Video: Why didn’t McCain consolidate his Saddleback buzz by committing to a pro-life VP?

posted at 4:59 pm on August 20, 2008 by Allahpundit

The boss asks, but alas, no answer is to be had. The obvious possibility is that he’s pandering to centrists, whom he fears will desert him if he doesn’t at least make a pretense of being mavericky in his VP selection choice. If it’s all pretense, though, what’s with the phone calls from campaign HQ? There’ll be no harm done if he ends up with a solid pro-life VP like Pawlenty, but if Mitt’s the pick, I wonder if the eleventh-hour vacillating won’t linger on the palate of social cons.

Link: sevenload.com


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

Off topic… with all due and complete respect to her and her family…

Michelle “The Boss” has got to be the most smokin commentator out there… she is one lovely lady…

And its her intelligence that really puts her over the top…

Doogiesd on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM

Why didn’t McCain consolidate his Saddleback buzz by committing to a pro-life VP?

Maybe it’s a fake out. McCain gets conservatives so distressed, he likes to do that you know, that if he then names a pro-life VP running mate it can be just about anyone and conservatives will say, “Oh, good.”

MB4 on August 20, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Doogiesd on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM

What I say about her is she’s intelligent, conservative, and gorgeous. What’s not to like?

backwoods conservative on August 20, 2008 at 7:47 PM

HeartlessHeart-of-stone selfish bastards.

kirkill on August 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM

FIFY

platypus on August 20, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Doogiesd on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM

she’s very smart, very pretty, very married, and i’m very jealous of her husband.. >:(

Kudos to them.

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM

Chakra, I believe the proper word is envious. He is a lucky man.

backwoods conservative on August 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM

However, I don’t agree with Michelle all the time so maybe its a good thing she married him, or it would be a “Costanza”(from Seinfeld) situation where we would argue and fight and bicker.. >:D

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Chakra, I believe the proper word is envious. He is a lucky man.

backwoods conservative on August 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM

yea, my engrish is poor i will be the first to admit that.

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Let me add some info to stem cell research. From Monday of this week:

Immune response to human embryonic stem cells in mice suggests human therapy may face challenge

Human embryonic stem cells trigger an immune response in mice, researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine report. The finding suggests that the effectiveness of human therapies derived from the cells could be limited unless ways are found to dampen the rejection response…

“The data is quite convincing,” said Wu. “Based on these results, we believe that transplanting these cells into humans would also cause an immune response.”

Add this to the fact that adult stem cells are used in 73 treatments and embryonic are still at a big fat 0.

I am convinced that a huge factor in the drive for ESC is to find some way to “justify” abortion.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 7:58 PM

I have to agree with many here: Michelle really did look good. But more importantly, and as always, she is so logical and clear and explains her points so well, that she makes TV News bearable.

The whole headfake theory makes total sense on both ends: the grassroots cons will say “At least he didn’t pick a pro-choice candidate” and the moderates will say, “But he considered someone like Lieberman, so he truly is a maverick.” Simple politics.

Again, what’s scary, is that I really think McCain would prefer some liberal moderate, because that’s what he is. Let’s not forget how much we attacked McCain in the primaries. We, as American conservatives, absolutely blew it by picking McCain.

The only way I’d even vote for McCain is if he picked Mitt Romney. He’s the most capable and intelligent candidate with principles and character we’ve seen in a long, long time.

iamse7en on August 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM

A significant number of people who consider themselves pro-life are in favor of embryonic stem cell research … probably because they don’t think early embryos have “human rights.”

Big S on August 20, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Just curious, when do those early embryos get “human rights”?

misterpeasea on August 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

What I say about her is she’s intelligent, conservative, and gorgeous. What’s not to like?
--backwoods conservative on August 20, 2008 at 7:47 PM

You mean to say, she’s the perfect mirror image of Barry, who’s intelligent, liberal, and handsome.

What’s not to like?….Ideological Fanaticism

It’s becoming a thorn in the side to those of us on the right side of the aisle.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM

The base IMHO got spoiled over these past 8 years, due to a strategy aimed at motivating our base more than their base. Please note I am as much talking about Democrats and impeachment as I am talking about Republicans and immigration.

2006 showed the flaws in that strategy. The base of both parties, when empowered as they have been, starts really feeling their oats, they demand more and more, egged on by web-based echo chambers. Ultimately, they will demand something the political leadership of the parties figure is not something they can deliver. The leadership says no, the base kicks, screams, and stays home.

Far from sending the message about the importance of the base, the parties get the message that relying exclusively on the base is ultimately going to saddle the party in question with politically untenable positions, leaving the other guys to look like the sane and sober moderates.

The McCain team is going to make a decision they think is best to win in 2008, and there’s no use in making demands.

Sekhmet on August 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM

The only way I’d even vote for McCain is if he picked Mitt Romney. He’s the most capable and intelligent candidate with principles and character we’ve seen in a long, long time.

iamse7en on August 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM

ehh.. lame.

Rudy was my Choice in the Primary i’m voting for McCain no matter what, even if he chooses Romney and the VP and Romney is reminiscent of John f’n Kerry on EVERY FLIP-FLOPPING LEVEL..

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Just curious, when do those early embryos get “human rights”?

misterpeasea on August 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

For the second time.. copied from the previous page.

at the moment of conception.

If you disagree, lets do an experiment..

A woman has a fertility problem and she is elderly and has only one chance to get “pregnant” so she goes down to the “clinic” and gets Artificial insemination (AI) this process costs her LOTS of money and it works she gets pregnant and is 2-1/2 months pregnant(this number is just made up this time frame does not matter as long as its proven that she is indeed pregnant) then.. gets mugged and the attacker, punches her in the stomach and causes a miscarriage.. The assailant get arrested for assault and battery.

Does he also get charged for the death of the baby or could he be sued or the death of the baby, wrongful death?

If he can be sued for wrongful death, then YES that is a life.

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM

That reminds me, there’s a new book out titled, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.. I haven’t had time to read it yet, but it looks good.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Thanks, I’d kinda like Big S’s opinion.

misterpeasea on August 20, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM

I think, a pretty good argument could be made, that the egg itself is alive…Just as any other cell.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

This is from the American Academy of Medical Ethics. It’s from a paper they did regarding ESC research, but the biological background is certainly applicable here.

Biology and embryology textbooks state that human life begins with the 1-celled embryo, or zygote, which is formed with the union of an egg and a sperm:
•“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”1
•“Life began for each of us with the fusion of…a sperm and an ovum.”2
1. Moore K. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company; 1988.
2. Curtis H. Invitation to Biology. Second ed. New York, NY: Worth Publishers; 1977.

Cell biology:

Cell biology has defined living organisms as carrying out various “life functions” such as Nutrition, Transport, Respiration, Synthesis, Assimilation, Growth, Excretion, Regulation, Reproduction, and Metabolism. All life from the simplest one-celled amoeba to complex animals carry out these life functions in various ways. Human embryos carry out the same life functions as humans at later developmental stages, only they may do so differently.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM

This is their statement regarding Human Personhood: (their emphasis)

Most scientists and people admit that human embryos are living, but some advocate discrimination against these tiny humans by denying them full personhood.

However, there is no standard on the continuum of life (beginning with a 1-celled embryo and continuing through birth and adulthood to the point of death) by which an individual on this journey can be classified as “not a person,” without the risk of compromising the rights of humans at a later stage of development…

Is the fact that embryos carry out their life functions in a developmentally appropriate way that is different than a human at a later stage of development a reason to classify them as having less than full personhood? If it is, then infants, children, and the disabled are also not fully persons.…How much of a person is an embryo? When does a human achieve full personhood? Are rights in proportion to how much of a person one is declared to be? What protection should be granted to a human who is assessed to be half a person? Would he or she receive half a share of the right to life? How would that be accomplished?

INC on August 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM

I think, a pretty good argument could be made, that the egg itself is alive…Just as any other cell.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

NO, an unfertilized “Egg” by itself only has the “potential” for life.. it isn’t life.

to have life you must you must have DNA from the father and the mother inside that egg, so life would begins as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg wall.

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:37 PM

I think, a pretty good argument could be made, that the egg itself is alive…Just as any other cell.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

to say an “egg” is life then every month women are flushing dead bodies down the toilet and into the garbage can.. see..

IT it’s life..

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

to say an “egg” is life then every month women are flushing dead bodies down the toilet and into the garbage can.. see..

IT isn’t life..(just an unfertilized egg)

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

I think, a pretty good argument could be made, that the egg itself is alive…Just as any other cell.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Ok.

I read this again..

yes, you are correct, the “unfertilized egg” is “alive” as is every other cell in the body however its exactly that just the same as everu other cell in a womans body before its fertilized. those cells are basically no different(they are but for sake of argument) no different than say skin cells that you lose every day, hair, teeth.. etc.. only until the egg is fertilized does “life” begin where the baby then receives 1/2 the DNA from the father that life begins.

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Well then,

Shouldn’t they be put in wee li’l coffins, and buried in tiny li’l cemeteries?

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Shouldn’t they be put in wee li’l coffins, and buried in tiny li’l cemeteries?

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM

I’d say that would be about as appropriate as the “personhood” argument in the grand scheme of things. The more people explain why abortion is legal the crazier the whole thing sounds.

blankminde on August 20, 2008 at 9:29 PM

she’s very smart, very pretty, very married, and i’m very jealous of her husband.. >:(

You forgot that she is black also! What would be revealing is juxtipose “the boss’” photo next to Helen Thomas that was posted on MM.com yesterday! :-)

wepeople on August 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Abortion is the epitome of “Slippery Slope”

As evidenced by Obonzo’s position on the Infant Protection Act.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 9:36 PM

As evidenced by Obonzo’s position on the Infant Protection Act.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Most laws exist on slippery slopes–voting age, tax rates, speed limits, etc.

dedalus on August 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Are you sure Michelle is on our side? Jeebus, she is never happy. In her own way, she is as extreme as those on the far left. Hopefully she will learn that the only person with whom she has a chance of being in complete agreement with is herself.

The Opinionator on August 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Michelle is more than justified to have her opinion and speak as she pleases, The Opinionator. However, the behavior of hers and others who should clearly know that the Republican primary is over is nothing short of baffling. I have observed many bizarre and unconscionable behavior by the people on the left. I’m not talking about the level such as the road rage incident of the liberal who tried to run the mom and her kids off the road. But the underlying behavior and mentality behind that. The ‘turn your backs on Bush’ stunt. The ‘he’s not my president’ people who believed so many falsehoods about Bush. These people have long ago lost their ‘we can all agree to disagree’ niceties.

After the republican primary, there is just two people running for president. One will win and the other loose. After that point, the time to decide on who will get the nomination has past. This similar ‘McCain is not my presidential candidate’ mentality is something that I thought I would only see coming from the left. We called what the left did to Bush “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” And I see much more of this same lying about the man, predicting horror stories in the event that he is elected and claims that he hates all conservatives from the right as I have seen from the left.

It is disturbing to watch. In some cases, it seems like they have to make all sorts of things up (not that they would have to, as there are many things that McCain has done in opposition of the republican part to merit) to say ‘what he will do.’ Explanations of how and why that are not based on any truth. And if you question them, then these closed-minded thugs call you a shill for McCain. Of course people will never be in complete agreement with a candidate. If someone crosses the line for someone that is a deal-breaker, then they aren’t compelled to vote for them if they feel that bad. I just can’t see an instance when someone would want to sabotage someone else’s choice in a superficial and selfish goal to throw the election and try again. Especially in the case with a democrat candidate like Obama.

As Secretary of State Rice said, “We’ll(America will) be fine.” with a democrat president. While that may be true, and America will not be a charred cinder in 4 years, Obama has pledged to get rid of nuclear weapons. While we are in the middle of the war on terror, do you want someone who wishes to disarm us, most likely will side with the ACLU for terrorist surveillance, let alone nominate far-left leaning judges to the supreme court … I just don’t see how anyone can be part of not doing everything within their power to keep this man away from the presidency.

wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Sekhmet on August 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Sorry, pork-barrel-mania is *not* playing to the base.

fiatboomer on August 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Keep right on making the perfect the enemy of the good – and watch our conservative majority dwindle into an angry fringe while the Left takes over the country.

rockmom on August 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM

The leftists took over the country quite a few years ago.

platypus on August 21, 2008 at 1:02 AM

Sorry, pork-barrel-mania is *not* playing to the base.

fiatboomer on August 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Two words: Terri Schiavo.

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM

It is disturbing to watch. In some cases, it seems like they have to make all sorts of things up (not that they would have to, as there are many things that McCain has done in opposition of the republican part to merit) to say ‘what he will do.’ Explanations of how and why that are not based on any truth. And if you question them, then these closed-minded thugs call you a shill for McCain.

wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM

1. I don’t think you’re a shill for McCain. I think you’re being pragmatic, and that’s understandable.

2. McCain’s track record on illegal aliens and the First Amendment, cap and trade and global warming, are serious enough to give many conservatives pause and do involve truth.

3. Past performance is often indicative of future results in the case of presidential candidates. So what McCain has done in the past is a good way to gauge how he will act in the future.

4. There are many people concerned about McCain’s pseudo-conservative credentials who at the same time don’t want to see Obama elected. These people are not “closed-minded thugs,” whatever that means. They are full blooded conservatives who see McCain as not even 75% conservative, which they could probably stomach (see eight years of Bush), but more like 50% conservative. This causes them emotional anguish, and when they express this concern they are called nasty names by the pragmatists who only see elections as things to be won (like football games), not as opportunities to put out the best candidate.

fossten on August 21, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Picking a pro-choice candidate for VP is definitely a bad mistake, and picking a Democrat, even an Independent Democrat, Lieberman, would be suicide. It would mean I would not be able to vote for the top of the ticket. Since 1964 (Goldwater), I have never ever voted for a Democrat, and I am not about to start now. Sarah Palin for VP.

Dasher on August 21, 2008 at 9:14 AM

“Pandering to centrists”?

Is there only enough room in the tent for social conservatives?

budorob on August 21, 2008 at 9:43 AM

I don’t recall ever thinking that a question or comment by MM was dumb or senseless. This one is, imo.

The answer – duh – either he isn’t going to restrict himself to pro-life picks, or he knows that the pro-life VP he does pick will make the point moot when it matters.

Jaibones on August 21, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Sekhmet on August 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM

You nailed it.

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Nailed it again.

a capella on August 21, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Is there only enough room in the tent for social conservatives?

budorob on August 21, 2008 at 9:43 AM

I believe SaintOlaf invited all who don’t agree with him on abortion to leave the party.

a capella on August 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM

The McCain team is going to make a decision they think is best to win in 2008, and there’s no use in making demands.

Sekhmet on August 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Sure there is. Provide the base is holding on to traditional values of the party, they have every right to demand and expect their candidate honor those values. McCain’s left of the party liberalism has proven a challenge to his campaign because he so clearly loathes social conservatives and evangelicals to the point he is out there finding ways to put a pro-murder VP nominee on the ticket.

In general, demands from the base should be the keystone to any campaign and respected by the candidate. Not inconvenient and ignored as McCain is doing. In such a situation it is the duty of the base to speak out instead of the vocal group out there telling everybody to shut up and vote for McCain because Obama is worse. That is nothing but selling out and I don’t have a whole lot of respect for anybody that boils the election down to an electability equation. If in the final analysis it is choosing the lesser of two evils, it is sill incumbent on the base to express displeasure with both candidates instead of caving in and trying to gloss over the fact that the “parties” candidate has a long record of betraying the trust of the base.

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Why the phone calls from HQ? Because it makes a STORY. Those stories inspired articles about big-tent McCain for the past few days.

Pro-lifers(and I’m a strident one) need to stop thinking every move McCain makes should be about them. Sometimes campaign strategy requires certain perceptions being made by the MSM. The MSM in turn shares these perceptions with the swing voters that have recently become disenchanted with Obama.

What matters is the decision McCain makes at the end of the day. He’s not an idiot. He knows he needs to pick a Pro-Life candidate…he just hopes conservative pro-lifers will be patient enough to win over some swing voters until that final decision is made.

EduardoOTI on August 21, 2008 at 10:15 AM

No Republican candidate, including Reagan, has ever paid more than lip-service to the whole abortion issue. Sorry right-to-lifers, the nation and the party moved on (no pun intended) back in the 1980s.

doufree on August 21, 2008 at 10:34 AM

What matters is the decision McCain makes at the end of the day. He’s not an idiot. He knows he needs to pick a Pro-Life candidate…he just hopes conservative pro-lifers will be patient enough to win over some swing voters until that final decision is made.

EduardoOTI on August 21, 2008 at 10:15 AM

So swing voters are more important than standing on values? That injecting “wiggle room” to entice people to think that McCain isn’t all that pro-life is honest or, conversely, that making strong pro-life statements he doesn’t really mean is honest?

I realize the election hinges on many more factors than pro-life but how do people reconcile McCain’s utter lack of core GOP values enough to support this man without criticism?

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Highhopes—just look at the Dems and the question of impeachment. We are triple-dog daring the Dems to impeach, and the Democrat party leadership damn well knows it. Impeachment would be an utter disaster for the Democrat Party, and the answer to the Democrat nutroot base is “NO.”

Part of the problems the Dems are having this year stem from being unable to indulge the unrealistic demands of the base. What feeds the unrealistic demands for impeachment are echo chambers like DU and Kos, where nobody hears a friendly word to the contrary that impeachment is anything but a wonderful idea.

The base advocates policies that the parties hold as an ideal, that they can fight for if it can be managed politically. The base has historically been the source of ideals for the party that are formulated separately from the need to win elections, and the parties decide if they can fight for all, part, or none of the idea.

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Sorry right-to-lifers, the nation and the party moved on (no pun intended) back in the 1980s.

doufree on August 21, 2008 at 10:34 AM

From a Pro Life standpoint the best the courts could do is push the issue back to the legistlative bodies. Even Scalia would be unlikely to find a Constitutional basis for ruling that life began at conception. That is if he and other conservative justices can get past Roe being “settled law”.

If the issue were pushed back to the states, enough of the largest states would quickly pass legislation protecting abortion that the net effect wouldn’t seem to leave acccess much different than it is today.

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM

A lot of the belly-aching about McCain MAYBE picking a pro-choice candidate is coming from people who at one time supported or thought of supporting Rudy. Go figure.

oldvannes on August 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

how do people reconcile McCain’s utter lack of core GOP values enough to support this man without criticism?
highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Wrong on so many levels. I can’t believe actually anyone has to spell this out for you:

McCain does not have an utter lack of core GOP values. Your claim is without merit.

Supporters can and do have criticisms of McCain. Sometimes we write messages on blogs, sometimes we write letters to the candidate and return postage paid requests for donations with an empty envelope – except for a note telling him (among other things) that he won’t get a donationfrom us until he reverses his position of illegal immigration.

While you enjoy batting a McCain effigy/pinata on the internet until there is nothing left but shreds of paper, which makes you feel good and accomplishes absolutely nothing(except maybe delighting democrats who are reading our pages) ….. there are some of us who are trying to actually make a real change in the real world.

Bad-mouthing and slandering him with lies is not in my opinion, something constructive to make him change his positions. Neither is getting worked up about a VP choice he hasn’t made yet. In my opinion.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM

Which, if I am not mistaken is what McCain’s answer was at the saddleback event.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM

foundationally, who will you side with? The Democrats – no personal responsibility required – Party, or Republicans – at least “an extreme fringe” that values life and the responsibility that comes with sex – Party.

Bottom Line:
Pro-abortionists are valueless (pro-choice is just used to make them feel better about their selfishness)

Pro-lifers have values.

kirkill on August 21, 2008 at 11:38 AM

The ironic thing here: The Veep can’t really do much about abortion one way or the other. So why is the abortion view of the running mate so all-fired important?

Is it because McCain’s so old? Heck, Reagan was not much younger, and he made it through both terms OK—and McCain’s mama is still alive and kicking in her 90s.

Is it because the Veep is supposed to be the next leader of the party? Umm, there’s a whole list of Veeps who never went on to lead the GOP.

So why is it so important who McCain chooses as his running mate?

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Conservatives need Republicans, more than we need them.

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 7:26 PM

As we have seen time and time again, especially with shamnesty:

When the Republican Party abandons conservatives, they suffer, and rightly so.

End of story.

MB007 on August 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM

MB007 on August 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM

This is something I see at work all the time in another context. Do you want my supervisor because I did something wrong, or because I told you no?

Is the GOP abandoning conservatism, or is it that in the 2000s, with a “base”-centric election strategy, expectations of what was politically achievable were set too high, and now there is a “correction?”

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Go away troll. You are so far in the tank for McCain that to surface you’d have to come up slowly to prevent decompression sickness. If you want to be a stalwart unquestioning, uncritical, unconcerned acolyte of McCain- that’s your right. But don’t insult me for not agreeing with you and stop making claims that I am dishonest about McCain’s record.

I have more integrity than those of your ilk willing to overlook everything negative about McCain in order to create a facade of conservative respectability that simply isn’t true. I want a legitimate conservative movement not the creation your type is setting up to justify all the liberal stuff McCain would work with the Democrats on if elected including amnesty give-away, including the former illegals in Social Security, increasing funding for embryonic stem cell research lines…… You want voters to overlook the true John McCain and focus in on the one that is utterly false. I’d feel really dirty if I posted half the crap you do about what a great candidate McCain is and how he really is going to support the GOP base.

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM

McCain does not have an utter lack of core GOP values. Your claim is without merit.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. Give an example or 8 of his core GOP values; that’d be much more convincing. Otherwise you’re refuting someone else’s “lies” (i.e., opinions,) with “lies” (i.e., opinions) of your own. We know he’s not big on the Constitution or free speech, see BCRA. We know he’s not big on protecting our borders (see his amnesty bill). We know he’s going to raise our taxes to pay for global warmism (see McCain-Lieberman), and increase spending to pay for the illegal immigrants welfare benefits (see his voting record, McCain-Kennedy).

Like that, weak_man. Much more convincing, don’t you think?

While you enjoy batting a McCain effigy/pinata on the internet until there is nothing left but shreds of paper, which makes you feel good and accomplishes absolutely nothing(except maybe delighting democrats who are reading our pages) ….. there are some of us who are trying to actually make a real change in the real world.

Cheerleading does nothing to get the information to McCain that he needs – that the base of the Republican Party has serious concerns about him and his actions and his policy position. That the base does not want to send a message that Presidential candidates like McCain are OK. That he’s pushing his super-awesome Maverick-y-ness a little lot too far.

Bad-mouthing and slandering him with lies is not in my opinion, something constructive to make him change his positions. Neither is getting worked up about a VP choice he hasn’t made yet. In my opinion.

Good-mouthing him and lauding him with lies ain’t exactly helpful either. You dont’ want to discuss his choice of VP, don’t. Most of the rest of us are sick about his strategery (or the lack thereof) wrt the Veep pick. We’d like to continue discussing it, if you don’t mind.

misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Directed at wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM.

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 12:09 PM

franksalterego on August 20, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Yeah, that worked out real well for you guys in the 70′s didn’t it? Repubicans without conservatives=minority party b*tches to the Democrats. You guys rode on Reagan’s coat tails for so long you forgot what got you here. Ok, well, you’ve the right candidate. He certainly isn’t conservative and wants to do it all without us. So, show us up. Let’s see the famous moderate leadership. You’ve coopted 2 major democrat issues with amnesty and global warming; and McCain is obviously considering slapping his entire party in the face by choose a liberal Democrat as his running mate..believe me, as a conservative, I am delighted to say I will accept no responsability for the next 4 years, and you moderate Repubicans will get ALL the credit for what’s coming. Just make sure you remember that you guys shoved us out. You’re going to own McCain’s presidency whether you end up liking it or not.

austinnelly on August 21, 2008 at 12:18 PM

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Nicely said. I posted yesterday that there is something that rings false about friend whizzman. He was celebrating McCain’s role in the amnesty bill and how McCain treated John Cornyn during the famous ‘f-off’ exchange; and I’ve never heard even the staunchest supporter do that. Generally, they avoid the entire issue because of it makes McCain look very bad; his uncritical unwavering support of McCain put me in mind of a lone lib conducting his own little operation chaos. The only problem with my theory is it would mean whizzman is a lot smarter than he comes across in his cheerleader posts. Just a thought anyway.

austinnelly on August 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Hmm. I wonder if misterpeasea is still acting like a little annoying brat like he’s been doing for months.

weak_man.
misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM

… yup.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM

whizzman.
austinnelly on August 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Allong with his “terrible two’s” companion.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Go away troll. You are so far in the tank for McCain that to surface you’d….
highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM

And your reading comprehension skills are not yet improved. I’ll try again:

Supporters can and do have criticisms of McCain. Sometimes we write messages on blogs, sometimes we write letters to the candidate and return postage paid requests for donations with an empty envelope – except for a note telling him (among other things) that he won’t get a donationfrom us until he reverses his position of illegal immigration.

Did that help?

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:28 PM

The obvious possibility is that he’s pandering to centrists, whom he fears will desert him if he doesn’t at least make a pretense of being mavericky in his VP selection choice.

McCain has already done than the “mavericky” thing.
He stuck a dagger into his Saddleback performance by running that horrible “Washington is broken” ad.
“He took on Big Tobacco” “He’ll take on Big Oil, Wall Street and drug companies”, “The original maverick”(just as the left media used to describe him when he was kneeing conservatives and the Repubs).
Well, Obama just saved a bunch of money because McCain ran his ad for him.
http://www.savagerepublican.com/2008/08/mccain-giveth-and-mccain-taketh-away.html

Amendment X on August 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM

You dont’ want to discuss his choice of VP, don’t. Most of the rest of us are sick about his strategery (or the lack thereof) wrt the Veep pick. We’d like to continue discussing it, if you don’t mind.

And who did he choose?

What’s his or her name?

….. Ohhhhhhhhhhh, that’s right. He didn’t choose anyone yet. This is a discussion based on ‘unnamed sources.’

So you’re lying.

Again.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Speculating on the speculation is as much accurate as predicting the weather tomorrow. But it is fun. Have at it.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Not gonna read the thread of speculation.

Just noting or joining the chorus
who heard Sean Hannity say yesterday
with certainty that he has been told
by the McCain camp that Lieberman
is NOT the pick.

maverick muse on August 21, 2008 at 12:53 PM

It’s an 8-day week till McCain announces his VP.

As per the timing to commit to a pro-life VP,
we’re all voicing our concerns. McCain’s busy
right now, I hope, with the Georgian invasion.
The entire VP decision is on back burner
while McCain “ponders” side effects not only
on voters, but ultimately on his presidency
BEYOND his established pro-life commitment
that we all have his record and reiterations
to hold on him.

So long as we have pro-life Pres. McCain, I’m hoping that his VP will be persuasively CONSERVATIVE in preventing Congressional spending for more federal bureaucracy, and CONSERVATIVE so as to secure our borders and execute rule of law including immigration AS LAWS ALREADY STAND. No more leniency, absolutely no amnesty.

We already have McCain to be a pro-life POTUS. What we need beyond pro-life is RULE OF LAW enabling individual responsibility in daily matters of citizenship, particularly with regards to government employees fulfilling their job requirements as Constitutionally established.

I’m hoping our next VP will be a Constitutional originalist committed to executing rule of law, secure borders, tight immigration, fiscal responsibility, and enabling AMERICAN industrial success and national security. Drill now! Nuclear power plants need to begin construction NOW.
The science of proper location and construction do not take more than five years to complete a plant SO LONG AS THE DEMOCRAT DEATH TO AMERICA STRANGLEHOLD LEGISLATION IS PURGED.

maverick muse on August 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM

And who did he choose?

What’s his or her name?

….. Ohhhhhhhhhhh, that’s right. He didn’t choose anyone yet. This is a discussion based on ‘unnamed sources.’

So you’re lying.

Again.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Speculating on the speculation is as much accurate as predicting the weather tomorrow. But it is fun. Have at it.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Now I’m confused. May we speculate, or are we being LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN?!? Must we go to Kos or HuffPo with the rest of the trash to speculate, or may we do it here? Can only secret Obama supporters speculate, or can others do it, too?

I hate those annoying little brats who always scream LIAR! at folks they disagree with, don’t you, weak_man? And they avoid substance at all costs, I’ve noticed. Why don’t you see if you can get them kicked off the site? They disagree with your approved party line anyway.

misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Now I’m confused. May we speculate, or are we being LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN?!?
misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM

You said:

“You dont’ want to discuss his choice of VP,

And one last time, for the reading impaired;

HE HASN’T MADE ANY CHOICE FOR VP YET YOU *ING MORON!

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM

You said:

“You dont’ want to discuss his choice of VP,“

And one last time, for the reading impaired;

HE HASN’T MADE ANY CHOICE FOR VP YET YOU *ING MORON!

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM

I’m so childish.

misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM

And then I said:

Speculating on the speculation is as much accurate as predicting the weather tomorrow. But it is fun. Have at it.
wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM

and you replied with:

Now I’m confused. May we speculate, or are we being LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN?!?
misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM

I’m done with you.

Good bye.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I’m done with you.

Good bye.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I get more childish with each post. Amazing.

misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Is the GOP abandoning conservatism, or is it that in the 2000s, with a “base”-centric election strategy, expectations of what was politically achievable were set too high, and now there is a “correction?”

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Bar was set too high and human nature being what it is, many began demanding their issue was most important. Oars flailing in all directions and the boat drifted aimlessly. Gentle,moderate course corrections tend to be more effective than yanking the wheel violently left or right.

a capella on August 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Wow, dedalus, that’s two whopping errors in one thread. I guess I’d better set you straight.

1)

If the issue were pushed back to the states, enough of the largest states would quickly pass legislation protecting abortion that the net effect wouldn’t seem to leave acccess much different than it is today.

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM

This is wrong. A large number of states would quickly pass laws allowing abortion in the instances of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother, and they’d be close to each other (e.g, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, etc.) A much larger number — nearly all — would pass parental notification laws. This would make the blithe transport of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion a crime in most states. Access would be severely restricted, which is why abortion advocates oppose parental notification laws so energetically.

2)

Most laws exist on slippery slopes–voting age, tax rates, speed limits, etc.

dedalus on August 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM

This commits a category error. What creates a slippery slope is not some arbitrary scale on which the law picks a point, but a shift in the justification for the law that ends up justifying other, more onerous laws as well.

Take your example of voting age. The principle in establishing an arbitrary point for voting age is “responsibility of the voter.” If we made the age 15, or 22, or some other, so long as we have factual reasons for asserting that that age constitutes a demarcation in responsibility, we have not gone down any slope.

We’d be heading for a slope if we justified a change in voting age, say, on the basis that “16-year-olds are human beings with human rights.” In that case, we’ve shifted the standard from “any responsible citizen may vote” to “any citizen with human rights may vote.” That’s a very slippery slope indeed, because newborn infants are citizens with human rights.

See the difference?

philwynk on August 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM

a capella on August 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM

I tend to agree. This is not 2000 or 2004, where the name of the game was to get your base more excited than the other guy’s base. Conservatives, while still important, cannot expect to be courted this year in the same way they were in previous elections.

2006 did not send the message “Ignore your base at your peril.” It sent the message “The base is single-minded and has no grasp of political strategery. You can’t count on them.”

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM

dedalus …

Didn’t Webster establish Roe as settled in terms of federal jurisdiction? So far federal courts have denied even reasonable (in my view) efforts to limit abortions.

I have always found it interesting that neither the pro-life nor pro-choice movements have discussed Webster much. It certainly was a huge political issue when the case was before the high court.

I assume it was because neither side liked the ruling. It states that abortion is “the law of the land”, but also makes no allowances for expanding the reach of Roe by the courts.

doufree on August 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM

2006 did not send the message “Ignore your base at your peril.” It sent the message “The base is single-minded and has no grasp of political strategery. You can’t count on them.”

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM

In a nutshell.

a capella on August 21, 2008 at 2:20 PM

“The base is single-minded and has no grasp of political strategery. You can’t count on them.”

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM

So the base can’t be trusted to choose the candidate? We have to rely on some group of political elites to determine that handing off the nomination to a left of the party crowd like McCain’s cadre was done for our own good? Why stop there? Why don’t we just get a group of Dems and Reps together in a sealed room and let them tell us who the new leader is by releasing white smoke from the Capitol dome?

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM

highhopes on August 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM

No, I am saying the base doesn’t necessarily have to take concerns like electability or political feasibility into account. What major leader of the “base” actually holds a political office—on either side? Kos? Malkin? Huffington? Limbaugh?

As a matter of fact, and the Godfather Himself (Rush) even said it, many of the leaders of the base don’t seek office because the exigencies of elected office keep them from being able to say what they feel needs to be said. And I respect that.

But it is those very exigencies that are the reason sometimes the base has to be told “no.”

Sekhmet on August 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Doogiesd on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM

Sexy and smart. A killer combination.

As far as McCain, how many more ways can he come up with to try and lose this election?

Lawrence on August 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM

This is wrong. A large number of states would quickly pass laws allowing abortion in the instances of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother, and they’d be close to each other (e.g, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, etc.) A much larger number — nearly all — would pass parental notification laws. This would make the blithe transport of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion a crime in most states. Access would be severely restricted, which is why abortion advocates oppose parental notification laws so energetically.

philwynk on August 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM

It could be restricted in some states, but the ability to move from one state to another is trivial.

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 4:27 PM

This commits a category error. What creates a slippery slope is not some arbitrary scale on which the law picks a point, but a shift in the justification for the law that ends up justifying other, more onerous laws as well.

Take your example of voting age. The principle in establishing an arbitrary point for voting age is “responsibility of the voter.” If we made the age 15, or 22, or some other, so long as we have factual reasons for asserting that that age constitutes a demarcation in responsibility, we have not gone down any slope.

We’d be heading for a slope if we justified a change in voting age, say, on the basis that “16-year-olds are human beings with human rights.” In that case, we’ve shifted the standard from “any responsible citizen may vote” to “any citizen with human rights may vote.” That’s a very slippery slope indeed, because newborn infants are citizens with human rights.

See the difference?

philwynk on August 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM

The question was “Is abortion the epitome of a slippery slope”. My point is that setting the time at which individual rights are conveyed during the reproductive process is something that there is no consensus on in the country. There is a minority of opinion that one-celled fertilized eggs should have full rights and a minority of opinion that partial birth abortion is OK. Setting a point in between does not require momentum in either direction, any more than lowering the voting age or lowering the speed limit does. The question of where the threshold lies in the case of human reproduction is one that has been struggled with for a long time. You can see, for instance, the question pondered in the Book of Exodus.

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Two questions: Does anyine else find it impossibly long to download from sevenload? It takes 99 seconds to download 2 seconds of video.

Also, if McCain is so unpoplular with the right (and I am one of those disgruntled conservatives who think he has a populist with a modicom of integrity but not much wisdom on issues or clarity on the Constitution) why can’t we start a new party?

Before I get all the groans: Was Lincoln the first (or first preeminant) Republican Presidential candidate? How did the new Republicans accomplish this? And how might we do this today, without resorting to the Independant Party and its inherent dilution of significance?

flicker on August 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM

…but not much wisdom on issues or clarity on the Constitution)
flicker on August 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM

And an example or two of that would be what?

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 5:37 PM

As for this abortion debate: come on. Everybody has always known that that thing humping and bumping around in every woman’s belly is a baby. Either it has worth from the beginning, or from some age or size, or from the time it first breathes, or from the time the umbilicus is cut or whatever. But ask the middle aged, atheist couple of an in vitro baby finally clinging precariously to that slippery uterine wall if that’s a baby and they may say, ‘Not yet,’ but if you cause her to abort, they will mourn the baby’s death; or do more than that.

This question of being and worth has nothing to do with viability or poverty or mothers’ rights. The question is ‘What is the stuff of this unborn baby? Is it an unborn human being or not?’

The slippery slope is obvious in partial-birth abortion; the often proposed “mothers’ should be free to kill their babies within the first year of life” theory based on mothers’ incompatibility or difficulty in bonding.

The slippery slope is also visible, from what I understand, in violent crime statistics. As the government delegitimize the worth of innocent human life, so does society and soon enough the individual criminals as well.

There are three basic answers, off hand, to the ridiculed but poignant question, “What if you had been aborted?”

The first is “I wouldn’t be here to know about it.” But that’s not more a legitimate answer than to say the person you killed died in his sleep, so he’s not here to know about it and therefore feels no harm. No harm: no foul.”

Second is: “Hey, I wouldn’t mind; this life’s not so great anyway.” If this is your answer, it shows an unhealthy depression. There are not only pharmaceuticals, but world views and activities which could help you enjoy your life very much.

The third is: “I wasn’t. So there, I’m lucky. What are you going to do about it? Kill me? Try to kill me now and you’ve got a fight on your hands. It’s a hard world. I’m here by the luck of the draw. And that’s all there is.” This is nothing more than the generic justification for any brutality and murder.

But in the end, abortion only exists because babies are the real Inconvenient Truth.

flicker on August 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 5:37 PM

I am not an attorney, but I think that McCain/Feingold is a ham-handed, populist ‘rational’ attempt to remove citizen-organized lobbying from a greedy politariat. The writers of the Constitution, however, according to my understanding, placed a high premium on free, unfettered political speech and they attempted to assure that by including the addition of the First Amendment to that Constitution.

Secondly, I am thoroughly bewildered at how a soldier of note will refuse to close the US/Mexican border to illegal trafficking of humans and drugs. The Constitution requires the government to provide for secure borders and McCain was one of the leading demagogues against closing the border.

flicker on August 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Both are excellent points, flicker. The thing about bad law, is that an enterprising lawyer or organization can challenge the bad law based on it’s unconstitutionality. In addition to these two, I see many more unconstitutional-ally or ish things going on in DC. Just because they aren’t stopped, of course does not make them correct.

But they should. (Be challenged.)

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM

I see many more unconstitutional-ally or ish things going on in DC.

Okay, what would you add, wiseman?

flicker on August 21, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Well, flicker, the whole process with the lobbyists stinks to high heaven. And if they make a rule to stop one thing, they’ll just do something else, just as water seeks it’s own level. So many laws are out there, but they get abused. Tom Delay was charged with all of the things the prosecutor brought against him, including his lobbyists freebies – and Nancy Pelosi did the similar thing but on a smaller level. And she wrote a ‘i’m sorry note,’ and all is forgiven. Examples like that.

Oh course, securing the border. How the government does nothing as cities protect illegals. Why in the hell does the federal government do nothing as sanctuary cities continue to operate illegally.

Leaking classified information such as entering classified documents into the record, or leaking information to others and the press, especially the New York Times. I remember there was a lot of opposition to Reagan by democrats in the congress or senate, such as Ted Kennedy going to the soviets behind Reagan’s back, all sorts of things in the past. And just in the last 8 years with the war on terror. And they seem to be not prosecuted, or in the case with Sandy Berger, get off with extremely light sentences.

And people often mention the case of the two border guards who are in jail who should be let free. While this is not an example of a constitutional matter, it’s part of the long list of things this aren’t just wrong, but criminal.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Yes, I think we’re on the same side of the net with this one. I’m ready for a new Party.

flicker on August 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM

The slippery slope is also visible, from what I understand, in violent crime statistics. As the government delegitimize the worth of innocent human life, so does society and soon enough the individual criminals as well.

flicker on August 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM

Then cities like New York should have a higher crime rate than in 1973, but the opposite is true. Roe might be bad law, but I wouldn’t infer a cause-and-effect relationship between it and a lowered respect for innocent human life that leads to an increase in street crime.

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Yes, I think we’re on the same side of the net with this one. I’m ready for a new Party.
flicker on August 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM

There’s a lot of options as to where we go from here. I haven’t seen anything yet convince me that a radical change is either necessary or possible. Maybe it is, and maybe it can be. I’m just not convinced yet.

If someone would like to try to convince me that it’s time to abandon the republican party, or to start something new that will grow on the vine, and not be an obscure offshoot of where we are now that won’t be an evolutionary/political dead end, then i’m all ears.

wise_man on August 21, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Thank you Michelle. The V.P. selection is similar to choosing the right teammate in a doubles match (think Women’s Volleyball). The ladies counter each others weakness and focus on their shared strengths to keep the opponent off balance. But after the games over (election process) there must be an ability to continue in the day to day functioning of the Administration. McCain must find his Cheney.

A side issue, focusing on winning while the Libs bury themselves in Denver. Not much attention is being paid to history and its faculty for repeatition. The Dems are in sync with history’s 40-50 cycle of repeating itself. Recreate 68 is a lot closer to reality than Obombem realizes. His friendship with the Ayres is going to back fire on him as the Dems will self implode.

MSGTAS on August 22, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Flicker for President!

Let’s force a real conservative to run (even if you don’t want to).

doufree on August 22, 2008 at 10:46 AM

I wouldn’t infer a cause-and-effect relationship between it and a lowered respect for innocent human life that leads to an increase in street crime.

dedalus on August 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM

I very much would draw that conclusion. As a culture, New York is not representative of the US as a whole. It has benefitted greatly from strict law enforcement policies which created strong disincentives to all crime under the direction of a certain world-class, though pro-abortion, mayor who will remain nameless.

Wise man,

I think I’ve sobered up now. I was not thinking in terms of a single-issue party such as the Republicans. If we can’t get a single true conservative to be our own nominee, because of the MSM or the lackadaisical US electorate, I doubt any new party could do better. A new party would require all the Newts, Dobsons, Romneys, Malkins, Krauthammers, and Wills, et al. to support it. Never happen. This is not so bad since, when it should ever be time, I’m sure they would all speak up.

flicker on August 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2