is being bankrupted by guys like him.

One Angry Christian on January 4, 2007 at 10:39 AM

RINO

NRA4Freedom on January 4, 2007 at 10:40 AM

McCain is the architect for most of the sabatoges of conservatives in Congress over the last 7 years. A vote for him is a vote against Reagan Republicans. It should be fun to watch Limbaugh and McCain take down each other over the next year.

Valiant on January 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Keep digging that hole, Johnny Boy.

thirteen28 on January 4, 2007 at 11:17 AM

I think that qualifies as one giant rimjob.

James on January 4, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Also true :^)

mikeyboss on January 4, 2007 at 11:46 AM

I might be too late here, this post will be at the bottom and everyone has pretty much read and left. But here goes..

We may have to vote for McCain if he is the nominee. Listen to me for just a sec. Depending on the dem nominee, we may have to hold our nose and vote for the guy. The time to defeat him is in the primaries. This is the mistake we’re paying for now. Some this past election stayed home because they were unhappy with the GOP. Fine, I am too. But the time to punish is in the primary, not the generals. If an Evan Bayh, who’s not running, or a Lieberman, who’s not running, were the dem candidates, then I would either abstain or vote another party depending on the quality of the platform and candidate. My vote may well put these two into office but I can live with these two guys…can’t vote for them but can accept them for four years. Sir Edmund on the other hand, or Osama(Hussein), Edwards, or the literate Kerry, no way on God’s green Earth would I allow my vote to hand them the oval orifice. We need to wait and see how things will play out and then get involved at the primary level to influence the outcome. Waiting til the general election is not the right approach and not the right time to punish your own nominee. Let us not foget the Perot lesson………

ritethinker on January 4, 2007 at 11:54 AM

McCain is bad for America sadly. His view and actions on illegal aliens is unenlightened and wrong, very wrong.

Illegal aliens have nothing to do with Hispanic’s, etc. It has everything to do with what is right. Treating all potential immigrants fair. Those that jump the line, deserve deportation and a permanent bar from residency in the United States. If we need immigrants for work, etc…do it properly, have them apply, go through the background investigation process, someone guarantee they will not be a financial burden to the US Government(required of individuals legally entering the country). Getting away with breaking our laws for ten years, etc, should not be a reason for leniency. His Dream act is a Nightmare and UnAmerican as his view on illegals. If we fail to control our borders, we will cease to be the America that stands as the beacon to the world.

I give him credit for supporting the military action in Iraq. He is a better person than Clinton, Obama, etc…still he is far from the best the Republicans have to offer. Let us choose one in the mold of Reagan, a truly great American, perhaps Romney.

MarkB on January 4, 2007 at 11:55 AM

I find it interesting that so many of you folks (conservatives) are so ready to embrace Mitt. His conversion on abortion and gay rights doesn’t bother you? It would seem to me that after the Bush bait and switch, you would take a harder look at any conservative’s bona fides.

Just find it interesting. I’m hoping Richardson will run for our team. All the early indicators are usually wrong in any case.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Just find it interesting. I’m hoping Richardson will run for our team. All the early indicators are usually wrong in any case.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 12:39 PM

It’s like watching a beach ball being passed around a stadium. Today Rudy rocks, tomorrow McCain is the second coming, and on the third day a Reagan clone descended from the clouds! And the old favs are cast out with the demons.

But you are right.. it is a long way to the primaries and the only thing guaranteed is that things will change often.

Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Romney saved the SLC Olympics, Gingrich created and destroyed the Con majority Congress, while Rudy Giuliani made NYC livable, subdued the Mob, fought the NYT and the Manhattan Libs on social issues, and stood tall on the darkest days in American history since WWII. But yeah since Rudy had some marital problems he’s undeserving of the office.

No, Guiliani’s undeserving of the oval office because of his stance on the 2nd amendment, ILLEGAL immigration, and his tendency to say things like “all dogs of a certain breed should be rounded up and euthanized” despite the fact that the breed is part of America’s history. But don’t get me started on that, it just smacks of genocide, even if it is just dogs.

I find it interesting that so many of you folks (conservatives) are so ready to embrace Mitt. His conversion on abortion and gay rights doesn’t bother you? It would seem to me that after the Bush bait and switch, you would take a harder look at any conservative’s bona fides.

You’ve brought this up before, but I think most conservatives aren’t willing to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” on these two issues alone. Especially not during a time of war. I think most conservatives actually believe the whole “it’s my body” thing and would rather not have the government interfere, but the Democrats want the government to come out and out-right condone behavior that conservatives privately disagree with. That’s when conservatives get upset. That’s my take anyway.

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Abortion and gay rights can be debated after we ensure that there is an America in which to debate it.

Terrorism and border security are national survival issues. Abortion and gay rights, along with most of the other mostly petty liberal/conservative hangups that we’ve previously had the luxury to debate will all be moot if we don’t take care of them first.

James on January 4, 2007 at 2:01 PM

As a non political entity, I really do like John McCain. His service and loyalty to this country goes far and beyond what you could normally ask someone to give. He deserves free beer and steaks from the populace for as long as he lives, IMO.

As a politician, the only way I would ever even consider voting for him is if the only other choice is Hillary. Even then it will require several strong shots so I can later claim diminished capacity. God help me, but I hate him as a politician.

Defense Guy on January 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM

I’m hoping Richardson will run for our team. All the early indicators are usually wrong in any case.

Is that William Jefferson Richardson?

Another used-car salesman shoulda been.

hillbillyjim on January 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Worldisnotenough:

You must have missed Slublog’s response to Sooth earlier re: “Christianist” –

I think he’s using the term, coined by Andrew Sullivan as a pejorative, sarcastically.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Sully came up with that term some time after gay marriage became the only issue in his universe, it was kind of a big deal at the time he came out with it.

But – and I am only saying that because I care – there’s a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing. :-)

Aight…

*calms down*

Not that I pay attention to anything Andrew Sullivan cares to opine about, but it appears I’m a little late (very) to the terms usage and origins.

Theworldisnotenough on January 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM

You’ve brought this up before, but I think most conservatives aren’t willing to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” on these two issues alone. Especially not during a time of war. I think most conservatives actually believe the whole “it’s my body” thing and would rather not have the government interfere, but the Democrats want the government to come out and out-right condone behavior that conservatives privately disagree with. That’s when conservatives get upset. That’s my take anyway.

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 1:39 PM

I’ll throw the baby out with the bath water. Let the GOP actually get the message. After a thorough trouncing at the polls they act as if they were not liberal or hispanic pandering enough. Their internal polls still have the “never voted democrat in my life” vote strong. Let them take a bath and lose the middle for not being conservative enough and maybe just maybe they’ll get it. How dense do you have to be to not know that they lost for abandoning conservatism? The freshman class of democrats ran on border security, economic populismnationalism, Iraq (winning in Iraq). So get a clue GOP.

Theworldisnotenough on January 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM

You’ve brought this up before, but I think most conservatives aren’t willing to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” on these two issues alone. Especially not during a time of war. I think most conservatives actually believe the whole “it’s my body” thing and would rather not have the government interfere, but the Democrats want the government to come out and out-right condone behavior that conservatives privately disagree with. That’s when conservatives get upset. That’s my take anyway.

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Well I think what you suggest re taking a broader view is the more sensible approach. I don’t agree that this is true of “most conservatives”, or perhaps the conservatives who tend to drive the primaries. (Why else are candidates like McCain and Romney falling all over themselves to align with the voters who condemn abortion and gay marriage?)We’ll see.

I find your comments re “condoning” interesting. Is making/keeping something legal the same as condoning it? I hardly think so.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM

I find your comments re “condoning” interesting. Is making/keeping something legal the same as condoning it? I hardly think so.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM

con·done
PRONUNCIATION: kn-dn
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. See synonyms at forgive.

allowing would better fit most common usage IMHO

hillbillyjim on January 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Actually, most times I’ve seen this “condone” word used, it is in the context of silently okaying a behavior; in other words, looking the other way.

Kinda like “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Eh?

hillbillyjim on January 4, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Ok, I should have said “legislating the behavior to be not only acceptable, but to make it criminal if you do not condone it.”

But what James said is the real point:

Abortion and gay rights can be debated after we ensure that there is an America in which to debate it.

Terrorism and border security are national survival issues. Abortion and gay rights, along with most of the other mostly petty liberal/conservative hangups that we’ve previously had the luxury to debate will all be moot if we don’t take care of them first.

James on January 4, 2007 at 2:01 PM

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 4:35 PM

Not that it surprises me, but you’re really behind the times ’sayer. Sullivan’s been proudly using his new word every chance he gets and it’s quickly spreading across the lexicon. For all of those still confused, let me try to help you out.

Thanks for the update but Andrew Sullivan is a FOOL, that would be why I don’t know and couldn’t give a hot plate of pig spit what he said. And BANNING Gay “marriage” isn’t imposing your religious beliefs on anyone, since there never has been a society in the history of man dumb enough to let filthy sodomites “marry”. The filthy homos that surrounded Lots house in Sodom weren’t even DEPRAVED enough to think they should be MARRIED. So obviously any stupid atheist like Sullivan who misses an upheaval of every tradition in the history of man, yet chafes at anyone OBJECTING to said upheaval is, alas I said it before, a FOOL. And so are those who find any worth in what he says, btw.

Psalm 14:1
The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

See, according to the Lord your supposed God, Atheists are FOOLS. What do you think that makes those who see them as “trendy”, and who follow their “trends”? Hmmmmmm.

Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Sooth:
Just as foolish…

MITX on January 4, 2007 at 9:31 PM

NTWR on January 4, 2007 at 4:35 PM

I wasn’t questioning your usage of “condone”. I was pointing out to our liberal friend that she was jumping off on a nitpicking linguistic tangent that wasn’t valid in the first place.

She wrote:

I find your comments re “condoning” interesting. Is making/keeping something legal the same as condoning it? I hardly think so.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Just wanted to point out that her “I hardly think so.” was hardly linguistically accurate, therefore I conclude that she was trying to engage in misdirection, or didn’t understand the very word about which she was commenting.

Your point was well-spoken and correct, in my opinion. Which of course in my own little mind is always right./sarc.

hillbillyjim on January 5, 2007 at 5:21 AM

Just for the record honora, making something legal is condoning it. Is this that hard to understand? When you make something legal you allow it, therefore you’ve condoned the behavior. This is the problem when you try to have a legit debate on abortion, you end up with fuzzy platitudes instead of getting to the heart of the matter. Abortion is simply whether a human life should be ended by another human life after it has been conceived. That’s it, period. It’s not about choice, unless it’s about the choice to not have a baby or to use contraception, that is the choice-before, not after the fact. It’s not about “it’s my body”, hell I could ues that excuse to engage in any bahavior. It’s not about convenience. It is simply whether one human life can be ended by another human life after conception. You either believe yes it can be ended by another or no it can’t be ended by another. It should be legal(condoned)or illegal(condemned). Oh, and don’t even try the parsing of arguments with well, it should be legal but rare. If it’s a legit law, then why rare? The only thing good I may want rare is a steak. The government is charged with very little really, according to our Constitution, but it’s one main task is the protection of life. The pursuit to do so with regards to abortion is hardly govt. interference.

For the record, I would love to see Roe V Wade overturned. Most people don’t know this but it wouldn’t make abortion illegal it would just send the issue back to the states..where it belongs. This issue should be settled by the people not the courts.

There was a time in our history when people were not considered full citizens with full rights. In fact, there were people not even considered to be human at all. This distinction was based on skin color. It seems today we make that distinction based on age, whether too young, and now more recently, too old.

Now stepping down from my soap-box………

ritethinker on January 5, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Muslim Apostate–a person practicing the religion of Islam.
Christian–a person practicing the religion of Christianity
Muslim–a Muslim who wishes to impose his religious beliefs on others (ie. Sharia law)
Christianist–a Christian who wishes to impose his relgious beliefs on others (ie. ban gay marriage, outlaw the teaching of evolution)

Fixed! There are no Islamists, there are Muslims and Muslim Apostates. Read their doctrine.

Doctrines of the Koran

Clearly the tactics used by Islamists and Christianists are radically different, most notably the fact Christianists haven’t blown up any buildings or killed any civilians lately. The similarities lie in that both wish to impose the moral standards and practices of their personal, relgious faith to society at large.

Wait Wait Wait.

Atheists put their moral standards to law all the time. Everyone does. In fact, part of Natural Law says that murder is wrong, we have that legislated. Now, you can say that is different, but it isn’t. It is a moral judgement on an act. The only thing left is what morals are we going to enact.

Tim Burton on January 5, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2