Stockholm syndrome: A phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor.

He says he’ll aways hate the gooks (which is good), but he also votes against things that will strengthen America. I think it’s stockholm syndrome.

Entelechy on February 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Neither of them were members of the upper classes. They went to elite colleges, but they were not part of that set growing up.

Hypocrits all…

Not to forget both Clintons.

Entelechy on February 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM

The Clintons are a little different. They weren’t members of the elite growing up but their daughter Chelsea is a preppie.

um, latest poll i saw shows them tied going into Tuesday. WTF do you mean ‘over’?

Keep grasping that straw. After Tuesday, reality will be much more clear.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Well, you can call a tie in the polls a straw if you wish. Yes, I’m eager to see how the race pans out when we truly get some states where independents and democrats can’t vote in the republican primary.

And I’d rather grasp at straws than vote for the liberal establishments favorite ‘republican’ Again, if McCain wins the nomination and loses in the general, it won’t be my fault for not voting for him – it’ll be your fault for foisting a crappy candidate on the rest of us.

You mean like Kerry, Kennedy, and Gore?

Buy Danish on February 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Not to forget both Clintons.

When do we stop bashin Mav and unite to defeat Billary?

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

As soon as the Republican voters pull their heads out of their collective asses.

I’m not a Romney guy. I could care less that Hewitt regularly craws out from under Romney’s desk, wipes his mouth off and does his radio show.

But I am starting to think I may vote for Romney. I was for Duncan Hunter, then Fred. I like Ron Pauls domestic policy (here) but will never vote for a ‘blame America’ or a 9-11 truther. On top of that ensuring John McCain does NOT get the republican nomination is my #1 priority. A vote for Huckabee or Ron Paul is a vote FOR McCain and all he represents (Amnesty, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman)… and that is unacceptable.

Romney I can live with… especially if he picks someone like Duncan Hunter as his VP.

um, latest poll i saw shows them tied going into Tuesday. WTF do you mean ‘over’?

Keep grasping that straw. After Tuesday, reality will be much more clear.

When do we stop bashin Mav and unite to defeat Billary?

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

There is little difference between the two when in office.

You cannot see that?

When do we stop bashin Mav and unite to defeat Billary?

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Unite with McCainiac the Manchurian candidate? NEVER

Dude, this primary is OVER.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 2, 2008 at 11:31 AM

um, latest poll i saw shows them tied going into Tuesday. WTF do you mean ‘over’?

“It’s his turn…”

This is problematic since democrats have been out for 8 and they will say it is “Their turn….” “…..plus we got screwed…”, “plus Kerry got swiftboated…” etc., etc.

McCain now gets it…..

This is wishful thinking in my opinion, but let’s assume the premise. As one commentator has said for years, the conservative movement is one of issues, ideas, and beliefs. Coupled with all this is loyalty.

Loyalty is about as bedrock as it gets for any party in general, and the Republican Party in particular – especially the military. Loyalty is McCain’s biggest exposure here.
As I see it, the moderates among us, and the liberals and MSM like the disloyal coinage of the word ‘maverick’. One dictionary’s definition includes “a person who refuses to conform to a particular party or group.”

This is a dilemma for McCain politically. The same ‘maverick’ attitude that endears him to moderates and liberals of both parties, means that for the base of conservatives, what you say and what you do matters, therefore “he gets it” means “you want to hear it”.

On a multitude of issues and deeds, McCain was not only being disloyal to his President and his party, but led the charge in many cases. Without rehashing a detail of his record, his actions are simple. He voted against his party and his President, not once, but twice on two tax cut bills. He was antagonistic toward his President and a sitting Secretary of Defense regarding military strategy. He led a group of 14 democrats and republicans against his own President’s appointment of sitting judges. Many of these positions are still vacant after 7 years.

Finally, while trumpeting his support of the troop surge, he proves his military disloyalty in the process. Does not the military insist, no less demand loyalty of its subordinate officers regardless of their viewpoint? How about officers in the private sector? How appropriate or loyal is it for a retired officer in the same party, to constantly and opening publically redicule a sitting Secretary of Defense and President of your own party on military strategy. A retired officer of character and honor would advocate his position strongly, but discretely. What was his purpose, other than self-serving settling of scores, to publically display his disloyalty to Pentagon staff and his President?

If he were a Pentagon officer, he would suffer consequences for such self-serving displays of displeasure of their jobs. MacArthur comes to mind. “Ah”, but you say, he is in the private sector….” Perhaps.

You cannot take credit for military “loyalty” to what leaders do when you like it, when you take private concerns and make them very public displays of “disloyalty” when you don’t like it.

Loyalty is a big problem for McCain. The only question at the end of the day, in choosing a party’s leader for President of the United States, is “who is the candidate loyal to and what has been his past conduct in this regard?”

Electability, military background, POW, are all diversions from looking at the central issue. Loyalty. Once you are thrown overboard once, do you really care that the ‘captain’ has a change of heart?

So should we vote for those commanders too?

Just A Grunt on February 2, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Wesley Clark was a commander, wasn’t he? Heck, he even appeared on a gay magazine cover with his shirt unbuttoned. Just reaching across the aisle. It’s a new and different day, my friends.

CABE on February 2, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Ditto!