Are Our Ideologies Our Idols?

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial up entitled McCain’s Apostacies.

Think about that for a minute. His differences with his party are not differences, they’re “apostacies.” He is, for some, a heretic who has departed too sharply away from the dogmas and sacraments of The Church of Conservatism.

And he’s the pro-life guy!

I’ve been thinking for a while that the hyperpartisanship on both sides was beginning to resemble the Protestant/Catholic sectarian troubles in Northern Ireland. Hate and malice are being extended by both sides to those “others” over there. The “other side.”

Nothing else matters but that they don’t believe the same things “we” believe (whoever “we” are, Conservative or Liberal). Because they don’t believe the same things “we” believe, they are bad, undesirable people and we shun them and will not have them in our midst.

It’s downright unAmerican, if you ask me. And the tenacity with which both sides cling to their beliefs makes one wonder if the political extremes are not misplacing their faith – putting it not in God, but in “the party” and “the movement.”

I did something I almost never do, recently, and spent a little time exchanging ideas within the thread of another blog. Within that exchange, someone wrote:

I just don’t see what [George W]Bush has done for the movement or the party.

That stopped me in my tracks. All this time I thought the president – any president – was expected to serve the interests of the whole nation and all its citizenry. Apparently not; apparently the president is supposed to serve “the party” and “the movement” and if he does not do that – he is a poor and despised president.

That “movement or the party” remark recalled the histories of fascism and communism and their ugly progeny – totalitarianism; all of those “isms” began with the notion that “loyalty to the party” trumped everything else – new ideas, tactics, statesmanship, economics, social unrest – whatever the question, loyalty to the party – the growth and sustainment of “the movement” was the answer.

That’s all bad history. It is history we want to remember, but not repeat. But here we are, the mightiest and most democratic nation in the world, and the extremists within both ideologies have deemed fealty to the “ism” – whichever ism it is – to be the defining characteristic of a desirable candidate.

Someone else wrote:

Well here’s the thing – conservatives are conservatives because they believe conservatism is what’s best FOR AMERICA.

That’s quite true and un-objectionable. But of course, liberals are liberals because they believe liberalism is what’s best for America, and centrists are centrists for the same reason.

It just seems to me that within those little ideological spheres which are full of ideas, a president must be permitted to listen to ideas and debate them and perhaps even to choose portions of ideas from each position, left, right and center, in order to formulate policies which are best FOR AMERICA, and which address the concerns of all the country, not just “the party,” and which serve the whole citizenry, not just “the base.” The best recipes call for more than one ingredient. The best policies do, too.

If we are determined to shut out whole blocks of people because their thoughts are not ours, their ideas are not ours, their beliefs are not ours, then we’re doing democracy wrong – we’re turning it into something else. And I don’t think the “something else” is necessarily a good thing.

Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians, was a good and trusted adviser to King Henry VIII, but his faith and conscience took precedence over that fealty. When Rome refused Henry a divorce, Henry broke away and formed the Church of England. More could not go where Henry went, saying at his arrest, “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”

I am by no means comparing President Bush to St. Thomas More, but it does seem to me that part of his problems within his own party stem from a similar attitude: He is the party’s good servant, but America’s first. And America’s good servant, but God’s even before that.

Those priorities seem like good ones to me, and perhaps in a healthy society, they would be appreciated. But we’re not healthy right now – I doubt anyone would truly suggest we are – and in this society, sadly, the precedence of “the parties” and “the movements” over everything else is disconcerting. People who six months ago declared they would “crawl over broken glass” to prevent a particular presidency now declare they’d prefer to see that presidency over the “impure” alternative, and that seems oddly disoriented.

How can an undesirable candidate suddenly become an acceptable, good faith alternative? I know there is a school of thought that says, “well, that will teach others and they’ll be more loyal to the party, next time.”

But that’s being too clever by half, isn’t it? One of President Bush’s errors was in thinking he could sign a campaign finance reform into law and count on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not meet his expectations.

Signing off on this election while counting on people to “do the right thing” in the next one seems to me equally hazardous and just as likely to disappoint. And it feels a little bit like putting one’s ideology before all else, and trusting in it, alone.

I am no “McCainiac.” At this point I have no idea who I will be voting for in November, particularly since there is ugliness in every campaign. I’m merely offering food for thought.

Eloquent Jonah Goldberg:

…this disaster talk leaves me cold. McCain wouldn’t be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he’s the nominee or the president is pretty absurd.
I think both the GOP and the conservative movement could benefit from a slightly more adversarial relationship. George W. Bush moved the party leftward and/or damaged the image of the GOP in many respects precisely because he was given the benefit of the doubt by conservatives who saw him as “one of us.” It’s not obvious to me that having a more transactional relationship with a Republican president would be altogether bad for the country, the party or the conservative movement.

Sister Toldjah has more thoughts.

Palm Tree Pundit has a quote for you.

Jay Stephenson surveys the mood – and confusion – on the right.

Beth minces no words.

As I said in the comments section:

Once upon a time I might have agreed with the statement that the left is all about “feelings and emotions” while the right was about thinking and issues. I’m not entirely sure I would, anymore. Both left and right are doing their share of emoting.

Related: The Nation Needs a Time-Out

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • TheAnchoress

    Noatak, that’s fine. Let ‘em vote for Hillary then. It is entirely inconsistent with support for our troops, and that means lives will be lost, but by all means, let’s start that shock treatment.

    As I said – it worked so well for Bush when he figured he could “rely” on the SCOTUS to undo his bad move.

    We’ll see in four years whether Coulter’s bad advice comes to the same conclusion – when all those people who should have learned their lesson end up not following the plan and returning the land to the Church of Conservatism.

    I asked in the headline: Is your ideology becoming your idol?

    It is a legitimate question, meant to make people think about that and perhaps discuss it meaningfully. Mostly what I’m getting in response, in my emails, is emotional foot stomping.

    And why is it some people can’t be bothered registering to comment, because that’s too much trouble, but they can write me 1500 words screeds? :-)

    I’m going to Bible Study Class! Later!

  • Terrye


    Obama wants drivers licenses for illegals. McCain is the only guy that can beat him. So get real.

  • TheAnchoress

    Yes, I do stand by it, Noatak. I never thought I was “slighting” republicans there, either – once again just giving food for thought. I’m never out to diss anyone. Was my description of the GOP looking for “just right” and objecting to every candidate because of their flaws inaccurate? :-)

  • Terrye

    And you know something? I do not know one person whose life has been effected by McCain Feingold. It might be a silly law or even a useless law, but thus far the Constitution is still intact.

    However, if Hillary or Obama gets in the White House, there will be changes that will make McCain Feingold pale by comparison. No doubt about that.

    But I do agree with the Anchoress, we owe those young people who sacrificed their lives a debt. We need to remember them.

  • Noatak

    I cannot speak for people that write 1500 word screeds to you. I can only speculate that people are hungry for inspirational leadership. Many people have played this game before with Gerald Ford and Bob Dole and GHW Bush. So naturally, there is a lot of frustration with the Party establishment and the process. (By the time the primaries get to my state the game is already over). The frustration is only exacerbated by the argument that we must assume a damage control mentality. Reagan provided a winning game plan, but the GOP leadership seems to reject it. ‘Vote for my guy because the other guy is worse!’ is hardly a rallying cry.

    A good starting pointing for relieving the frustration and anger with the GOP might be offering a clear definitions of the terms ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’.

  • Pingback: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: edition 2v5

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    McCain is the only guy that can beat him.

    Not when his supporters consistently berate and insult those whom they are trying to get to ignore their consciences and vote for McCain for reasons of political expediency. So enough of this “shut-up and get in line” nonsense.

    In fact, conservatives will vote McCain ONLY if polls show in the final days that the election is very close.

    If the Dem is down by 10 points, then conservatives will NOT vote for McCain because he won’t need their vote. If the Dem is up by 10 points, then conservatives will NOT vote for McCain because it wouldn’t matter anyway if they did.

    Either way, whichever candidate wins, we lose.

  • Bridey

    I love it when the Anchoress gets tough!

    The “sit it out” people think they’re going to get a “real conservative” if they reject every less-than-perfect choice this time around. But politicians don’t work that way.

    If American voters (a vastly larger group, of course, than the horde of wingnut malcontents to which I belong ideologically) show their love by electing a hard-line socialist like Hillary or Obama, and she or he is not an utter, smoking-crater, Jimmy Carter-level disaster, in 2012 you’re going to find a lot more Republicans heading left than heading right. (And keep in mind that the press, which has been marching leftward all this time, will protect Hillary or Obama a great deal better than they protected the inept Carter in the ’70s.)

    A politician’s primary function is not to hold to a principle, please a “base,” or even represent a larger constituency. It’s to get elected. If Hillary or Obama wins, my fellow right-wingers will believe it’s because principled conservatives refused to vote for a left-leaning Republican. Everyone else, including most Republican politicians, will believe it’s because the American people preferred a hard-left Democrat. And those politicians are not going to conclude that the answer is to move further to the right.

    I am no admirer of John McCain as a politician, to say the least (I do admire him in other areas, it goes without saying). But the most important thing right now, for countless reasons, is to keep the Democrats out. We will have a lot easier time pushing the party rightward with even a nominal Republican in power than with a socialist-level Democrat.

    (And, of course, to claim to support our troops and the Iraqi people and then actively campaign for the election of Clinton or Obama — which is exactly what the “sit it out” people are doing — is reprehensible.)

  • Noatak

    Is my ideology becoming my idol?

    My Christian ideology? Yes.
    My Classical liberalism/Federalism ideology? yes.

    At some point a person has to say ‘This is what I beleive. This is what I stand for’.
    It’s probably not wise to do that at age 18. But after 30, 40, or 50 years, a person probably should have developed some convictions. Meeting someone halfway every year for four years will leave you with 1/16 of what you started with.

    Somebody has to keep the goalposts from moving. I’m not into relativism. I think it’s an excuse for people stop thinking when things get difficult.

    So I would ask the question differently: “Do you have any convictions?”

  • igout

    Actually the purists are behaving very rationally, although they may not realize it. It’s like dickering when you buy a house. You squawk about the roof. You don’t like the color of the bathroom tiles. The furnace will have to be replaced. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You sound like you adamantly hate the place in order to exact something from the seller.

    I’m not saying that my ideological soul mates are consciously playing this game, but that’s the upshot. Of course, McCain (in his great vanity) may decide he doesn’t need us, in which case we end up empty handed.

    But we have 9 months to play this game in, so there’s plenty of time to anoint him. Right now, what is every mother’s advice to her daughter? Something about not giving away the milk?

  • convert

    In response to throwing too many nasty tantrums, becoming infected with Washington-itis and Porker’s Disease, and finding itself in trouble with the electorate (at least the committed ones who vote in primaries), the Republican party….throws another tantrum. I detest McPain. I honor his service and his steadfastness on Iraq, but even a blind hog finds a nut once in a while. He’s a petty, vindictive, foul-mouthed, foul-tempered, spit-in-yer-eye kind of politician and I know for sure that he’ll side with Dems on lots of things, no matter what he says right now. Period. But I’ll vote against Hilary or Obama. All. Day. Long.

  • TheAnchoress

    So I would ask the question differently: “Do you have any convictions?”

    Yes. I believe that there is seen and unseen, and illusions abounding.

    I believe in not being led a merry chase by people who throw red meat.

    I believe that God isn’t done with anyone, yet, and that we sell ourselves and each other short when we get too caught up in the emotionalism of any issue.

    I believe no one is a caricature and it is unwise to think of people or candidates as the cartoonish exaggerations that political pundits draw.

    I believe that people are entitled to their opinions and to full respect for them.

    I believe that any time a political party starts telling me that I have to fall in line with what they’re saying or I am not “true” or “real” then it’s time for me to leave that party.

    I believe that there is a lot more going on here than mere dissatisfaction.

    I believe everything is worth thinking about.

  • Terrye


    I have not actually considered myself a McCain supporter, but I am getting there. No one is berating your guy. Your guy failed to inspire. That is not McCain’s fault.

  • Terrye

    And you know something? I am getting tired of hearing McCain haters assume they are the only ones with principles. That the only people who know right from wrong are people like them. That is self righteous, sanctimonious demagoguery.

  • Pingback: Is Conservatism Dying or Dead? | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

  • TheAnchoress

    I am getting tired of hearing McCain haters assume they are the only ones with principles. That the only people who know right from wrong are people like them. That is self righteous, sanctimonious demagoguery.

    Terrye, it’s funny you should write that. On my way home just now I flipped on Limbaugh and I don’t know who the guy is who’s subbing for him, but after a few minutes of listening to him rant, “demagoguery” was precisely the word that came into my head.

    There is a game afoot. Whoever was covering for Rush today was a clown keeping the masses busy with red meat until the ringleader can do his schtick.

    Something is definitely up.

  • Bridey

    In for Rush Friday was Jason Lewis, out of KTLK, a moderately rated FM talker in Minneapolis. Not the sort of major leaguer who usually gets to borrow Rush’s soapbox, to mix my metaphors, so I’d imagine his presence has to do with the fact that KTLK is owned by the company that owns the company that syndicates Rush’s show.

    A clown Lewis may be, and probably is, but his presence for a day probably just means Premiere is making nice with its Clear Channel ownership, rather than being part of any larger game-afootery. CC is just sniffing to see if Lewis has any potential national appeal.

    Not that this is hugely important, of course. I’m just not wild about the characterization of talk radio listeners as “masses” hungering for that old “red meat,” is perhaps what it is. Though it may be justified lately; I haven’t been listening to Rush these days, much less his subs.

    But it sounds a bit like there’s some central office giving talk radio talent their marching orders, and, really, there isn’t. (I’m not just a geek, I’m in the radio industry.)

  • TheAnchoress

    Thanks for the insight, Bridey.

  • Terrye

    Well maybe. Who knows? Ann Coulter is already promising to campaign for Hillary if the little people do not shape up. So maybe Rush will back a third party. That way they can be sure and get another Clinton in the White House. Lots of material in a Clinton admnistration. I think Rush is all about the money myself. Think of how lucrative Bill was for people like Ann and Rush. Add to that their inherent moral superiority and there really is not much they can not justify to themselves.

  • Terrye

    Sorry for the double post.


    All this wrangling is getting on my nerves. It seems that we’ve all gone a little nuts over this and we all need a time out. That said I will say that I would have a very hard time voting for such a mean spirited, rude, arrogant and self serving man to represent my country. I can’t imagine him dealing with foreign leaders with his attitude problem, rudeness and his flat out lies. I had enough of the lies with the Clinton’s thank you. I guess it all boils down to the fact that I don’t trust him very much. His vindictiveness towards his perceived enemies and opponents is scary, not to mention his Cancer and age. How can one vote when we feel it is bad versus bad and they are basically the same only one has a D and the other an R behind the name? I just don’t TRUST McCain to do what is conservative or even morally right. He has stabbed us in the back to many times to be trusted.

  • TheAnchoress

    Yes, I think a breather is essential.

  • Terrye

    For years I have been listening to people complain that Bush was too nice. Too easy to get along with. Would not stand up for himself. And now they worry that McCain is too mean and just to prove a point the Queen of Mean herself Ann Coulter promises to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination. I can remember defending Ann for throwing around words like raghead and faggot. But McCain is supposed to be mean.

    I don’t think that people like conservative Senator Coburn from Oklahoma would even consider endorsing McCain if he felt McCain could not control himself. In fact right now it seems to me that McCain is not the guy having the problem with self control.

    But a breather would be a good idea.

  • Terrye

    I said that badly. I meant to say that I can remember Ann’s supporters defending her for throwing around words like raghead.

    Since I do not seem to be able to post without screwing up, maybe it really is time for a breather.

  • TheAnchoress

    I don’t think that people like conservative Senator Coburn from Oklahoma would even consider endorsing McCain if he felt McCain could not control himself. In fact right now it seems to me that McCain is not the guy having the problem with self control.

    Good point, Terrye. I think Ted Olsen’s endorsement also indicates that McCain is not quite the sweaty-toothed ogre of his caricature.

  • Pingback: What are you giving up for Lent? | The Anchoress

  • karen

    Well, listening to all of this tonight has actually helped me to follow my gut.

    McCain is not to be trusted, Romney is uninspiring… that leads me to Hucabee :).

    My husband- 33, non-political and extremely unimpressionable– liked him, although he called him Hickapoo(he’ll kill me if he sees i’ve told you this). I saw only one debate- NH. Pubs, then Dems. Huckabee was most impressive to me– i believe he’s an historical whiz.

    There- all my ignorance is on this pg: Huckabee or bust.

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    Well, I suppose I have gotten a bit surly at the fact that ours is supposed to be a system of self-government and democracy, where everyone is allowed to have his or her say, and yet, by the time that I do get to have my say, that is, to cast my vote in a primary, there will be nothing left to vote for. The nomination has already been decided — and not by a majority of the party, but by a plurality in a handful of unrepresentative states.

    And, yeah, I guess I am a little, um, ticked off when I hear folks from the establishment arrogantly and presumptuously give assurances that conservatives like me will simply suck it up and fall in line come November because we have no choice but to do so, leading me to think such intemperate thoughts as, “oh yeah, well eat **** and bark at the moon.”

    And I suppose I have reached my last “last straw” when I comprehend and realize that the war we have patiently, but steadfastly, waged for these last 35 years, a war that I have been personally invested in and an active participant, is finally lost, and it will be lost by our own hands. Of course, we are not really cutting our own throats, merely those of millions of innocents who will continue to be slain as a result of the so-called electoral choice that we have made. We will sacrifice them, once again, on the altar of politics.

    Does anyone really, in their heart of hearts, truly believe that John McCain will nominate someone who is even potentially anti-Roe?

    It is going to take A WAR to get an potential anti-Roe nominee confirmed. To be sure, it will be a nuclear war to get the job done. The pro-abortion crowd will do anything and everything to stop such a nominee — it will dwarf the savaging of Bork and Thomas. Does anyone really think that McCain is going to want to be commander in chief of that war? Does anyone really think that McCain would go all out, balls to the walls, and take no prisoners to get an anti-Roe justice confirmed? Does anyone really think that McCain is going to want to go head-to-head with his “good friends” in the Senate, and thereby risk alienating them on other issues? Deep down, what do folks really think that a President McCain would do?

    It is a war that we have waged with patience and perseverence for many, many years. And just like the chair got pulled out from under us in 1992, when we thought that were we on the edge of victory, only to be dealt a near-fatal blow with Casey, once again, we will give up hard fought ground, and be set back yet another 20 years.

    Yes, things such as these do tend to make one a bit annoyed.

    But don’t worry. We’ll take a breather. We’ll take a nice long breather. Many will come to realize that their involvement in the political process has really been little more than a life-long breather; they will withdraw completely from the political process, having become thoroughly disgusted, so folks won’t need to worry about them anymore. They will continue to work in the real world, in the world away from politics, but they have been burned way too many times (and by those they thought were their friends) to ever again trust the politics.

  • TheAnchoress

    So, Bender…Ted Olsen’s endorsement…doesn’t give you any reassurance in that area?

    Funny. Up until a few weeks ago, most of the “true” conservatives thought the world of Olsen.

    Even me, “untrue” conservative that I am! :-)

    Gosh I read your post and thought – hmmmm…maybe Bush wasn’t as bad as so many thought. He had the heart for these fights.

    Let me ask you this: do you really think Romney – who has flip-flopped on the abortion issue and on other matters – is going to fight for the judges you want? Really? Because, honestly, I look at Romney and realize I have absolutely no reason NOT to expect him to fold like a towel the first time the Democrats give him a hard time on judges, the war, taxes…

    I ask this in all friendliness, and not as a McCain fan: do you REALLY think Romney is the guy – or is he just “not John McCain?”

    Seriously…you don’t think a breather is in order – that maybe Lent coming after Super Tuesday is a good thing?

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    Living in the D.C. area, I have had the opportunity to observe John McCain for the last nine years — not just the last nine weeks. I have closely watched John McCain ever since 1999, when he first ran for president, when I considered supporting him, and ever since then I have witnessed him doing everything he can to undermine the causes that I care most about. John McCain has showed himself for the last nine years to be a megalomaniac, infected with a bit of the narcissism that flows through Bill Clinton’s veins. He has proven himself for nine years to be untrustworthy.

    Ted Olsen’s endorsement? I am a long-time very close personal friend of a certain person of national prominence, a person who is often called a leader of one particular faction of the social conservative community. This is a person whom I love a great deal with all my heart. This person has also joined the John McCain bandwagon, a joinder that was noted in the press, and this was after having abandoned Fred Thompson (who was not given public support, but whose disenchantment with was noted on background in the press). The reason that was given for this person joining McCain was because it was believed that McCain is the only one who could beat Hillary.

    If this person of national prominence who knows McCain personally, whom I trust with my very life (and, indeed, is listed on my healthcare power of attorney), and whom I love unconditionally, could NEVER convince me to support John McCain, there ain’t nobody, nowhere who is ever going to do so.

    As for Romney, I have repeatedly referred to him as Gov. Pander Weasel, so I don’t have much more trust for him than I do for McCain. But then again, I have not been watching him for the last nine years, as I have with McCain, so the reasons for my distrust are not grounded in as much evidence as they are for McCain.

    As for George W., unlike the brain-dead elites at NRO, upon whom I place a great deal of blame for the inter-party bile that has spewed ever since Harriet Miers, I have never and will never say a bad word against him. I think that folks will miss him dearly, and perhaps, if they were honest with themselves, they are already sorry to see him go. A lesser man than Bush (like McCain) would have caved on multiple issues, multiple times.

    Yes, McCain would have caved on Iraq and the War on Terror by now. First, McCain, like Kerry before him, is stuck in a Vietnam mentality, a mentality of looking for exit strategies and peace with honor, instead of standing firm and finishing the fight. And before caving, he would spend a great deal of time micro-managing the war effort, rather than letting his generals do their job.

    Second, what with wanting to close Guantanamo Bay and otherwise, he seems to be sympathetic to the criminal justice model of combating terrorism (a Sept. 10 view), rather than seeing it for the war that it is.

    Third, unlike Bush, who never really cared if he was president — didn’t need to be president — McCain has been running for president since 1999. McCain desperately, desperately wants to be president. He needs to be president. McCain’s first cause is McCain, while Bush’s first cause is not Bush, but his faith. Bush has stood firm in the war, not because he is personally stubborn, but because he knows that there are things greater than himself, and that there is such a thing as evil in the world. As a matter of faith, Bush continues the fight. Bush does not fight for Bush, he fights for the good and for truth (whether or not you all agree as to whether he has a correct grasp of the truth), even if the entire world hates him for it. On the other hand, McCain, who desperately wants to be president, fights for McCain. And he wants to be liked. He wants the approval of the MSM and Washington establishement. When it would be perceived to be advantageous for McCain to withdraw from the war, he would withdraw. McCain would never withstand the constant barrage of fire that has been directed toward Bush these past few years. In short, McCain would not be the rock that Bush has been when it comes to the war.

    Frankly, I had not given much thought to McCain actually pulling it off. He was dead politically. The Right had made it crystal clear for many years now that they would NEVER support McCain and that a McCain nomination would be party suicide. But then, seemingly out of nowhere, McCain comes back from the grave. And so, the subconscious thoughts that have lingered for many years regarding McCain are surfacing again.

    Even so, the conservatives really have no one to blame but themselves for failing to cultivate and come up with at least one leader that we can all rally around. It has been 19 years since Reagan left office, and we should have had a strong minor league system in place, ready to call up all sorts of superstars when needed. Like the pro-life faction, the conservatives generally have been an abysmal failure at producing good, charismatic, persuasive leaders.

    Oh well. That’s what I get for putting my trust and hope in man, that fickle, foolish creature. Trust and hope in man and you will be disappointed every time.

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    oops — intra-party bile, not inter

  • TheAnchoress

    Aw,don’t give up hope, Bender. I still think there’s a game afoot! :-)

  • Pingback: Little Miss Attila

  • ferrous

    I hope people are realizing that the media very much would love for McCain to get the Rep nomination. Why? Precisely because the man has quite a lot of dirt on him and Obama doesn’t and Hillary’s intimidated them into not regularly talking about her dirt. That’s why!!!

    If McCain gets this, we will get wall to wall coverage from about March onward about the Keating Five. That sort of thing by itself is enough to turn people away in droves. Remember how the swifties were able to deftly sabotage Kerry simply by providing the story about him throwing the medals away? That story was more damning than the “Was he or wasn’t he near or in Cambodia at Christmastime” spiel because it got right to the point of displaying this sense of questioning the character of a man who’d just disregard his country so much as to testify under oath that his brothers were baby killers and rapists. Imagine how painting a picture of a man supporting white collar thievery is going to look? Add the whole white guilt and sexist guilt for either Obama or Hillary and it’s no contest. It would take something ala the final scene of The Dead Zone to make it so the Dems don’t win.

    Not trying to sound hysterical here, but I’ve been suspicious of all this from the start. The media succeeded in ruining Rudy’s chances, does anyone here seriously think they weren’t also trying to insure McCain’s chances?

  • Terrye


    When you say you have “observed” McCain, what does that mean? You say you live in DC, well fine, but most people who live in DC are rabid Democrats, so why should I believe that your place of residence makes you a better judge of character than someone from New Hampshire?

    I think people are acting like sore losers and children.

    BTW, I still support Bush. I think the man has real courage. And it seems to me that a lot of the people who do not like McCain have done nothing but bitch and moan and whine about Bush for years. I don’t think they can be pleased. I am not sure they want to be pleased.

    I do not believe that McCain would have caved, there is nothing in his political record or his life to indicate that he would. And since when did ambition become megalomania? The number of people out here psychoanalyzing McCain is stunning. Maybe they should turn some of that analyzing inward, because right now McCain is not the one acting crazy.

  • Terrye


    I am still a little mystified by the game afoot comment. If we get a third party candidate from the right at this late date, it will only seal the deal for the Democrats. I really do not think that pushing McCain aside if he wins the nomination will help Republicans, no matter what game they come up with.

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    why should I believe that your place of residence makes you a better judge of character

    Terrye — believe what you want to believe, and say what you want to say. I’ve not demanded that anyone agree with me. I’ve not consistently attacked and denigrated those who disagree with me. I’ve directed my recent pointed remarks only at McCain, Romney, Hillary, Noonan, NRO, and other establishment/elites. I’ve not attacked their supporters. I’ve not questioned the ulterior motives of their supporters. The supporters of those folks can believe whatever the hell they want to. I only ask that they quit demanding that I agree with them or that I voluntarily turn around, bend over, and willingly take it with a smile. That is a pretty piss-poor way to get someone to vote for their guy.

  • Pingback: Mark Levin fires back across the bow of Victor Davis Hanson and others…McCain is no Reagan and Reagan was no Moderate RINO. | Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar

  • http://none Darrell

    The Left decided to take no chances this time by selecting McCain as the Republican candidate.
    They did so for one reason: He will lose come November. Sure, that strategy cost Hillary a win in Iowa, but the acquisition of total power will be well worth it.

    Tune out the media coverage and vote for the only candidate remaining that represents any conservative positions-Romney.

    Sure the media comes out with a phony poll that shows McCain winning against either Hillary or Barack. But you have a unbroken record of the media supporting McCain when it’s McCain versus a Republican measure, while they always support the Dem when it’s McCain versus a Democrat. Funny how all that MSM enthusiasm for McCain evaporates when the Dems have a dog in the fight.

    It’s not over yet, folks. YOU have the power to turn this all around on Super Tuesday. Republicans don’t support McCain. Democrats and their media cohorts do. We should at least be able to choose our own candidate, yes? Do you remember ever thinking that McCain would be your choice as the next POTUS in the last eight years? Neither do I.

  • deedledee

    In the end, I keep saying that I know that while I may not be 100% for McCain, I know that I am 100% against Hillary and Obama. I also have suffered too much in the pro-life fight not to vote for someone who has been mostly pro-life…will he be another Republican that nominates a Souter or Kennedy? I don’t know, but I know what Hill/Bama intend to do and it’s probably worse than anything McCain will do. Some pundit on tv said that she won’t vote for McCain and will wait for a Republican sweep into congress in 2010…I don’t think a Newt-type will ride to the rescue this time. In my staunch Republican county, people are turning more and more to the Democrats and something tells me they won’t be so easy to vote out of the Congress or Senate anytime soon…so if McCain is the nominee I will try to get everyone I know to vote for him. If Ronald Reagan was running today after his tax and immigration non-right-of-center history, would he be so savagely attacked? I must say I have had to stop listening to Rush, Laura, and Sean or reading Michelle because the venom is disheartening.

  • Pingback: “Faith-based” and hand-wringing | The Anchoress

  • Baxter

    “But of course, liberals are liberals because they believe liberalism is what’s best for America, …”

    “Of course”? I’m sorry, but if you believe that, you haven’t spent much time talking with liberals about values and goals. I have many liberal acquaintances, and a couple of friends. Telling them that they want “what’s best for America” would be fighting words. They proudly and (almost) uniformly profess to me that pursuing what’s best for America is evil by definition. They openly claim to be “citizens of the world,” and to detest anything and everything that they see as promoting the interests of the detestable US of A.