Michelle urges Palin: Don’t campaign for McCain! Update: Hayworth jumps in?

posted at 8:34 pm on January 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

In which the boss spots a sinister trend: McCain Regression Syndrome.

It’d be just my luck that Meggie Mac is reading the site tonight.

Savor the irony: After a career spent bashing the right flank of the party, Sen. McCain is now clinging to its coattails to save his incumbent hide.

And pay attention to the hidden, more troubling irony: While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy…

With all due respect to McCain’s past noble war service, it’s time to head to the pasture. As the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, he was wrong on the constitutionality of the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous illegal alien amnesty.

Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The conservative base has no such obligations – and it is imperative that they get in the game (as they did in Massachusetts) before it’s too late. The movement to restore limited government in Washington has come too far, against all odds, to succumb to McCain Regression Syndrome now.

It might be too late already. According to Rasmussen, Maverick’s up 53/31 on J.D. Hayworth and is already running attack ads against him — before he’s even gotten into the race. Proof positive that he’s worried, which only makes Sarahcuda’s “true conservative” stamp of approval that much more important in possibly warning Hayworth away.

The weirdest part of this? I don’t think anyone will be swayed by Palin’s endorsement. No one seriously believes she’d be backing him if not for her personal loyalty to him, and McCain’s sufficiently infamous for his centrism that even her support won’t scrub him clean in the eyes of tea partiers. Which means this is actually a pretty shrewd move on her part: She gets credit for being a good soldier, especially in light of the sniping at her from his former campaign aides, whereas he gets maybe a few extra votes from conservatives. In fact, someone should make a video at her rally for McCain in the same mold as that now-famous video outside Obama’s rally for Coakley, where college kids babbled about getting to see The One in person while showing no enthusiasm whatsoever for the candidate. That’s what we’re going to end up with here, I think.

We have to poll it. Do your worst.

Update: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

JD Hayworth quits radio show. To McCain: “It’s time for you to come home.”



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 6 7 8

RE:Shay

I’ve encountered this idea twice today. I have yet to meet any conservative or republican who voted for Obama.

Meet any who stayed at home? About 4 million of them did. More flushed their votes on the likes of Alan Keyes or the “constitution party”. Many ranted about bankrupting the country to teach the GOP the error of it’s ways. McCain was a “baby killer”, the wars were already lost and, my absolute favorite: “There is no difference between the democrats and the republicans”. Few gave money, fewer volunteered and those of us who did faced down hard core leftists determined to elect the dangerous resentful incompetent we have now and idiot blowhards phony conservatives who were perfectly willing to see the country suffer for some pipe dream of bringing back zombie Goldwater.

I don’t know a single soul who didn’t think that voting for Obama, or not voting at all, would be anything other than suicide.

Well you probably weren’t reading her blog or this one during the election then. Seriously, go back and read the posts.

I don’t believe you.

Believe Karl Rove? : “Then there were those who didn’t show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week.”

Go back and read the blog posts, you will be amazed at the vitriol poured on John McCain throughout the election and just how completely wrong she, and many of the same democrat useful idiots venting their MDS now were.

Boxy_Brown on January 24, 2010 at 2:35 AM

If you are seriously outraged, shocked at her supporting McCain, then you don’t pay much attention to things.

I noticed awhile ago the woman doesn’t seem to have the sense God gave a grapenut.

happyfeet on January 24, 2010 at 2:58 AM

Sarah Palin is committed to supporting her friend and ally for now. This is probably the reason he told his campaign staffers to stfu when her book came out. He is a calculating old codger and this should make things even. I hope Hayworth wins and that will be the end of the Arizona relic!

It is up to those in Arizona to rid themselves of McCain, WAKE UP ARIZONA!

Africanus on January 24, 2010 at 4:02 AM

My guess is that she agreed to campaign for him long before the current political winds even started to blow. I wouldn’t be surprised if she agreed to help him during the 2008 campaign, once they realized that their chance of winning was swirling.

So she has to campaign for a friend who is off the rails on some issues, but she proves to be a woman of her word.

She breaks even.

pugwriter on January 24, 2010 at 5:28 AM

Everything
has costs and benefits!
Sarah’s support for McCain has both elements.
How much mud she can absorb before she loses her
luster remains to be calculated, especially in light
of the idealogical nature of the Tea Party Rebellion
against RINOs and DC insiders/players like McCain et al.

This year, I’ve supported Sarah Palin as a voice for the conservative movement, and continue to do so. Lost tho, is some enthusiasm due to her political decision to endorse McCain. There were other political ways to get her ticket punched (such as her FOXy McCain apologetics on Beck’s show)

In the last General Election, I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket — I detest McCain and his duplicity, and have for many years. I voted, and didn’t “stay home” because my kids come into the voting booth with me — The civics lesson is “VOTE->use it or lose it”.

Unfortunately, McCain’s Presidential campaign performance was a betrayal of all who voted for him — and IMO he is most responsible for giving America BO! McCain deserves to be turned out to pasture in an AZ desert.

Unfortunately, Palin’s praise may have breathed new life into his stinking carcus. Some of that STINK has accrued to Sarah Palin’s hide as well. Was Levi’s messege of Palin greed a harbinger of truth? Whatever her designs for her political future, some of the bloom is off the rose”

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2010 at 6:26 AM

Was Levi’s messege of Palin greed a harbinger of truth? Whatever her designs for her political future, some of the bloom is off the rose”

On Watch on January 24, 2010 at 6:26 AM

Just when you thought the righteous indignation level couldn’t get any higher among the “I supported Sarah but now I’m sooo disappointed” crowd, they put the icing on the cake by using Levi Johnston as a source. If that is the caliber of the people now throwing her under the bus for campaigning for McCain – good riddance.

katiejane on January 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Sarah Palin is a loyal Republican, that means she is going to support the winner of this Arizona Primary if McCain loses, she will support Hayworth so where is the downside? Do Republicans want to take back the Senate and House?

People need to look at The Texas Governor Race, it is Vulnerable to A Democrat Win. We got RINOS to chose from down here and Sarah Palin is supporting Rick “NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY” Perry. Texas Republicans Party need to send straight up Conservatives to Vote for.

I Am In No Mood For Voting For A RINO I like Debra Medina (R) Conservative.

Did the GOP get the message in Massachusetts? Scott Brown ran as an Independent Republican. It takes Independents to get elected. I didn’t vote for Cornyn Nov 2008, and I won’t vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson for Dog Catcher. If you are a Texan politician who got any of that TARP on you – don’t count on me for my vote.

Dr Evil on January 24, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Some of these “purists” are quite impolitic.

atheling on January 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Some of these “purists” are quite impolitic.

atheling on January 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM

I think it might be possessiveness. They only like Palin when they think they “own” her.

Frankly, her principles have been the same as McCain’s, which is why she ran with him successfully. She has never suggested one word differently.

I’d just ignore the criticism, if I were her.

AnninCA on January 24, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Sarah just isn’t all that into you ideologues. LOL*

Never has been.

AnninCA on January 24, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Sarah doesn’t have a right-wing bone in her body. Social conservatives like her for abortion, but real conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and right-wingers, not to mention independent libertarians better recognize a Bush-style RINO when they see one.

Michelle Malkin is smart enough to see through the glaze social cons have put on Palin. This is not what the Tea Partiers want. They want a hard core right-wing fiscal conservative, not another moderate Bush clone.

keep the change on January 24, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I think it might be possessiveness. They only like Palin when they think they “own” her.

AnninCA on January 24, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I don’t see them as being possessive – most of those people understand her better than the “I’m so disappointed” crowd.
Her new critics are just upset that she isn’t willing to be THEIR ideologue and be used by them. It’s not enough that she supports the TP movement – if she isn’t as rabid as they are and prepared to dive off the cliff, she must be scorned.

katiejane on January 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

I don’t see them as being possessive – most of those people understand her better than the “I’m so disappointed” crowd.
Her new critics are just upset that she isn’t willing to be THEIR ideologue and be used by them. It’s not enough that she supports the TP movement – if she isn’t as rabid as they are and prepared to dive off the cliff, she must be scorned.

katiejane on January 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

They aren’t all that rabid. This is the same fringe element as Obama’s far-right fringe group. Mostly they post. LOL*

I wonder if they really vote, sometimes. I’d wager No.

AnninCA on January 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Sarah Palin is definitely more loyal to John McCain than she is to the people who elected her governor, and she’ll continue to be “loyal” to him as long as she thinks it helps her.

happyfeet on January 24, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Will He? Won’t He? Obama’s Next Move, Scott Brown Update: http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/24/will-he-wont-he-obamas-next-move-scott-brown-update/

dnlchisholm on January 24, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I’m a Tea Party activist, and I’m not exactly “outraged” at Sarah. I mean, it’s for John McCain, who was responsible for getting her on the national stage in the first place.

long_cat on January 24, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Levi Johnston…If that is the caliber of the people now throwing her under the bus for campaigning for McCain – good riddance.

katiejane on January 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Oh comon sister kate!
Levi’s no worse than most 18 year olds these days, in fact, he seems to have a tender spot in his heart for Granny Palin:

“I’d do just about anything for her,” Johnston said of his infant son’s grandmother.”

Now, let’s face facts, the lad was also the proverbial “fly on the wall” over there at the Palin Hacienda, before, during, after, the election, and Sarah’s resignation. Sounds like the kid had a front row seat on the aftermath of the unsuccessful McCain campaign:

Johnston… said there was talk among the Palins about doing a reality show “or just something easier.”

“We had tons of offers coming in from everybody out there and just all kinds of ridiculous things,” he said. “There’s been talk about it would be nice to just take the money and run.”

So, quit your pouting katieJ, we’re not throwing SarahCuda under the bus yet, just wondering if she realizes the degree that Conservatives dispise McCain — and that her cuddling up with the old bastagge will cost her and the Tea Party Revolution somewhere down the road.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2010 at 8:20 PM

I knew this one was coming at some point.

But, even as a supporter of Sarah, I think it is VERY important for the TeaCons (like me) to get there LOUD feedback to Sarah.

That will make it clear we can overlook supporting the man who had the guts to pick you for Veep, therefore giving us a good candidate for 2012 or beyond.

The second Rino you pick in a GOP primary will be devastating to your reputation as someone who is against “politics as usual”.

Sapwolf on January 24, 2010 at 11:24 PM

J D Hayworth A Fools Errand:

http://race42008.com/2010/01/25/j-d-hayworth-a-fools-errand/

gary4205 on January 25, 2010 at 4:52 AM

I think it might be possessiveness. They only like Palin when they think they “own” her.

Frankly, her principles have been the same as McCain’s, which is why she ran with him successfully. She has never suggested one word differently.

I’d just ignore the criticism, if I were her.

AnninCA on January 24, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Sarah just isn’t all that into you ideologues. LOL*

Never has been.

AnninCA on January 24, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Folks, when Ann is one of the few here making sense you know there’s a problem.

Sarah is doing the right thing for the right reasons. Folks that can’t handle that need to just STFU.

End of story.

gary4205 on January 25, 2010 at 5:03 AM

Meet any who stayed at home? About 4 million of them did. More flushed their votes on the likes of Alan Keyes or the “constitution party”. Many ranted about bankrupting the country to teach the GOP the error of it’s ways. McCain was a “baby killer”, the wars were already lost and, my absolute favorite: “There is no difference between the democrats and the republicans”. Few gave money, fewer volunteered and those of us who did faced down hard core leftists determined to elect the dangerous resentful incompetent we have now and idiot blowhards phony conservatives who were perfectly willing to see the country suffer for some pipe dream of bringing back zombie Goldwater.

Yup. What am I, your slave? I owe you my vote and my volunteer time?

Go back and read the blog posts, you will be amazed at the vitriol poured on John McCain throughout the election and just how completely wrong she, and many of the same democrat useful idiots venting their MDS now were.

Boxy_Brown on January 24, 2010 at 2:35 AM

What criticism of McCain from the right turned out to be wrong? Elucidate.

Please remember that if you had been speaking at a McCain/Palin rally and said Senator Obama was a “dangerous resentful incompetent”, McCain would have denounced you for ruining his campaign theme: two honorable guys happened to be on opposite sides of the aisle.

Somehow in 21 years we went from a country living 2 hours from nuclear bombardment to a nation that can’t dare let AIG fail. Our problems are real and not just a guy named Barack Obama. We’re going to Californize the United States if there isn’t systemic change–and by denying that, yes, the GOP isn’t much better than the Democrat party. If you think voting straight-ticket Republican is the total answer, at a time when the ‘strategy’ is to have no agenda–well you’ll find out.

Chris_Balsz on January 25, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Yup. What am I, your slave? I owe you my vote and my volunteer time?

You wouldn’t have been doing anything for me, it would have been for the country.

Please remember that if you had been speaking at a McCain/Palin rally and said Senator Obama was a “dangerous resentful incompetent”, McCain would have denounced you for ruining his campaign theme

So there is your excuse for not doing anything to keep Obama out.. Right?

“Our problems are real and not just a guy named Barack Obama. “

Barack Obama is a major problem.

“yes, the GOP isn’t much better than the Democrat party.”

So enlarge the couch dent. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously when you complain that the country is failing.

“If you think voting straight-ticket Republican is the total answer,”

I never wrote that. I have written that any supposed “conservative” or even patriotic American that didn’t recognize that Barack Obama was lousy enough to suspend the MDS long enough to keep the this glorified used car salesman out of the oval office has shown that they don’t have the judgment to be taken seriously. The past year has confirmed that argument.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I never wrote that. I have written that any supposed “conservative” or even patriotic American that didn’t recognize that Barack Obama was lousy enough to suspend the MDS long enough to keep the this glorified used car salesman out of the oval office has shown that they don’t have the judgment to be taken seriously. The past year has confirmed that argument.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

You don’t get that the election years of 2006 and 2008 are important for the health of a party. It’s similar to the theory of creative destruction. A winning party attracts corruptocrats, clingers, and hanger-ons, and nothing will clear them away except a trip to the woodshed. You can attribute the resurgence of the GOP to Obama, and to a certain extent it’s true, but it’s also a purification process that was caused by 2006 and 2008. I say that even though Obama may prove dangerous to the country a stagnant political pool full of elitist corruptocrats would be fatal.

DFCtomm on January 25, 2010 at 2:14 PM

“If you think voting straight-ticket Republican is the total answer,”

I never wrote that. I have written that any supposed “conservative” or even patriotic American that didn’t recognize that Barack Obama was lousy enough to suspend the MDS long enough to keep the this glorified used car salesman out of the oval office has shown that they don’t have the judgment to be taken seriously. The past year has confirmed that argument.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

And what’s the acid test of this superior judgment? –Voting straight ticket Republican!

Which candidate was the “lesser evil” and which was “the One you’ve been waiting for” to their supporters?

Why are Timothy Geitner and Robert Gates still working in the executive branch?

The Democrat represents a unitarian nationalist vision of government as the fount of legitmacy for religion and social values, a bottomless horn of plenty…

And the Republican Party is turning into the Yes-But Democrat-Lite party. Remember a month or so ago, when Allahpundit discussed the horror of Obamacare? He said if it passed this January, it was probably secure. Because even if the Republicans took Congress in 2010, Obama would veto any override; and even if the Republicans then took the White House in 2012, financial interests would require we stick with the program.

That’s why you see Barack Obama, perhaps the weakest Democrat since LBJ, as a major problem. You haven’t the vision, the organization, or even the desire to confront and uproot the movement he represents. And THAT is the major problem. And rooting for your failures, as represented by what Gingrich has become and what McCain remains, is not helping America at all.

None of that is an excuse, just an explanation.

Chris_Balsz on January 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

“My friends, you have nothing to fear with John McCain.”

kens on January 25, 2010 at 4:51 PM

DFCtomm

You don’t get that the election years of 2006 and 2008 are important for the health of a party.

And the health of the country fits in where?

A winning party attracts corruptocrats, clingers, and hanger-ons, and nothing will clear them away except a trip to the woodshed.

You don’t gain influence by losing elections. A losing party degenerates into circular firing squads and financial collapse. The Democrats are busy unloading as much taxpayer dollars on their allies as possible. The only thing that will save the GOP is the sheer incompetence of the opposition. I understand that was the argument from the outset but look at the disaster it is going to leave in it’s wake. Wouldn’t it be smarter to elect the best you can get and then work to hold them accountable? A hell of a lot smarter then letting this pack of trotskyite idiots spend us into 3rd world status.

You can attribute the resurgence of the GOP to Obama,

We are still at at a minority in the house, we just barely reversed a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a we have already had one idiot appointed to the supreme court. There will probably be at least 1 more. We haven’t “re surged” yet. We have had a couple of victories but the people who have been elected aren’t the rock ribbed “conservatives” that are so often demanded here. It seems that the electorate isn’t learning the lesson that those who thought it would be a good idea to lose the election wanted them to learn.

I say that even though Obama may prove dangerous to the country a stagnant political pool full of elitist corruptocrats would be fatal.

We just celebrated the election of Scott Brown to the senate. Indeed he was backed by this blog and every other “right of center” (excuse the quotes but the terms Liberal and Conservative have become so skewed at this point that I am reticent to use them) Blog, TV station or Newspaper I saw. Again, rightfully so. But the man isn’t a “conservative” indeed, in better times he would probably be pilloried as a RINO here. So think about it. Who is getting a lesson here? The elected or the electorate? Is this the “purification process” or are you just getting your mind right? When we have right of center blogs celebrating the election of someone who is pro-choice, pro “green energy” bs and who voted for the Massachusetts universal health care what does that tell you about this whole sanctimonious pretense of “purity”? It tells me that it it’s pretty situational. When it comes to John McCain we need to purge the RINO’s. When it comes to someone like Scott Brown, who is left of him, well, get out your checkbooks. (And I did too, gleefully)

And no, the debt and deficit that Barack Obama are running up, the loss of sovereignty, the growth of government, the loss of international prestige and the further crippling of our industrial base are all existential threats to this country.

All Obama ever had to do is spend so much money that we couldn’t tell our creditors “no”. I wrote those lines over and over during the election. Well he is doing it, and there goes our Sovereignty, super power status, choices, etc… So no, it was idiotic to just roll over and let this creep into the white house.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 4:54 PM

We just celebrated the election of Scott Brown to the senate. Indeed he was backed by this blog and every other “right of center” (excuse the quotes but the terms Liberal and Conservative have become so skewed at this point that I am reticent to use them) Blog, TV station or Newspaper I saw. Again, rightfully so. But the man isn’t a “conservative” indeed, in better times he would probably be pilloried as a RINO here. So think about it. Who is getting a lesson here? The elected or the electorate? Is this the “purification process” or are you just getting your mind right? When we have right of center blogs celebrating the election of someone who is pro-choice, pro “green energy” bs and who voted for the Massachusetts universal health care what does that tell you about this whole sanctimonious pretense of “purity”? It tells me that it it’s pretty situational. When it comes to John McCain we need to purge the RINO’s. When it comes to someone like Scott Brown, who is left of him, well, get out your checkbooks. (And I did too, gleefully)

Scott Brown is the most conservative Senator MA has had in 50 years. I would not have supported Brown for a southern state, they are capable of supporting someone much more conservative, as is Arizona.

DFCtomm on January 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM

RE.Chris_Balsz

And what’s the acid test of this superior judgment? –Voting straight ticket Republican!

Why reply if you aren’t going to read what I wrote?

Which candidate was the “lesser evil”

The primaries produced 2 viable candidates. Barack Obama and John McCain. The fact that you can’t determine which would be the “lesser of 2 evils” Your phraseology, not mine, goes back to the whole “judgment” thing. Looking at the past years legislative calinder shows that McCain has consistently stood up for genuinely conservative principles, a strong USA, smaller government, less waste, not socializing entire industries, etc. While Obama has sought to flush money down the toilet and turn the USA into a socialized country subservient to international organizations that hate our guts. So if there is still any question in your mind you must not have an issue with what Obama has been doing.

and which was “the One you’ve been waiting for” to their supporters?

If I understand you correctly (I didn’t write “the One you’ve been waiting for”) you NEVER get the one you have been waiting for. There is always going to be a compromize or a flaw when dealing with humans. IE: She’s beautiful but she’s crazy. It goes fast but it guzzles gas. It tastes good but it makes you fat… etc. Smart people go for the best that they can get and work to mitigate the worst. Not hold out for the “the [perfect] One you’ve been waiting for” because it doesn’t exist.

Why are Timothy Geitner and Robert Gates still working in the executive branch?

Because Obama got elected.

The Democrat represents a unitarian nationalist vision of government as the fount of legitmacy for religion and social values, a bottomless horn of plenty…

Bull.

And the Republican Party is turning into the Yes-But Democrat-Lite party.

Bull. Even if that were true, who’s fault is it and what is the smart way of fixing it? Wrecking the country?

Remember a month or so ago, when Allahpundit discussed the horror of Obamacare? He said if it passed this January, it was probably secure. Because even if the Republicans took Congress in 2010, Obama would veto any override; and even if the Republicans then took the White House in 2012, financial interests would require we stick with the program.

Well that crafty GOP strategy of Teddy Kennedy dropping dead of a brain tumor saved the day. (Maybe) When I say “crafty GOP strategy” I really mean “act of God” of course.

That’s why you see Barack Obama, perhaps the weakest Democrat since LBJ, as a major problem.

All Obama ever had to do is spend so much money that we couldn’t tell our creditors “no”.
Seriously, I am amaized that anyyone who posts here doesn’t see Obama as a “major problem”.

You haven’t the vision, the organization, or even the desire to confront and uproot the movement he represents.

My personal attributes, the GOP’s attributes or indeed the attributes of everything else under the sun are beside the point of the argument so disputing that is a waste of time. The point was that Barack Obama (or his movement if you wish) represent an existential threat to American exeptionalism, American sovereignty and the principles that made us the greatest country on earth. There is no conservative case to be made for lying down in the face of that and those who did have peen proven wrong by the differing actions of the 2 choices we had for president in the intervening year.

And rooting for your failures, as represented by what Gingrich has become and what McCain remains, is not helping America at all.

You see it as a choice between electing Obama and doing nothing or electing MaCain and doing nothing. With McCain you had someone who had reversed himself on drilling, reversed himself on immigration, etc. Obama just thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a racist. It isn’t enough to elect the best you can get but you need to work to keep them on the right path. (What we should have been doing all along with Bush.) Your obligation to the Republic doesn’t end after you flip the lever for whomever.

None of that is an excuse, just an explanation.

Rationalization is more like it.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 5:39 PM

DFCtomm

Yes! I agree! But the point was that when you set up a choice between “purity” versus reality we just went full in on the side of reality. (Zombie Goldwater would never have been elected by the massholes)

Why did we do that? Because it was so important to stop Obama.

Why is it so important to stop Obama? Because he got elected and he is creating a leftist, euro-style nanny state and bankrupting the country as fast as he can.

Why did he (Obama) get elected? In part because we had people denouncing his opposition (McCain) as not sufficiently pure enough to hold office.

So conservatives are celebrating the election of what many would call a “RINO”(Brown) to defeat the agenda of someone (Obama) who ran against someone (McCain) that “conservatives” opposed even though he is actually more conservative then the one they just helped elect.

So who learned the “lesson”? The politicians or the voters? If this is smart now why wouldn’t the same thing have been smart then? If it was wrong not to insist on purity then, why is it not wrong to insist on it now?

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 6:03 PM

If this is smart now why wouldn’t the same thing have been smart then?

1. He isn’t President.
2. He provides a 41st vote in the Senate, which President McCain would not.
3. We will not be called to to re-elect him as President in 4 years.
4. We didn’t make a commitment towards his re-election down the road.

You say you’re not promoting straight-ticket partisanship. Can you name some Republicans we should work against?

Your whole approach is seems focused on beating a guy named Barack Obama.

If Barack Obama were the main problem there’d be no problem.
His executive orders can be reversed.
Laws, rewritten.
Treaties breached.
Even, if dissent is high enough, judges forced to step down.

But that isn’t “likely”…why is that? Isn’t it because Barack Obama is just part of a machine?

It’s that greater problem that requires coordinated efforts, in many different places, beyond one election cycle to overcome.

And when you understand that, you understand why we WON’T come together around “anything goes”.

Chris_Balsz on January 25, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Yes! I agree! But the point was that when you set up a choice between “purity” versus reality we just went full in on the side of reality. (Zombie Goldwater would never have been elected by the massholes)

Why did we do that? Because it was so important to stop Obama.

Why is it so important to stop Obama? Because he got elected and he is creating a leftist, euro-style nanny state and bankrupting the country as fast as he can.

Why did he (Obama) get elected? In part because we had people denouncing his opposition (McCain) as not sufficiently pure enough to hold office.

So conservatives are celebrating the election of what many would call a “RINO”(Brown) to defeat the agenda of someone (Obama) who ran against someone (McCain) that “conservatives” opposed even though he is actually more conservative then the one they just helped elect.

So who learned the “lesson”? The politicians or the voters? If this is smart now why wouldn’t the same thing have been smart then? If it was wrong not to insist on purity then, why is it not wrong to insist on it now?

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Most did as I did, and voted for McCain even though we wanted to vote for someone else. What I think Chris_Balsz is talking about is the enthusiasm gap, and it was huge. People stayed home, and didn’t volunteer or send money. That’s what you get for nominating McCain.

DFCtomm on January 25, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Sarah has a new smackdown on Facebook:
Mr. President: Please Try, “I’m Listening, People,” Instead of “Listen Up, People!”Share
Today at 8:33pm
We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

- Sarah Palin

lonestar1 on January 25, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Here is the link:

lonestar1 on January 25, 2010 at 10:10 PM

1. He [Brown] isn’t President.

Yeah, it’s Obama.

2. He provides a 41st vote in the Senate, which President McCain would not.

If McCain were president it wouldn’t be necessary to stop Obama’s health care plan or giving civilian trials to terrorists or the other things that Brown has promised to oppose.

3. We will not be called to to re-elect him as President in 4 years.

No, you will be called upon to vent your frustrations and help split the GOP ticket and help re-elect Obama. Because that would mean that you are “pure”.

4. We didn’t make a commitment towards his re-election down the road.

And you would have with McCain? Who knows, the democrats could have run someone like Zell Miller… Regardless, there is no republican case, no conservative case and no patriotic case to be made for rolling over in the face of an Obama presidency.

“Your whole approach is seems focused on beating a guy named Barack Obama”

That was the argument at hand.

“Isn’t it because Barack Obama is just part of a machine? “

The Chicago political machine? Obama represents something particularly pernicious and destructive to the what has made this country exceptional. He is the candidate of indoctrination masking as education, sanctimony for genuine morality, intolerant leftism masquerading as liberalism, Cowardice and appeasement rationalized as “multilateralism”, etc. There is so much wrong here I am struck at how you can still attempt to draw some kind of equivalence. The way to political reformation is not to give this kind of administration with these policies and agendas legitimacy and power.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 10:19 PM

RE DFCtomm

What I think Chris_Balsz is talking about is the enthusiasm gap, and it was huge.

And it didn’t help close that enthusiasm gap to have supposed conservative commentators unfairly doing everything they could to trash him throughout the election.

That’s what you get for nominating McCain.

I didn’t nominate anyone. John McCain was the one who came out of the primaries and he was the last best shot at not electing Barack Obama president.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 10:24 PM

No, you will be called upon to vent your frustrations and help split the GOP ticket and help re-elect Obama. Because that would mean that you are “pure”.

As we have clearly different goals, it would be pointless to play as the same team. Especially since you have only orders to hand out, along with speeches about compromise. Remind me again what you’re giving up?

Chris_Balsz on January 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM

As we have clearly different goals, it would be pointless to play as the same team.

My goal in this case was the preservation of the USA. Guess we do have different goals.

“Especially since you have only orders to hand out”

I scanned through my comments and I haven’t once told you what to do. Here: I am not the boss of you and I am not so big. Feel better?

“Remind me again what you’re giving up?”

In this case about an hour and 15 minutes actually reading and addressing your points.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM

And it didn’t help close that enthusiasm gap to have supposed conservative commentators unfairly doing everything they could to trash him throughout the election.

Boxy_Brown on January 25, 2010 at 10:24 PM

That’s the flaw in your argument. It was fair, and he deserved it.

DFCtomm on January 26, 2010 at 1:25 AM

It was fair, and he deserved it.

DFCtomm

Well no, the past year has proven that he was not about to go along with Obama’s poisonous agenda in any way. Again, to say that there was no difference between the 2 then was hysterical and completely unfair. To continually beat him over the head while he was the last chance at preventing a trillion dollar defect and a completely incompetent approach to fighting a 2 front war was idiotic. (Indeed, Obamas negligence has gotten our Soldiers and Marines killed.) To pillory him nightly when he was in an election against someone who is going to give the terrorists the same rights as an American shoplifter is just plain dumb. And to continue trashing him with the same worn out hysteria or defending his treatment in spite of what has transpired over the past year shows no class.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 2:03 AM

Well no, the past year has proven that he was not about to go along with Obama’s poisonous agenda in any way. Again, to say that there was no difference between the 2 then was hysterical and completely unfair. To continually beat him over the head while he was the last chance at preventing a trillion dollar defect and a completely incompetent approach to fighting a 2 front war was idiotic. (Indeed, Obamas negligence has gotten our Soldiers and Marines killed.) To pillory him nightly when he was in an election against someone who is going to give the terrorists the same rights as an American shoplifter is just plain dumb. And to continue trashing him with the same worn out hysteria or defending his treatment in spite of what has transpired over the past year shows no class.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 2:03 AM

McCain wanted to extend health care benefits by use of a tax credit. He is favorable to environmental issues, but since he didn’t win we will never know if he might have vetoed cap and trade if it passes. He was for TARP, and no reason to believe he wouldn’t have been for the stimulus if he had been elected. He’s good against earmarks but hasn’t shown himself to be a deficit hawk. He probably would have given all the troops requested instead of 75%, but Afghanistan is where empires go to die. It was completely fair to bash him during the primaries, but not productive during the election, but I think most people had settled down and hoping for the best by that time. The election is now over, so it’s fair once again to criticize him.

DFCtomm on January 26, 2010 at 2:35 AM

All of this has been hashed out. McCain has opposed nationalizing the healthcare industry, he voted against the stimulus, said he opposes cap and trade, HAS shown himself to be a deficit hawk and thanks for toeing the Ron Paul line on Afghanistan. Abandoning the fight against islamist terrorists is not a conservative or patriotic position.
Have at him in the primaries all you want but bashing him throughout the election is what I took issue with. Yes the election is over, he lost thanks in part to shrill polemics that time have proven to be dead wrong. Juxtapose that with the recent favorable gushing treatment of another candidate who is left of McCain on many issues and any fair minded person can see that a lot of the vitriol vented by malkin and many of the useful idiots for the democrat party on John McCain was/is based on a sliding scale of indignation and a petty personal vendetta against the man. Petty personal vendettas and double standards don’t make for good judgment and reasoned decisions at the voting booth. They helped bring about the presidency of Barack Obama.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM

and thanks for toeing the Ron Paul line on Afghanistan. Abandoning the fight against islamist terrorists is not a conservative or patriotic position.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM

I don’t like you and this is the last time I will be corresponding with you. You’re judgment about what is and isn’t patriotic is contemptuous. 20 years after were gone Iraq and Afghanistan will be as they were before we came. The lives and money will have been wasted in the sand and rock. We won’t change them.

DFCtomm on January 26, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I don’t agree McCain’s gonzo agenda was the only alternative to Obama socialism. I don’t think you can TELL me what McCain would have done. I think he shares Obama’s love of THE DEAL, only Obama manifests it on foriegn policy and McCain had it regarding domestic policy. His dash to sit in for the TARP summit shows that.

In any event, 2008 is passed, so we can move beyond McCain towards something effective.

Chris_Balsz on January 26, 2010 at 1:18 PM

DFCtomm

I don’t like you

Gee, Ill try to survive without your approval. Ill note though, that isn’t a particularly effective rebuttal to what I have been writing.

You’re judgment about what is and isn’t patriotic is contemptuous.

So cutting and running from Afghanistan would be patriotic to you…

20 years after were gone Iraq and Afghanistan will be as they were before we came.

Yup, sounds like I ran into another Ron Paul moonbat. You people should come with a disclaimer or a surgeon generals warning. Giving them what they want wont make them go away. That is cowardice and appeasement.

The lives and money will have been wasted in the sand and rock. We won’t change them.

So when monsters fly aircraft full of people into buildings full of people we should just take it and like it. Better yet, when we send our troops out on a limb it is perfectly OK to cut it of behind them. Yeah, I don’t think you are an authority on good judgment or patriotism.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

RE Chris_Balsz

I don’t agree McCain’s gonzo agenda was the only alternative to Obama socialism.

Again, it was not a choice between McCain’s “gonzo” agenda and Obama. It was a choice between McCain and some work to keep him on track or Obama and watching him do whatever he could to bankrupt us. That’s it, they were the only 2 viable candidates in November.

I don’t think you can TELL me what McCain would have done.

Lets face it; I can’t tell you anything. You have an enormous chip on your shoulder and you read simple declarative sentences as a list of instructions.

I think he shares Obama’s love of THE DEAL, only Obama manifests it on foriegn policy and McCain had it regarding domestic policy.

His actions over the past year disprove that. He has taken a firm stand against the Obama agenda and has voted and acted accordingly.

In any event, 2008 is passed, so we can move beyond McCain towards something effective.

I am not the one still trying to bury the old man.
Yes, 2008 has passed but “we” (people who are presumably conservative) are going to be faced with this choice over and over. The same people who made the right choice on Brown made the wrong choice on McCain.
Where I come from, If you were wrong about something you apologize and back off. It shows something bad about someones character that they can’t do that instead of keeping up with the personal hate war.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Not going to waste a lot of time; I’ve said my fair share about McCain during his ill fated and unsdeserved Presidential run.
Face it, if Obama wasn’t doing the full tilt boogie to the moonbat fringe, McCain would happily be cutting deals with him on cap and trade, amnesty and probably health care as well. If it wasn’t an election year, it would be the Mavericky Maverick McMaverick show starring Backdoor John. He’d be running the Sunday shows, trashing the GOP and giving a more centrist Obama cover. However, Obama overreached and McCain is up for election so he runs for cover. Not buying it. If we have a viable conservative alternative, say Hasta la Vista to Juan. Reward him with another term, and you’ll see him tack center left and he’ll start f*cking us all over again. Dump him.
As to Palin, she’s either as stupid as the media paints her to be, or a cynical political operator. McCain either gave tacit approval to his minions to trash her after the election, or told them to do it. People that depend on officeholders for work don’t trash a future client unless they have protection. McCain’s lackluster defense of her didn’t pass the smell test. She can’t be stupid enough to know he wasn’t in on it; yet she supports him. Either she’s a fraud, just another operator making a tactical move, or she’s like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates..a moron.
As to our new crop of McCain/status quo defenders, let me give you an appropriate nickname: Boxy, Jetboy, Mrtinkler, et al, you’ll be the Roman Polanski Republicans. No matter how many times a f*ckjob artist like John McCain sticks it to his party, your hero worship cannot be dented by common sense. Just vote the party line because you’re smarter and better than the rest of us. He’s a war hero, and he has an R next to his name; what’s not to like? Support McCain or you hate America! Long live the Roman Polanski Republicans! Vote McCain!

austinnelly on January 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM

As to our new crop of McCain/status quo defenders, let me give you an appropriate nickname: Boxy, Jetboy, Mrtinkler, et al, you’ll be the Roman Polanski Republicans.
austinnelly

Your old nickname of idiot fits too well to change it. Go fix Austin before you try to waddle into Arizona.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 6:54 PM

So when monsters fly aircraft full of people into buildings full of people we should just take it and like it. Better yet, when we send our troops out on a limb it is perfectly OK to cut it of behind them. Yeah, I don’t think you are an authority on good judgment or patriotism.

Boxy_Brown on January 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

You are a fool who makes too many assumptions. If I had been president I would have had the B-52s in the air the day I knew their nationality. I would have made a black glass parking lot out of the desert south of Riyad, and then politely asked for Bin Laden to be delivered to me.

It goes back further than that. Reagan was the first failure. When Iran released the hostages he should have thanked them, but then informed them that the release would not be sufficient. I would not have left a stone upon a stone in Tehran.

I believe Iraq, and Afghanistan to be futile, but while we have one soldier on the ground then we need to maintain a force large enough to dominate. I’m not Ron Paul.

DFCtomm on January 27, 2010 at 3:17 AM

So much for that being the last correspondence.

You are a fool who makes too many assumptions.

I can only go on what you are writing.

“If I had been president I would have had the B-52s in the air the day I knew their nationality. I would have made a black glass parking lot out of the desert south of Riyad, and then politely asked for Bin Laden to be delivered to me.”

What good would bombing a desert in a country whose monarchy Bin Laden wants to overthrow do? A country that exiled him? You would have been doing exactly what he wanted. Bin laden chose Saudi hijackers for just that reason. He could have gotten hijackers from any prominently muslim country but he wanted the retaliation directed at Saudi Arabia.

“I believe Iraq, and Afghanistan to be futile,”

The mission objectives have all but been completed in Iraq. Last month there were no American combat deaths. Afghanistan is going to require a long term commitment and serious pressure on Pakistan, something that our current CinC has the spine for. The mission objectives in Af/Pak are achievable.

All of which is beside the point that there is a sliding scale of indignation for John McCain as proven by the support of Scott Brown. People here would be wise not to sign themselves on to others personal vendettas, especially when they end up hurting the country.

Boxy_Brown on January 27, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Should read: “doesn’t have the spine for”.

Boxy_Brown on January 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8