This stuff doesn’t move me so much anymore – I was already moved a long time ago. What really makes me more likely to vote for him though is reading comments from people who believe that their disapproval of his political conduct justifies character assassination and attacks on his patriotism. What McCain’s done on Iraq policy alone over the last two years is more important to the country and its future than all the wonderful votes and positions of all of his opponents put together – and it’s a lot more important than his honorable conduct as a POW. None of that means he is right or has been right about everything or most things or even would be a good president, but no one I can think of has the standing to judge him a “disgrace.”

CK MacLeod on January 17, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Really? My opinion – a total stranger on a blog – has more impact on your decision making process than his actual maverick, pandering record?

Wow.

Laura on January 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Not one total stranger on one blog, but whole chorus in a range of venues, sounding from the left as well as the right, expressing hateful intolerance toward people who have different points of view or have differing visions of the country and the future. The idea, for instance, that making a compromise with members of another party – or with individuals from another country, for that matter – amounts to treason strikes me as profoundly un-American, and I believe it deserves to be fought.

CK MacLeod on January 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM

I’m sorry, but I think you’re foolish indeed to let contrary opinions goad you into voting a certain way.

You can think I’m being foolish. I’ll just think you’re being dense if you’re incapable of understanding the point that it’s not the particular comments or the opinions per se that matter to me, but what they represent.

As to compromise != treason… well, that depends on what is being compromised on, doesn’t it? Where our sovereignty is concerned, where decisions are being made by our elected officials which benefit other countries more than us, it’s skirting pretty closely along that line.

Of course it matters what’s being compromised on, but benefit to some other country is not the issue.

As to the hateful intolerance – I guess we “bigots” and “nativists” learned that at our elitist master’s feet, along with the concept that American citizenship can be bought for a small fine and the promise of cheap lettuce.

The “bigots” and “nativists” stuff is all yours. My own views on the issue of immigration would probably lead to my getting grouped along with you by the kind of people who like to shut down dialogue with name-calling – that is, the leftwing counterparts of the kind of people who call John McCain a “traitor” because he believes a country of 300+ million can consider ways of granting citizenship to some millions of intruders.

I also recognize, however, that in the real world and in particular in our representative democracy we’ll have to accept something short of ideal. It’s always been that way, and always will be that way as long as this country is a democracy.

Over our two plus centuries we’ve handled immigration and other issues of sovereignty in a variety of ways. The particular paths we took have always directly impacted on the character of the nation, but being on one side or the other of whatever controversy didn’t make one side patriotic and the other treasonous. America, including the definition of who gets to call him- or herself an American, has always been in a work in progress.

CK MacLeod on January 17, 2008 at 11:32 PM