Thursday, January 31, 2008

John McCain, Democrat, Part Deux

"The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats."

This is an exert from the latest post from Ann Coulter. She is pretty honest about her feelings on McCain in this post and in her previous one. And she's not alone. Rush has been quoted many times over the last week attacking McCain's so-called "conservative credentials". He goes so far as to say that for the first time in his career he can understand not voting for the Republican candidate. He is very careful in his choice of words. He stresses that he isn't encouraging it, but he can understand it.

McCain shares many of the same policy positions as Hillary and Obama. If he were elected, it is likely that taxes would increase, there would be more laws passed prohibiting free speech, he would nominate more "main stream" judges, he would allow terrorist civil trials within the United States, and would probably close Guantanamo. This is all before he gets to addressing illegal immigration. Can the President sign an executive order outlawing the word "illegal immigrant"? It would attack free speech and pander to the left in the same bold move. I think President McCain (or Vice President Lindsey Graham) might go for it .

When icons of the modern conservative movement like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin all believe McCain to be a Democrat, and when these same people start talking about pulling any lever but the Republican one, I think we are in trouble. What does it say about the potential Republican nominee?

There is still a lot of time between now and November. I for one plan on writing a check to Romney's campaign (yes even in the current economic crisis). I am truly worried about the Republican Party. I believe the only people who will defend McCain at this point are either Republicans who want the party to win above all else, or Democrats.


familyman said...

I can't believe you like Ann Coulter. There hasn't ecaxtly been a shortage of lies coming out of the Bush administration. To say that lying is a Democratic specialty is absurd. No party has a corner on that market. The Bush administration has turned lying into an art form.

But here's my question to you Andy - How can anybody seriously accuse the Democrats of promoting ruinous policies? The last Democratic President left office with a 236 Billion dollar budget surplus.

Please take a look at the table I have posted on my blog. Whether you look at economic indicators, quality of life indicators or our standing in the global community, the Republican dominated George W. Bush era has been a disaster.

What is it about the so called conservative movement of the last seven years that you want to hold on to?

Kevin said...

Familyman I looked at your chart. That seems to be a good point. Although it seems a little bit like global warming "science" or just reporting in general...part of the story but not the whole thing. Mainly the part that makes your point look correct.
2 main things, one, what does that chart look like when applied to the last democratic president and what other president can you apply that to? Carter? What about the long term effects of FDR?
Yeah I do think that both parties have a specialty in lying. The thing that really is scary is that for the last year and half since the dems got control of the congress they have been willing to allow our country to slide down this path. What about the great 100 days of Pelosi? They have done nothing because they want the country to be in such bad shape so they can easily win the white house. Promise number 1 from the party in the 2006 election, get the troops home. Still dying. Allowing people to die for political gain is worse then lying.

Oh and before you mention, Congress can override a presidential veto. If it was that important Congress would get it done. I keep hearing Clinton is a great politician and that she plays the game good. A good politician, Webster, Clay and Calhoun to name a few, would have had this taken care of by now. They actually worked to make this country work and be a better place.

familyman said...

pack04 - my point as far as the chart goes was to counter Ann Coulter's and Andy's assertions that somehow a continuation of conservative Republican rule is the answer to our problems.

The modern version of conservative Republican politics, especially their economic and foreign policy positions have by pretty much any standard been a disaster for the average American. I don't understand why Andy wants more of the same.

Andy D said...

You have a couple of points that need to be addressed:

Ann Coulter -- I love reading her. She is a brilliant woman with an incredible command of the English language. Just reading her improves your knowledge. She also makes many of her points in a way I find very humorous. Now, she has been pretty viscous against some of (well, really all of) the Democrats. I can understand why you wouldn't like her if you like Edwards, Kennedy, or Clinton.

Second, you confuse two different topics: George Bush is a Republican with some conservative feelings, he is not a conservative. I have been very pleased with some of his programs, and very critical of others. The comprehensive immigration plan was as much his as anyones, and I thought it was terrible. It was also not a conservative plan.

We can argue all day about conservative politics versus liberal politics. You have a chart that shows the "disastrous" Presidency of George W. Bush. I am sure I could make one on Clinton. My argument isn't that we need another Bush. I want a more conservative President. You may disagree with conservative politics, but to say that conservative policies have been a disaster for the average American is either an oversimplification, or a misleading statement.My argument (and the one that Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, and others are making) is that there isn't much difference between McCain, Clinton, and Obama. If you feel there is, please tell me where. I would love to see how someone from the other side of the political spectrum sees it. In my eyes, the three candidates see things in very similar lights. The only real difference is that McCain is passionate about Iraq, Clinton is passionate about Health Care, and Obama is passionate am sure he is passionate about something.

Anonymous said...

OK, lets skip liking or disliking for now.

Ann Coulter once suggested using force to kill or convert Muslims to Christianity. She quoted herself recently - and unapologetically. How can a movement of which she is an icon be anything but a hindrance in an attempt to build a peaceful and prosperous Iraq?

With all the mistakes Bush has made, he isn't quite a Coulter conservative. I'm afraid that may come in a few years if we stay in Iraq, and a 'real conservative' is elected this election cycle or next. Bush has done everything he can to make withdrawal very difficult when the new president actually comes to the point.

Andy D said...

Sometimes the "Talk softly and carry a big stick" philosophy earns a much more peaceful and prosperous situation than you might otherwise think.

I don't think you mean that as a compliment to President Bush, but I will take it as one none the less. We have troops stationed in foreign countries that haven't been at war in a very long time. I think Iraq will be the same way. In some ways, it needs to be. We need to have a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for generations to come.

familyman said...

A question for pack04 -

You say the chart I referenced is, "part of the story but not the whole thing. Mainly the part that makes your point look correct."

It seems to me to be a pretty comprehensive list. Can you provide a comparable list that would support an alternate view of the situation? Can you provide as complete a list that would disprove my point?

Kevin said...

My point was this table only looked at one specific event, the presidency of Bush. Lots of things happened in the last 7 years. Is there a chance that something else was the cause of some of those drops? Or are we just going to stick with the Hoover's the cause of the market crash in '29 mentality.
People want to call for tech support at 3 AM in the morning. Is that the presidents fault that to met the demand companies move jobs over seas to have more complete coverage?
Maybe some of the growth under Clinton was unattainable long run.
It is bad proof when you only look at one factor.
That is what I was talking about when I said "part of the story but not the whole thing. Mainly the part that makes your point look correct."
I am glad that you can sum up how good America is or is not in 21 line items. 5 of which are polls. Why did they pick those 4 countries? Is it because some of the others might like us more now?
I always like to look at the source of information too. Now each line item has a footnote which is good. But does that footnote tell me a place or a study? No. I do not know if the author of the table did the research from those sources or is he/she referencing a specific report done by somebody at that institution? If the author did the research themselves do they understand every thing that goes into those factors? Have you ever read the back of a book with notes in it? They do not just give a place. They reference a real page number in another book or letter or study. Speaking of author of the table, it came from a website called I doubt there is any bias in that. You should note the sarcasim in my voice with that.
Am I going to provide an alternative source for my point of view? No and just because I am not does not make your table correct. I was not trying to prove my point of view. I was just showing your proof was not good. You proof my be correct but your proof is lacking. Although I guess I should get in line with the rest of the country and start believing: if it is on the internet it is true and if the liberals say it it must be correct and Bush is the cause of all the evil in the universe.

familyman said...

OK, I see what you are saying.

But you have to admit that if the indicators on that list had moved in a positive direction during his Presidency, Bush would be taking credit for it. So, if they move in a negative direction, why shouldn't I be able to lay a large amount of the blame at his feet.

And I don't think "Bush is the cause of all the evil in the universe"...Dick Cheney is the cause of quite a bit of it too. And Josh Bolton...and Paul Wolfowitz...and Scooter Libby...and Alberto Gonzales...and Douglas Feith...and Donald Rumsfeld...and Stephen Hadley...and Richard Perle...and Jack Abramoff...and John Doolittle...and Mark Foley...and Glenn Beck...and Ann Coulter...and Michael Savage.....

familyman said...

...and Karl Rove

Andy D said...

Familyman, surely there is a note of sarcasm here I am missing. You can't possibly really believe these individuals are the cause of evil in the universe. A few names on the list show you aren't really thinking straight or are just trying to be funny.

familyman said...

Well, there's some sarcasm there in that I don't really know what kind of evil might exist outside of our own solar system. So any implication that they are the only sources of evil might be overstating it a little.

Anonymous said...

Well......let me just say that if "Icons" is the name you give to Coulter and Limbaugh, I see why voting as a conservative is an unattractive proposition for me. Regardless of diction, Andy, these agitators are more for selling books and promoting ratings, for which you're doing a good job of helping that. Get back to me with good representatives in the next post.