Actually, Palin’s endorsement of McCain really does stink

posted at 7:25 pm on March 29, 2010 by MadisonConservative

One of my fellow Green Room contributors, CK MacLeod, stirred the pot with his recent post on the topic. Now, personally, I think comments should be responded to with more comments, and not with the bullhorn of the Green Room posting privilege. However, Allahpundit, with his beta wisdom, suggested a response in kind.

My first qualm was with the designation of critics of McCain, and of this move in particular, as “McCain haters”. Apart from being a tactic usually adopted by the left to demonize their critics, it also sounds eerily familiar to the RINO-in-question’s daughter, Meghan, who created the “NO H8″ campaign. It’s a cheap shot, meant to portray one’s opponent as operating on bigotry. Disliking the guy for his statements, penned legislation, policy positions, and campaign decisions does not amount to hate. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Barack Obama(haters!).

Then we get to the meat of the issue: why did Palin endorse McCain? We’ve all got various ideas, but CK’s precis is that she simply supports him.

Gov Palin agrees with Senator McCain close to 100% on foreign policy. She respects and likes him personally. She doesn’t blame him for the actions of some of his operatives during and after Campaign ‘08, and never believed it was his responsibility to play the roll of political Dad and discipline the other kids for her. She was and is quite capable of defending herself and charting her own course, and would have found it condescending and presumptuous for him to play protector.

So he’s a hawk. Good. So is Joe Lieberman, one of his best pals. Will Palin endorse him on that basis alone? Lieberman is a liberal in almost all other ways. Additionally, foreign policy is but one of many factors to consider. I’d argue that it’s far more important to focus on that aspect of a candidate’s philosophy when they’re running for president, not for Congress. If she likes him personally, there’s really nothing to argue. Whether she blames him for the muzzling she was put under in October of ’08, the post-campaign treatment, or not, is her business.

The key here is that Sarah Palin has been swelling her political influence at an accelerated rate in the last year, almost exclusively by weighing in on domestic issues. CK eventually gets to her compatibility with McCain’s positions:

She has no problem with the main thrust of his domestic views or his overall approach to politics. If she cares much about immigration politics – I’ve seen little evidence of it, though it’s clearly still a big deal to many grassroots conservatives – she’s happy with McCain’s post-”Shamnesty” positioning. I suspect that she cares enough about the Republican Party’s long-term prospects to want to see the issue handled soberly and positively.

Though post-’08 she’s been driven into a conservative cul-de-sac – in part by political circumstances in the US of A ca. 2010, in part by a learning experience that has included attacks on her from the left and from Brooks-Frum moderate/elitist conservatives – her political profile and her actual political conduct when in office, was moderate, bi- and non-partisan, and altogether maverick-y.

The importance of her positions is rather considerable, as people throughout the blogosphere have been casting Palin as the new face of conservatism; a latter day Reagan. If this is the case, let’s do a little comparison.

First up, the one that comes to everyone’s mind: amnesty. McCain authored the bill himself, with none other than Ted Kennedy. What’s Palin’s view on illegal aliens? Well, she’s stated she’s not for “total amnesty“. That’s sufficiently vague. Would it matter more to a Senator from a border state? Yes, but as 2007 proved, it matters to the majority of the conservative movement as well. Boiling it down to “I support his position on immigration” is not comforting, either. Tough call on that one. Perhaps they do agree.

How about global warming? Well, she was one of the first out of the gates after ClimateGate struck. In the same vein, she’s been one of the most outspoken proponents for domestic drilling, including in the ANWR area. McCain, on the other hand? He not only is against drilling in ANWR, but has long partook of the AGW kool-aid. Cap and Trade is another area where McCain and Obama get along swimmingly. Palin begs to disagree.

What about a Hot Air favorite: gay marriage? Well, we’re well aware of the McCain camp’s position, considering Meggie Mac’s approach. Sarah, once again, parts ways on the topic. Evolution? Again, they disagree. Some may say it’s a minor issue, but it’s seemed important to Sarah Palin.

Now, I’m not well known as a friend of birtherism. Hence, JD Hayworth’s membership in that group certainly gives me pause. However, at the same time, he’s anti-amnesty. He’s pro-drilling in ANWR. He doesn’t buy global warming, nor does he like the idea of cap and trade. Gay marriage? Uhhh…yeah. This is by no means an attempt to express support for Hayworth, but on the issues, he does have a more conservative scorecard than McCain.

Overall, my point is this: is Sarah Palin a strong conservative? If she is, why is she endorsing McCain? They disagree on a number of relevant domestic issues. She and Hayworth share more common views. If it’s personal, so be it. If Sarah Palin is a moderate, then very well. Let’s get that out into the open, and stop presenting her as a conservative icon, because there are few left who would consider McCain as such. Some have suggested that she is just being loyal to the man who chose her as his running mate for the presidency. Ultimately, the argument that Sarah Palin supports McCain because of his politics is frail. They’re at odds all over the place. It’s not “hatred” to point this out. Deal with it.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 3

You’re either a hypocrite, a liar, or too stupid to realize you’re contradicting yourself. I’d go with the “all of the above” option.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:37 AM

There is no surer sign of decay in a man than to see womanhood held in contempt.

semloh on March 30, 2010 at 1:42 AM

There is no surer sign of decay in a man than to see womanhood held in contempt.

semloh on March 30, 2010 at 1:42 AM

So insulting a woman is now equivalent to insulting a minority? One is assumed racist or misogynist, rather than addressing the thoughts and ideas(or lack of) that the person is putting forward? Mah-velous. Got so used to it with Obama.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:47 AM

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Your comments are becoming ever more frantic and uncoordinated. Perhaps you should rest for a while.

semloh on March 30, 2010 at 1:51 AM

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:36 AM

I’m attacking you? And you haven’t attacked me or anyone else here at all. mkay. But watch out just in case, ’cause Big Bad Tigerlily is gonna getcha, rrroorrrr. And, just think, by playing the beta-male victim card now, as well as repeatedly dragging out your tiresome obama-straw-man by rephrasing my every post with your lies, you have batted one thousand. You really do have the leftist liars methods down to a tee.

Are you sure that you’re not really barry soetoro posting under your really creative handle? It’s been done before you know…maybe that’s why you harangue “birthers” so much….hmmm….

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:55 AM

All this thread needs is for Sarjex to sketch in a couple of good THWAK!!s a la Batman–the series.

hillbillyjim on March 30, 2010 at 2:00 AM

I’m attacking you?

Yes, repeatedly.

And you haven’t attacked me or anyone else here at all.

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Where did I say that? I have attacked you in kind, as well as others. You were the first to insult, babe.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 2:00 AM

Sigmund, KentAllard, PercyB, Semloh: Gentlemen, all,

I bid you good evening with many thanks for your gracious, subtle and witty intercession.

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM

Ah, and yet more selective vision. Ganging up is fine when you say it is, and is a crime when it happens to someone you seem to favor. You have turned double standards into an art form, m’dear.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 2:04 AM

To you MadCon, I render one thing. An apology for criticizing your writing. While I reserve the right to always disagree with your point of view, I should not have been so catty (an admittedly female thing) about it. I write this with trepidation, because I know that your obama-straw-man is just itching to say that I just nullified every other argument I have made. Not so, and you had best not let your obama-straw-man over power you. Be strong, hold on….

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 2:07 AM

Ah, and yet more selective vision. Ganging up is fine when you say it is, and is a crime when it happens to someone you seem to favor. You have turned double standards into an art form, m’dear.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 2:04 AM

*Sigh* I’m trying to get out of here. Why don’t you just change your screen name to obama-straw-man? There has been no vicious or profane speech from any of these gentlemen, in fact you didn’t even know whether KentAllerd was ‘with you or agin you’ in one post, and you thought Semloh was referencing minorities or something in another post where he was making commentary on the character of man revealed in his treatment of woman. Hence, my adjective describing their posts as subtle, quite the opposite of what you are trying to portray.

Please stop with the victim card and your transparent twisting of words. It’s so sophomoric. It’s so leftist. Unless you don’t care that you utilize painfully obvious leftist thinking/tactics. That’s too bad, but it’s your choice.

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 2:21 AM

And one last thing. You oughta thank me for your numbers boost, dontcha think?

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 2:40 AM

tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 2:21 AM

You should never argue with Madisonconservative. It usually results in frustration. Madison is very adept at dodging points that he wishes to avoid and redirecting a conversation to places where he can re-entrench. The entire interaction with him is sort of like stabbing yourself with knives. You may have felt there was some point to it at the time, but in the end it is really just messy and painful. Eventually the folks in the white coats show up to restore some sanity. But it is too late. The damage is done.

Hawthorne on March 30, 2010 at 2:40 AM

What a self righteous and pretentious read this was. I can imagine the author sitting in mommys basement in his underwear wringing his hands in glee at his masterpeice as he pushes “publish”. Crap like this belongs where I normally find it, buried in some worthless MSM rag.

Overall this was a completely petty article. Total waste of time to read it and it is basically wasting space on the main page. I want my 2 minutes back.

dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 2:58 AM

“Meghan, who created the “NO H8″ campaign.”

No, she didn’t.

Blake on March 30, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Sarah simply isn’t quite so boxed in as many voters. This notion that there’s only one policy approach that is smart is totally boxy thinking.

Too bad.

AnninCA on March 30, 2010 at 7:18 AM

I can imagine the author sitting in mommys basement in his underwear wringing his hands in glee at his masterpeice as he pushes “publish”.
dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 2:58 AM

Speculation about one’s personal life is so much rewarding than taking time to write a succinct response to the ideas you dispute, isn’t it? I mean, why spend two minutes talking about why he’s wrong about Sarah when you can spend two minutes talking about the two minutes you want back and raising the oft-employed specter of internet momma’s boy?

And, you’re wrong. He’s totally naked when writing his posts. Helps him find his chi… :)

Diane on March 30, 2010 at 7:24 AM

I’m very disappointed that Sarah Palin is actively supporting McCain but I’m not about to let the perfect frustrate my support of the good. Very good, in fact.

DaMav on March 30, 2010 at 7:36 AM

Let’s all be clear. Sarah is NOT our leader. She deserves credit and admiration, but she’ll not tell us how to vote. The Tea Party is a movement, and we will move towards restoring our constitutional republic. All Progressives and RINOs will be jettisoned.

davecatbone on March 30, 2010 at 7:51 AM

The Tea Party is a movement, and we will move towards restoring our constitutional republic. All Progressives and RINOs will be jettisoned.

davecatbone on March 30, 2010 at 7:51 AM

The teaparty seems to me to be a group of highly diverse individuals who come together on some issues. Why everyone believes that they all agree on all issues is beyond me.

There’s no evidence of that whatsoever.

AnninCA on March 30, 2010 at 8:04 AM

Speculation about one’s personal life is so much much more rewarding …
Diane on March 30, 2010 at 7:24 AM

Fixed. *sigh*

Diane on March 30, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Ok. But people are getting their panties in a twist about this for no reason. You may not like McCain or Sarah for supporting him and that’s fine. I’m just a little annoyed that there seems to be a litmus test amongst some for who is the real conservative.

I don’t support every policy of McCain ( ex. Cap n Trade)
I don’t support every policy of Sarah (ex. Constitutional ban on gay marriage)

But I do recognize, that both of them are good solid people with principles. That’s important to me.

Sarah is supporting J. Mac for three reasons:

1: Loyalty. If he had not picked her, she would not the national stage she does now; and she would not be as far in her political career as she is now.
2: Respect. She just plain likes and respects the man, despite their policy disagreements.
3: She said she would and she’s keeping her word, despite the backlash of some. Doesn’t that count for something??

xax on March 30, 2010 at 8:48 AM

And, you’re wrong. He’s totally naked when writing his posts. Helps him find his chi… :)

Diane on March 30, 2010 at 7:24 AM

Not true. I do wear a derby.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM

I want my 2 minutes back.

dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 2:58 AM

What a self righteous and pretentious comment this was.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 9:10 AM

The teaparty seems to me to be a group of highly diverse individuals who come together on some issues. Why everyone believes that they all agree on all issues is beyond me.

There’s no evidence of that whatsoever.

AnninCA on March 30, 2010 at 8:04 AM

Agreed. The true draw of the tea party is that it is non-partisan. It’s a collection of Americans tired of Washington politicians spending money like there’s no tomorrow, which both parties have been guilty of during the last decade. The Democrats are just far more skilled at spending money even faster.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 9:12 AM

McCain is actually endorsing Palin, but he’s too stupid to know it yet.

Cybergeezer on March 30, 2010 at 9:32 AM

So, what’s the lowdown on Hayworth. It’s claimed he’s more con then Mac, but how long has he been at the party? Anyone can run and grab con cred, we need to know if he’s really a true believer or another Dennis the menace.

Kissmygrits on March 30, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Apparently AP got tired of having to spend his time searching out left wing articles for HA’s required Palin bashing so the new approach is let’s have HA posters write snippy pieces attacking her as “not a true Conservative.”

I guess the liberals are correct to mock the Right for their purity purges. Too bad if she doesn’t meet your stringent definition of what constitutes a Conservative. I thought the Right was smarter than that but it does appear that many are prepared to fall on their sword waiting for the perfect candidate – good luck with that.

katiejane on March 30, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Agreed. The true draw of the tea party is that it is non-partisan. It’s a collection of Americans tired of Washington politicians spending money like there’s no tomorrow, which both parties have been guilty of during the last decade.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 9:12 AM

That’s true. You have to admit that spending is one thing McCain has been aggressively against in the Senate. It’s the most conservative of his “Maverick” positions.

Your analysis of Sarah P’s endorsement though, like McCleod’s, is more complex than necessary. If you guys could stop clamoring for Pundit Points and try to think like the American Heartland you’d realize a good man or woman stands by a friend. I think for Sarah it’s that simple. She’s leaving with the guy who brought her to the dance.

Nothing is more important than loyalty and honor in the Heartland. I admire her for it. She’s the real thing.

rcl on March 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Sooner or later, MadCon is going to come to the conclusion that he only harps on Policy because he’s afraid of strong Personalities. Either that, or he thinks being a rightwinger in Madison, WI gives him the eternal right to flip the bird at everyone.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 10:27 AM

If you guys could stop clamoring for Pundit Points and try to think like the American Heartland…

rcl on March 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM

You know what’s really ironic? More often than not, I’ve noticed that people who try to portray others as being elitist end up speaking about “the common man” in an elitist manner.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 10:30 AM

BTW, MadCon and others: Sarah Palin gets to determine her conservative bona fides. Not you, me, or anyone else. And she will do so as long as we can’t stop talking about Sarah Palin.

Deal with it.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Sarah Palin gets to determine her conservative bona fides.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM

So tomorrow, if she’s for amnesty, amnesty is now officially the conservative position?

Yay cult worship!

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

She won’t say it tomorrow, of course. But if, say, in Year 2 of her Presidency, she says it’s her administration’s position, then you betcha it’ll be “officially the conservative position.”

Then again, you haven’t fully explained to me how you could sell the idea of “I welcome you here, Latinos. Just make sure your papers are in order.” So I’m not surprised you have troubles with a very personable Sarah and her supporters.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Apart from being a tactic usually adopted by the left to demonize their critics, it also sounds eerily familiar to the RINO-in-question’s daughter, Meghan, who created the “NO H8″ campaign. It’s a cheap shot, meant to portray one’s opponent as operating on bigotry.

This is rich coming from you, the guy who couldn’t wait to call anybody and everybody who objected to sodomites being allowed and encouraged to attend CPAC bigots and “homophobes.”

Those who live in liberal glass houses should be careful about throwing stones, Madison.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Yay cult worship!

MadisonLiberal on March 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Er, that’s what we have with Sarah Palin.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM

She won’t say it tomorrow, of course. But if, say, in Year 2 of her Presidency, she says it’s her administration’s position, then you betcha it’ll be “officially the conservative position.”

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Pipe dream on the presidency, and thanks for confirming that there is in fact, no conservative movement, only a Sarah Palin movement. That’s lovely. Glad to see principles are dead, and personalities rule. Obama’s election should have taught us that, shouldn’t it?

This is rich coming from you, the guy who couldn’t wait to call anybody and everybody who objected to sodomites being allowed and encouraged to attend CPAC bigots and “homophobes.”

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Hardly. I see no difference between people like Megs and people like you. Two sides of the same bigoted coin. You both demonize your opponents, and both speak from some fantasy podium of moral authority. You don’t bother at all with the logical merits of each others’ arguments. It’s actually surprising that with so much fanaticism in common, you don’t get along better.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM

1: Loyalty. If he had not picked her, she would not the national stage she does now; and she would not be as far in her political career as she is now.

xax on March 30, 2010 at 8:48 AM

Of course, if back in the summer of ’08 she had said no to the liberal McCain in the first place out of respect to her family (particularly her daughter Bristol’s situation) and her supposed conservative principles, she wouldn’t now find herself in a position in which she felt she had to pick McCain out of some misplaced sensed of loyalty. One bad decision leads to another.

2: Respect. She just plain likes and respects the man, despite their policy disagreements.

Which, if true, should on its own disqualify her from conservative support.

3: She said she would and she’s keeping her word, despite the backlash of some. Doesn’t that count for something??

Again, one horrible decision leading to another.

This woman is unprincipled. She’s just another party hack.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Hardly. I see no difference between people like Megs and people like you. Two sides of the same bigoted coin. You both demonize your opponents, and both speak from some fantasy podium of moral authority.

MadisonLiberal on March 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Whereas you speak from some non-existent platform of moral neutrality. You’re bigoted against people with a consistent, Biblical worldview. You want your moral authority to reign supreme, even as you demonize me for doing the same. You’re a hypocrite. You’re a typical liberal who accuses his opponents of the very same thing he’s guilty of…all while being either too stupid or ignorant to realize that he’s doing it.

Or maybe I’m not giving you enough credit. Perhaps you do realize what you’re doing. If so, that makes you dishonest.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM

You’re bigoted against people with a consistent, Biblical worldview.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Hardly. The vast majority of Christians I’ve met, on the other hand, are nowhere near as bile-spewing as zealots like you, who unwittingly enhance the stereotype of the Rapture-fearing, homo-hating, excommunicating fanatic that atheists so love to hold up and cry about. You’re responsible for all the bulls**t the atheist zealots get attention for. Well, perhaps not all. They’re just douchebags from the start, no doubt. Giving them fodder to rip on Christianity, which is good as a whole, is the result of your lunacy.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Glad to see principles are dead, and personalities rule. Obama’s election should have taught us that, shouldn’t it?

And Reagan was just another guy who ended up being President, right MadCon? You should be lucky most folks on the left would just as soon not associate with the Right. After all, someone would’ve called BS on this “cult of personality” issue you have.

I’ll take your comments about “principles over personality” seriously if you can name for me one conservative “principle” that has stood the test of time.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM

First of all, I take it you have conceded my point that you’re just as much of a moral authoritarian as I am? If not, make a response on that point. You don’t get to just not respond.

Hardly. The vast majority of Christians I’ve met, on the other hand, are nowhere near as bile-spewing as zealots like you, who unwittingly enhance the stereotype of the Rapture-fearing, homo-hating, excommunicating fanatic that atheists so love to hold up and cry about.

MadisonLiberal on March 30, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The vast majority of Christians, or those who call themselves Christians, are just as Bible-ignorant as you are. So I’m not surprised. Though I hardly see how telling me something I already know proves anything.

As for atheists, their moral outrage is just as meaningless as your own.

You’re responsible for all the bulls**t the atheist zealots get attention for.

Actually, it’s your godless conservatism that has given rise to the very irrationality that breeds atheism and liberal rule. You think you can spit on God by replacing his laws with man-made ones and still be prosperous and free. But the Bible says:

Unless the LORD builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchman stays awake in vain.

The wicked shall return to Sheol,
and all the nations that forget God.

Well, perhaps not all. They’re just douchebags from the start, no doubt. Giving them fodder to rip on Christianity, which is good as a whole, is the result of your lunacy.

Again, what does the atheist’s hatred for Christianity have to do with anything? I don’t curb my proclamation of the truth just because it offends atheists (and phony Christians like yourself). God-haters are going to hate the truth of Scripture no matter what — even if you sugar-coat it fluffy Jesus-loves-everyone heresy.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I’ll take your comments about “principles over personality” seriously if you can name for me one conservative “principle” that has stood the test of time.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Haha. Good luck with that, Brad. Conservative “principles” are only as good as the liberal principles they follow to the left.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I’ll take your comments about “principles over personality” seriously if you can name for me one conservative “principle” that has stood the test of time.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM

See my comment here.

“Conservatism” is intellectually shallow and principle-less ideology that pretends to stand against leftism but ultimately yields to it eventually every single time. Conservatism’s real responsibility, as Dostoevsky so brilliantly saw and wrote about, is to “keep up proper appearances” by curtailing the excesses of leftism so that it can advance without destroying itself within only a few generations of taking power.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM

2B2BS… dude, you’re thumping…

SnowSun on March 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM

2B2BS… dude, you’re thumping…

SnowSun on March 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I have no idea what that means.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I’ll take your comments about “principles over personality” seriously if you can name for me one conservative “principle” that has stood the test of time.

BradSchwartze on March 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Small. Government. Someone who just mentioned Reagan shouldn’t be so dim as to be unable to see that coming a mile away. I could list more, but this eclipses the rest.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM

The vast majority of Christians, or those who call themselves Christians, are just as Bible-ignorant as you are.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM

“Conservatism” is intellectually shallow and principle-less ideology that pretends to stand against leftism but ultimately yields to it eventually every single time.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Your vapid, narcissistic elitism is astonishing.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Small. Government.

MadisonLiberal on March 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Vague, and thus meaningless. One person’s small government is another person’s big government.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I have no idea what that means.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Of course you don’t, Elmer Gantry.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Vague, and thus meaningless. One person’s small government is another person’s big government.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Is “it should be smaller” too difficult for you to grasp? With pretty much all conservatives, the answer will be “it should be smaller” for a long damned time.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Your vapid, narcissistic elitism is astonishing.

MadisonLiberal on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Do you operate under anything that isn’t soaked in logical fallacy? Your ad hominem proves nothing. Perhaps I am a vapid, narcissistic elitist — but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong!

Got logic?

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

What a d-bag this Madison guy is. Spamming his own blog post with comments. Get a life dude! Youre not doing yourself any favors hovering around your own sh*tpile like a fly!

dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Is “it should be smaller” too difficult for you to grasp? With pretty much all conservatives, the answer will be “it should be smaller” for a long damned time.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

But if you don’t know where you’re going, how will you know when you’ve arrived?

And how has that whole conservative smaller government thing been working out for you guys? The government was bigger after Reagan left office than it was when he entered it. The conservative George W. Bush had two terms, the first six of which included Republican majority in the House and Senate, and he gave us No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Modernization Act, amongst a plethora of other big government, unconstitutional policies and “laws.”

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I am a vapid, narcissistic elitist

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

As long as you admit it.

dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I love you too!

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM

But if you don’t know where you’re going, how will you know when you’ve arrived?

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:37 PM

How will you ever arrive if you don’t keep going?

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Do you operate under anything that isn’t soaked in logical fallacy?

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

The answer to that apparently is no.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM

How will you ever arrive if you don’t keep going?

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM

You’re heading in the wrong direction! Lol.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Lol.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I cherish your wisdom.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Madison is only proving my criticism that conservatism is without principle and is intellectually void. Madison is asked to show a concrete conservative principle that has stood the test of time and all he has come up with is “small government,” which, as I’ve pointed out, is meaningless in its vagueness.

I guess Madison and his conservative buddies will know they’ve arrived at destination “small government” when, on consensus, they “feel” like they have. This is shaky ground as it is, but even if they were to arrive there, how will they know if the country ever departs from it again?

Subjectivity does not principle make.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Madison is asked to show a concrete conservative principle that has stood the test of time and all he has come up with is “small government,” which, as I’ve pointed out, is meaningless in its vagueness.

2Brave2Bscared on March 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Given that you could say that about virtually any political principle, and base your proof on it being only that believe it so, why bother going further with the discussion?

Wait, I’ll answer that question right now.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Madison is an idiot and doesnt represent conservatism. Only his interpretation of it. He, like you, isnt as smart as he likes to believe.

Such pretty prose from the both of you but really all you do ois turn people off.

Funny that Madison ruins his own post. And then you waste time arguing with him.

lulz

dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 1:43 PM

dip it in cider on March 30, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Funny that you post so many times in the thread of a writer you hate, while lamenting “spamming comments”.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:52 PM

2B2BS, I was referring to the fact that you were bible thumping earlier. Does that actually work to convert people to your way of thinking?

SnowSun on March 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Really wasting your time with Ultra Manly Man. He’s just another kooky paleocon.

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 30, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Really wasting your time with Ultra Manly Man. He’s just another kooky paleocon.

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 30, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Yeah, but they’re fun to toss around.

MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Madison is only proving my criticism that conservatism is without principle and is intellectually void. Madison is asked to show a concrete conservative principle that has stood the test of time and all he has come up with is “small government,” which, as I’ve pointed out, is meaningless in its vagueness.

I can answer that. Every word of the Declaration of Independence is a “conservative principle”. Every God damn amendment in the Bill of Rights is a “conservative principle”.

The responsible use of public funds and transparency in governance are matters of honesty and ethics that transcend political labels. Liberals and conservatives both betray their principles by lying and selling their votes.

rcl on March 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3