Hitlery would probably have Angela Davis and Sec. Def., and bring back the cronies of ‘Wild Bill’ because they were loyal and knew how to kowtow.

McCain, may try to appoint himself for all of the positions because he has had the experience of dealing with all of them over the years. However, he may surprise us with some logical picks that would get the job done. Sheriff Apio as DHS Secretary would give terrorist and illegals something to think about before they make their decision to enter this country.

I disagree with McCain on McCain-Feingold, on the gang of 14, on the Bush tax cuts, on McCain-Kennedy and on characterizing folks were against him in the illegal immigration debate as bigots. I think he was wrong on all of those.

georgealbert on February 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Then why are you voting for McCain? Party over principles? Single-issue voter? Seems to be several points of disagreement with ol’ John…

And I’m voting 3rd party, by the way.

Using “Juan” is nothing more than showing that Senator McCain’s allegences are greater to people who call him “Juan” than those who call him “John”

EJDolbow on February 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Ditto. I think most got your point. But this is touchy feely, politically correct times we are in. You have to spell things out these days or else you might hurt someones feelings (and we say we want to be tough against islamofascism…ha, not if a word gets us offended).

Using “Juan” is nothing more than showing that Senator McCain’s allegences are greater to people who call him “Juan” than those who call him “John”

EJDolbow on February 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM

I know many native Spanish speakers. I have many Hispanics in my family. I have never heard any of them refer to “Juan McCain.”

Nothing makes someone look like a bigot more than some BS justification for bigotry. I’m not saying you are a bigot. I do think you’re a ginormous wuss for offering such bile as a logic.

I think that “Juan” is being used pejorativeyly in most cases. Why else would it be used? For praise?

I don’t think that Hispanics or even John McCain have the monopoly on being targeted by provocative language. We all use words to attack. That is nothing new.

***
Matthew Iglesias on “Juan McCain”

I hadn’t heard about this before, but apparently it’s all the rage in some conservative circles to refer to John McCain as “Juan McCain.” It’s Glenn Beck, but it’s not just Beck by any means. The idea, it seems, is that to call someone a Spanish name is a witty and cutting insult. After all, he likes immigrants.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans have Spanish names. You can meet us in your neighborhoods or even read our blogs. It’s sad to think someone somewhere might be calling Matt Church by my name as some kind of diss.

The response question wasn’t worth arguing.

FIFY

2Brave2Bscared on February 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM

+1

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM

I can’t stand liberals — especially liberals who pretend to be conservative.

Also, I’m not sure what “I can’t see you but…” means. You’re not making a lot of sense here and I’d like to understand.

Do you see a problem here?

Mitt Romney
Sen. Jim DeMint
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)
Gov. Palin (Alaska)
Rep. Tom Tancredo

Do you all think Hillary or Obama will take care of our troops as well as McCain?

tomas on February 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Actually, yes I do. None of them care about the troops as much as their own agenda. If any of those three win the troops can expect to get screwed.

Why don’t the Romeny folks try to argue for their candidate rather than aruging against McCain?

georgealbert on February 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM

You mean like the McCain supporters argue for him by arguing against Hillary and Obama, all the while ignoring the many deal-breakers he represents for conservatives?

I agree to a point. But saying McCain carried any water with GWB might be a little off. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was/is no love lost. Unless you buy into the fact that McCain is running all foreign policy in GWB’s White House from the senate and campaign trail. I mean McCain did invent the surge don’t you know?

I agree with your compassionate governance sentiment. The government has no constitutional role in it. This to me is an attempt to marry one’s religious tendencies to the government. It’s an imposition by whomever is in power. Their belief system takes precedent, because they know what is right. This will come to odds because some groups will eventually be left out. It also tells people they need to go outstretched to the government….instead of reaching within themselves, or to their God.

Good points and analysis. My comparison is ego driven and a means based point. I’m not going into the thought behind it. You must admit that McCain employs dirty, plumber-like tactics.

To your last points, I don’t trust Gingrich. He tries to come out above it all, but his inaction and enabling seem self-aggrandizing to me. Propping up Reagan conservatism and hiding personal agendas behind it are ineffective governance at best. Gingrich is not my standard bearer. The greatness of conservatism, IMAO, is that it relies on individuals bearing their own standards, except for the explicit issues covered by the constitution.

My argument is against the “compassionate” government, as ultimately, any such presumptuous folly as the role of government becomes obscene. Charity works at the local level from local hearts and hands, not from afar where greed and avarice plunder the fund, as Bill Clinton explained his illegal behavior, “because he could”.

I do not see the parallel that you attribute “about McCain’s Nixonian tactics”. McCain has no unrequited love for or from the American public. In McCain’s total self obsession, he feels no emotional need to be accepted, let alone loved by the American citizens. If we despise McCain, McCain will not cry in his pillow, racking his brain for a way to appease the silent majority of wonderful Americans as Nixon did.

Instapundit featured headline “Nixon-like” Romney referencing McCain, but nowhere in the article text.
Perhaps you would explain your “Nixonian” usage.

McCain has actually proven that there are tactics that he will not use to crucify an opponent or enemy; torture. So far as that goes, Ann Coulter is wrong to align with the Clintons. On that basis, it was the Clintons who tortured and murdered American civilians prior to any trial in a court of law. The children, women and men were tortured for weeks, bombed and burnt alive for not submitting at Clinton’s Branch Davidian massacre. Hillary and Bill and all of their government are literally drenched in American civilian blood.

To McCain’s discredit, he had no problem accepting shady money from Keating and lobbyists, and facilitating legislation enabling the crooks to abscond with tax dollars and personal moneys from the ruined savings and loans. Why were those S&L crooks bailed out by tax dollars? Also, McCain was acually found guilty of the very behavior that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, without a law on the books, indicted and refuses still to prosecute Tom DeLay. The GOP set DeLay up for political ruin, organizing a temporary protocol that did not apply during the activity in question and was rescinded as soon as DeLay stepped down. One can investigate McCain’s involvement in destroying DeLay’s career. But the GOP cannibalism of DeLay’s career would not have succeeded without Gingrich and the party leadership now backing McCain.

Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM

==========================

Really, “Cold Steel” you are quite emotional.

The object of noting pres Bush is because you say that if McCain is pres we will get open borders and there is no reasonable evidence that would be the case. If fact the evidence is the opposite of that.

And when you continue to us racist language I am going to call you on it and you don’t like TS. Here in America we have values that are contrary being racist. And I do get offended when people are racist; clearly you don’t.

And for you to say that John McCain, cares nothing about not lying, rule of law, decency, is not fact based. Decorum? maybe you are right on that, but so what?

I disagree with McCain on McCain-Feingold, on the gang of 14, on the Bush tax cuts, on McCain-Kennedy and on characterizing folks were against him in the illegal immigration debate as bigots. I think he was wrong on all of those. But to say that John McCain does not care for the rule of law, or decency, or honesty is BS. He is far from perfect but we never get perfect candidates. Ronald Reagan was not perfect. These folks are human beings and the task of the voters is to make choices about getting good policies implemented and the histrionics by the anti-McCain crowd do not show the better side of conservatism.

Why don’t the Romeny folks try to argue for their candidate rather than aruging against McCain?