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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/mr-president-please-try-im-listening-people-instead-of-listen-up-people/267042703434

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

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.

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”.

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?

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.