As you know, I have been supporting Ron Paul for president, even contributing financially to his campaign. I have long planned on voting for Dr Paul in Ohio’s March 4 primary.
I had thought that this would be a symbolic act, as I assumed that the nomination would be settled by then. While this is apparently true regarding the Republican contest- barring a near-miraculous surge for Dr Paul, who has been a disappointment in the primaries- it is far from true in the Democratic primary, where Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are in a very tight race.
Now, Ohio’s primary is "winner take all", so a vote for Dr Paul would not even add to his delegate count at the convention, where I hope at least to see a speech or two that speaks the truth about the war.
The prospect of the Clintons returning to the White House is one that fills me with nausea and dread. I know, I have decried the demonization of Mrs Clinton here, but I cannot imagine how 4, or God help us, 8 years of Clinton rule could be anything but disastrous, not least because of the poison it will inspire on the Right. It is hard to see how an Obama presidency could be worse, and it is easy to imagine that it could bring about considerable good.
And so my dilemma: should I vote in the Democratic primary, which I am free to do as a registered Independent, and try and keep Mrs Clinton out of the White House? Or should I vote for the man whose positions on the issues are closest to mine?
I have never had much use for strategic voting, have voted for third party candidates, and have sat out elections rather than vote for the "lesser evil".
But we do not live in ordinary times. Our nation is in terrible trouble, and a McCain vs Clinton contest is perhaps as bad a choice as could be offered in such a crucial election. McCain is promising more war, for ever and ever amen. And Mrs Clinton would initiate the Age of Nausea.
What should I do?
—Daniel Nichols
Since I don’t have your aversion to “strategic voting,” seems to me that, given your views as stated, it’s pretty straightforward that you should vote for Obama. There was never much hope for Paul actually being elected, and now there’s none, at least on the Republican ticket, so it’s a question of whether you’re going to vote as a more or less symbolic gesture or in hope of affecting the outcome. You’d still be free to vote for Paul if he mounted a third-party campaign, right?
Of course your strategy would also need to include a preference for Obama as president over McCain, since Obama appears (at least at this point) to be a stronger opponent for McCain than Hillary would be.
By the way I have been enjoying reading a lot of liberal outrage against the Clintons over the past few weeks.
I do prefer Obama to McCain; foreign policy is the most urgent issue in this election, and McCain offers us more of the endless war that the neocons have begotten. Obama at least appears more reasonable.
Yes, I know he is terrible on the prolife issue, but do you really expect McCain to take a firm stand for life? Remember, the Supreme Court would have overturned Roe V Wade long ago if it were a matter of Republican-nominated justices prevailing; they make up a majority now.
The Right’s true colors showed loud and clear when all the RW talk show hosts were ganging up on McCain (who has a good antiabortion record), when they would have heartily endorsed the awful Giuliani, who mercifully wiped out in Florida.
And whatever his record, as Obama is structuring his appeal as one who can draw America together, he is as unlikely to give the prochoice agenda much enthusiasm as putative prolifers are to stick their sorry necks out in defense of unborn life.
The notion that the Clintons are far left is a joke; every leftist I know despises them as a variation on the neocon theme.
And Hillary Clinton is no peace candidate; she voted for the war, and for everything Bush put on the board, even the Iran resolution. She even voted against Senate Resolution 4882, which would have banned cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Of course I still hold some hope that a Ron Paul third party candidacy, with Bill Kauffman as running mate, will catch fire.
All right, it is a fading hope, but still…
Well, I’m sure this is longer that what you had in mind Daniel, but this is the draft I’m working on for our local paper. Keep in mind the audience is lefties:
Our country has been polarized for 16 years. Because my sympathies are one sided and the tenor of the anger is different from the left, I sometimes do not notice it, but it is there. We have no shortage of anger, hostility, and even hatred flying both directions. I am tired of it. It isn’t good for our country.
Many of Clinton’s detractors hate her unfairly. But there are millions of them, and the hatred is intense. We could ignore them, but they poison all debate and have enormous influence on many folks in the middle. We could fight them, but that only intensifies polarization. It truly is not fair to Clinton, but we shouldn’t base our vote on what is fair for the candidates, but rather, what is best for the country. With Hillary Clinton comes divisiveness on a scale I have never seen before.
Obama has weaknesses too, but his greatest strength happens to be the direct opposite of Clinton’s greatest weakness. Many Republicans are saying good things about Obama. This too will influence folks in the middle. Remember all those Reagan Democrats? On that first Wednesday this November, we could not only be talking about winning them back, but we could also be talking about Obama Republicans.
But it goes beyond winning in November. Instead of long, tedious struggles to secure slim majorities, Obama can inspire broad consensus and get more done.
Obama’s greatest strength is his potential for healing the festering polarization from 16 years of divisive presidents. Obama’s greatest strength could be what we need most.
Frankly, Obama “getting more done” does kinda scare me.
Daniel,
I think you’re taking this election business too seriously. It’s really a question of which drunk do you want to drive you home. The only candidate that seems like a real, honest human being is Ron Paul. So, just vote for him and be content to be on the losing side. Obama is just another mannikin. He wouldn’t be where he is if he weren’t.
It’s really a question of which drunk do you want to drive you home. The only candidate that seems like a real, honest human being is Ron Paul.
The sober Dr. Paul wishes to re-instate the gold standard, abandoned in this country in 1933, for good reason; the “real, honest” Dr. Paul professes not to know who, in an office that employed perhaps half-a-dozen people, was composing his agitprop.
the Supreme Court would have overturned Roe V Wade long ago if it were a matter of Republican-nominated justices prevailing;
Orrin Hatch and sundry others in the Republican Senate caucus were grossly negligent in vetting Clinton’s appointments.
Republican appointments have been a mixed bunch. However, of the four Democratic appointees who have served on the court since 1971, Byron White was the only one whose salient decisions were not scandalous. He was appointed in 1962; those circumstances are not likely to be replicated in your lifetime or mine. Of the nine Republican appointments who have proved so problematic, five were made prior to 1972, two were hedged bets to get passed a legislature controlled by the opposition, and another was made by an unelected President without committments on the main issue and facing a legislature where the opposition had a filibuster-proof majority (conditions that will not prevail in two years).
Thomas Sowell and Robert Bork are instructive on this point. All judicial appointments are drawn from the professional-managerial stratum, which has a signature outlook; their circle of associates is drawn from that stratum and often heavily from the elites of the BosWash corridor; and they have been immersed in the intellectual pathologies of the legal professoriate. You need a Republican lawyer who knows his own mind, has a thick hide, rejects important features of the outlook of those in his social milieu, and is identifiable as such by those screening the appointments. You also have to get them passed the confirmation process. The applicant pool stinks and Congress is irresponsible.
when they would have heartily endorsed the awful Giuliani, who mercifully wiped out in Florida.
Why not confine your criticisms of people to what they have done and not what you imagine they might have done?
I am admittedly very drawn to Obama’s rhetoric as it relates to foreign affairs. An Obama presidency would send a strong and positive message to the world in many ways. And wouldn’t it be cool to have a president named, “Obama”? Not that this should matter, but I find him to be the most likeable of all the candidates. I even catch myself enjoying listening to his speeches. Nonetheless, I could never vote for him because of his extreme position on abortion. As you probably know, when he was an Illinois legislator, he voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote. If I were voting in Ohio, I would do what I did here in South Carolina (where I too could have voted in either party primary) and vote for Paul. I felt good about it. There’s also the consideration that your one vote for either isn’t going to make a difference anyway. :)
Artie: Actually it is not speculation. Hannitty drooled over Giuliani regularly. The rationale is that because G had made noise about appointing SC justices who were strict constructionists his longtime support for abortion really didn’t matter. Talk about wishful thinking…
Sorry to see you still trust the Republicans; I’m sure they are grateful there are still prolife dupes out there.
Any Republican save Paul, who has been more or less ignored by the media, and mocked by the other candidates, means more of the same on foreign policy. As William notes, Obama at least is open to another approach.
Artie:
What’s with the diminutive?
Actually it is not speculation. Hannitty drooled over Giuliani regularly. The rationale is that because G had made noise about appointing SC justices who were strict constructionists his longtime support for abortion really didn’t matter. Talk about wishful thinking…
Did he endorse Giuliani? Now what about the others?
Sorry to see you still trust the Republicans; I’m sure they are grateful there are still prolife dupes out there.
Politicians are bound to disappoint you. They have quite undifferentiated constituencies; unlike hardware dealers, they do not trade in a discrete set of goods and services; also unlike hardware dealers, your selection of purveyors is severely circumscribed.
As I have indicated, the Republican Congressional caucus has performed poorly in this matter, as have some executive officials. To read John Dean’s account of how appointments to the Supreme Court were generated and vetted is to be baffled. However, I am not ready to trade the unsatisfactory for the truly awful. Those in the mold of Gov. Casey and Rep. LaFalce will likely be marginal in the federal Democratic Party for a very long time.
Any Republican save Paul, who has been more or less ignored by the media, and mocked by the other candidates, means more of the same on foreign policy. As William notes, Obama at least is open to another approach.
Obama or Paul will face the same dilemmas the other candidates do. The question at hand is how they will react to disagreeable feedback. My wager with regard to Paul is that he would pretend it was not happening or pretend it did not matter. This is, of course, a speculation.
What’s with the diminutive?
Hey, if you insist on hiding behind the name of one of my least favorite architectual styles, you’re asking for nicknames. Tell me your real name and I will use it.
Did he endorse Giuliani? Now what about the others?
Not formally, but he made it clear that if Giuliani was the nominee he would support him. As for the second part of your ambiguous question, if you meant what does Hannity think about the others, he was pals with Huckabee until he turned on him, just before Romney bowed out (he had come out for Romney right before that campaign folded). He was fine with Thompson, fine with Giuliani, fine with Huckabee before he was perceived as dividing the conservative vote. Meanwhile, he, like the others, had no use for the very prolife- but antiwar, antiempire- Ron Paul. And the smirks of McCain and Romney whenever Dr Paul was speaking at the debates were despicable; Paul was the only one speaking truth in that fiasco.
…the Republican congressional caucus has performed poorly in this matter.
A rather dispassionate description of betrayal.
Meanwhile, it looks like McCain is the inevitable Republican nominee. And while I don’t like him, it is for very different reasons than the movement conservatives. I actually heard the horrendous Ann Coulter say that McCain is “terrible on torture”, which stunningly, meant that he is against it. To me, that is one of the few good things to be said for him.
I heard myself saying in conversation the other day “at least McCain is against torture”, and then immediately thinking “who ever thought we’d live in a country where that is the best thing one can say about a politician?”
That being against torturing enemies is anything but the norm is beyond alarming.
Tell me your real name and I will use it.
I assure you that under no circumstances am I going to tell you where to find me.
As for the second part of your ambiguous question, if you meant what does Hannity think about the others
I fail to see how what Sean Hannity has said or not said about various candidates has to do with the (hypothetical or actual) opinions of anyone else in that trade.
had no use for the very prolife- but antiwar, antiempire- Ron Paul. And the smirks of McCain and Romney whenever Dr Paul was speaking were despicable;
They think he’s a clown. Re: your usual line of argument, he might just contribute to that.
I assure you that under no circumstance am I going to tell you where to find me.Everyone told me you were paranoid. They were right.
I fail to see what Sean Hannity has said or not said about various candidates has to do with the … opinions of anyone else in that trade.
Only that he is the #2 rated talk show host, and his opinions differ not at all from the #1 all time blowhard Limbaugh. Or the #3 and slightly more obnoxious Michael (sic) Savage, “Savage” being as cowardly an alias as “Deco”.
They think he’s a clown. Re: your usual line of argument, he might just contribute to that.
I have no idea of what my “usual line of argument” is; but while Dr Paul is hardly flawless, as I have noted here, what he says makes more sense, and is more attuned to the Catholic social tradition- apart from his infatuation with Hayek, von Mises, and Rothbard- than the truly clownish- were they not so tragic- neocon ramblings of his rivals.
Why don’t you change your name to “Art Faco”? All you do is log on here anonymously, ramble on with facetious arguments, and annoy the rest of us.
…one of my least favorite architectual styles…
Ok, now I’m upset, too. :-) I think Art Deco is great.
Not a very Catholic style, though, I admit. I think my liking for it is more a matter of misplaced nostalgia.
In between bouts of being paranoid, cowardly, annoying and facetious, I do have comments on and criticisms of what several of you write.
Perhaps Messrs. Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Hewitt, et al. are like the “nestines” in Dr. Who – no individual identity.
I am not sure how Ron Paul’s social thought is to be understood apart from the characters you name, except that politicians tend to speak in a different idiom (simpler and more programmatic) than theoreticians. As to whether or not it is “attuned” to Catholic Social Teaching, laissez-faire seems rather incongruent with what Mr. Storck has been describing of late.
The problem is that your comments and criticisms frequently ignore what other posters are saying. And when we respond to your comments and criticisms you most often ignore that and move on to your next tiresome point.
Case in point: this latest post. I very clearly said that Dr Paul’s infatuation with laissez-faire is contradictory to Catholic social thought. Where there is affinity is in his principled prolife beliefs, his strict adherence to just war principles, and his general hostility to bigness in government and business.
How did you miss that?
Case in point: this latest post. I very clearly said that Dr Paul’s infatuation with laissez-faire is contradictory to Catholic social thought. Where there is affinity is in his principled prolife beliefs, his strict adherence to just war principles, and his general hostility to bigness in government and business.
How did you miss that?
Because you did not say that at any point in this discussion (before now).
Ron Paul’s signature is his infatuation with laissez-faire.
An adherence to pro-life principles does not distinguish Ron Paul from several of the other candidates.
The the characteristics of certain goods and services or of the production process thereof is going to generate large enterprises. Constraining big business in this respect is going to require strong government, without regard to whether Dr. Paul likes it or not.
I have not researched the conceptions of just war adhered to by the various candidates. I have a suspicion that just war principles as enunciated in the catechism would likely engender far less dispute than subsidiary questions: i.e. whether facts on the ground were such that the principles would indicate a particular conflict met the criteria of justice.
This discussion exists within the context of my other recent posts on Dr Paul, where I did state this explicitly. I was assuming that you were aware of this, that you were not new to the discussion.
I agree that big business is not likely to be controlled and kept at a reasonable, human scale by the market. And I agree that it is a justifiable function of the state to do so, as Chesterton believed, with his idea of graduated taxes; the idea that one small shop would be taxed not at all, but if the owner expands to two shops he is taxed, and taxed heavier as he gets bigger.
“Just war” to nearly every politician is just a slogan to promote whatever slaughter serves his nationalistic ends. There are few conversant in the demands of the moral order in regard to conflict, fewer still who would sacrifice nationlism to goodness.
Dr Paul is the exception to this, and while a patriot, nationalism does not trump the Good for him
“Just war” to nearly every politician is just a slogan to promote whatever slaughter serves his nationalistic ends. There are few conversant in the demands of the moral order in regard to conflict, fewer still who would sacrifice nationlism to goodness.
Nearly every politician?
Yup.
Can you name five who are exceptions to this?
1. Categorical statements about aggregates (there are hundreds of thousands of politicians in this country) are generally none too prudent, most particularly when you are assessing something which is occult (e.g. the sincerity or lack of it with regard to their advocacy of one thing or another).
2. In making evaluations of politicians, you are generally limited to what is discrete and public information. The ballots cast in the legislature on one or another question, public speeches, the scores offered by various advocacy groups, &c. are available. What the politicians ‘nationalistic ends’ are is but an inference from same; the degree of duplicity involved in persuing them is at a farther remove yet.
3. That aside, your statement is a non sequitur with regard to all but a few politicians. My local state senator is a man named David Valesky. If I recall correctly, he was elected about three years ago; his previous employment was as the manager of one of the local public television stations. What are Mr. Valesky’s ‘nationalistic ends’ and what sort of slaughter will he countenance in order to achieve them? Beats the hell out of me, and I do not think scrutinizing his voting record in the legislature will help you. (I will wager said record will reveal he is very deferential to public employee unions, this being New York).
4. Even with regard to elected officials whose portfolio of duties may include oversight of war and diplomacy, your statement still seems non sequitur. The four federal representatives elected in this area have different dispositions generally and different dispositions with regard to administration policy on the war (one is a mainline Democrat, one mainline Republican, one a dissident Republican, and one a mainline Republican who tended to be critical of the administration on foreign policy). I cannot recall Mr. Walsh, the Republican representing Syracuse, ever articulating a conception of ‘just war’, though presumably he holds such a conception, precise or haphazard as the case may be. He cast a reluctant ballot for authorizing operation Iraqi freedom and has recently recommended a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Why would I interpret his temporizing as some sort of pantomime disguising ‘nationalistic ends’ he wishes to serve by ‘slaughter’?
5. If I make a statement like, “nearly all clergyman lust after small children”, it really is not your job to provide lists of certifiably non-pedophilic clergy.
Okay, Mr Deco. I tried to humor you and actually respond to your objections.
And look what it got me: yet more laborious contentions, disputing the obvious.
But maybe what is obvious to me is not obvious to you.
Really; in your world are most American politicos intent on doing good with complete objectivity?
Are they more interested in goodness than, say, “honor” (as Guvn’r Huckabee famously argued) or national stature or profit?
Your #5 is particularly disingenuous. I did not make a statement on the order of “most politicians want to get in their neighbor’s wives’ beds”. I stated something about moral/political attitudes, which is pretty verifiable by looking at history. Indeed, I think I can say the same thing about American bishops, for that matter.
And in light of your comment that you will not tell me your name, lest I know where to find you, I am surprised to see that you give me the name of your congressman.
That, by the way, was one of the wackiest comments I have seen here, at least since Franklin departed.
I mean what do you think I am, a Caelum et Terrorist?
Bwah ha ha …
This just in: McCain voted against the bill outlawing torture yesterday.
So much for the only good thing about him.
Yes, a big disappointment for McCain. I wrote our Senator Voinovich a few days ago about that vote. Do you know how he went?
Really; in your world are most American politicos intent on doing good with complete objectivity?
My surmise is that politicians generally have a portfolio of issues on which they do not compromise, another in which they have no investment and are good soldiers for the party leadership (who in turn are responding to the party representatives on the relevant committees), another portfolio with regard to which they are acting as advocates for their constituents and are not considering abstract justice, and another in which they are acting as advocates for a sectoral constituency (which has financed their campaigns, let us say). Some of the time, they are persuing good public policy as they understand it, some of the time they are not, and some of the time they likely have only a vague idea of what is good or bad with regard to whatever it is they are voting on. (Some of the time they are self-deceived as to what justice requires). Legislators are specialized in what they study. They are also human beings with human deficiencies.
I have a friend who was on the staff of the New York State Legislature ca. 1962. He had a thoroughly negative opinion of the members of that body at that time. His taxonomy was as follows:
1. Buffoons;
2. Poltroons;
3. Out-and-out crooks;
4. Honest men you find every once in a while.
He actually knew this crowd from working with them. You will notice that not among his taxa is “rampaging nationalists you might expect to find in a continental European legislature ca. 1913”.
Are they more interested in goodness than, say, “honor” (as Guvn’r Huckabee famously argued) or national stature or profit?
You are assuming that they perceive a conflict between these two phenomena which they may not.
Your #5 is particularly disingenuous. I did not make a statement on the order of “most politicians want to get in their neighbor’s wives’ beds”. I stated something about moral/political attitudes, which is pretty verifiable by looking at history. Indeed, I think I can say the same thing about American bishops, for that matter.
I do not think most politicians are given to meditating publicly on what is or is not ‘just war’, or that you can say reliably that in their advocacy on this matter that they are self-consciously promoting policies they know to be unjust. Parsing their degree of sincerity on matters of war and peace (as opposed to matters of tax policy) is a challenge.
And in light of your comment that you will not tell me your name, lest I know where to find you, I am surprised to see that you give me the name of your congressman.
Only 630,000 people live in a typical Congressional district hereabouts. Best of luck.
I mean what do you think I am, a Caelum et Terrorist?
We often do not see ourselves as others do.
Amusing nomenclature on the part of your legislative friend, Art. I’d never really thought about the difference between a buffoon and a poltroon.
McCain’s vote yesterday was apparently not a change of position on torture, but an objection to the specific requirement that the CIA follow the Army Field Manual.
So he wants to allow for “alternative” techniques but still repudiates torture pretty firmly without attempting to exclude waterboarding. Not sure what to make of that–what are these alternatives?
He concludes:
Full statement here.
Does this make McCain a pultroon or a buffoon?
Or maybe he’s saying what he believes. There’s some interesting discussion over at Mark Shea’s–not just the post but the comments as well.
I agree with Mr Shea’s take on it, except I never trusted McCain. (Don’t really have time for the comments).
That you link to his site on LODW puzzles me; you have always seemed put off by my occasional sarcasm and vehemence, but he outdoes me regularly…
He’s one of those hub bloggers, where you can get a quick look at a lot that’s going on in the Catholic world. And he can be quite good when he’s not in full hyperbolic rant mode. I skim his long posts and usually quit reading when he goes into that.
I’m a little surprised too Mac. Mark drips sarcasm, contempt, and snarkiness from nearly every sentence on the blog. I’ll admit that I find some of it quite funny. The worst is that he seems to have a fairly large following and they all gleefully pile on. It looks like a mutual admiration society. I fear that his influence on those folks is truly bad for them. Far too much self righteousness; far too little charity – or so it seems to me.
Mac, those posts you had about not wanting to drive folks away, about wanting to show them Christ’s love – that was some of the best stuff I’ve seen in the last year. Mark appears to be utterly clueless about that.
That said, Mark’s articles for InsideCatholic(?) and such are very good and lack all that ugliness. In one of those he had a memorable remark for those who get worked up on how the mass is done (like ourselves on LoDW some months ago): “My general attitude is ‘Just give me my lines and my blocking and let’s get going.’ ” It came after our discussion had cooled off so I could laugh, and I still laugh.
I have a higher regard for McCain, much higher than most politicians, and my hope is that his explanation is genuine.
Did you see the McCain Spoof version of the Yes We Can video? Boy oh boy did he get ripped on that one, very funny. It includes his incredibly stupid “bomb bomb bomb Iran” gaff. On second thought, you might not want to see it Daniel – how’s your blood pressure :)
Oi. Another book length post. I wish I could be pithy. Alas.
Actually I saw it and thought it hilarious. And it confirmed my opinion of the guy; that he is Dick Cheney level crazy.
Your high regard for him is beyond me.
I guess I haven’t seen Shea’s meanness as being as predominant as it seems to be to the two of you. There’s also a lot of humor that’s not mean. But anyway for whatever reason, I’ve just sort of shrugged off the hyperbolic snark, or, like I said, quit reading. He posts a lot and links to interesting things that I might not have otherwise seen.
But you have a point about the propriety or wisdom of linking to him. I suppose I’ve always assumed that nobody reads him except similarly-minded Catholics, and I think that’s probably mostly true, but it certainly could make a bad impression on someone who just wandered in off the street, so to speak.
Daniel,
I’ll try to explain. Firstly, my regard for him is much higher than most politicians, but that still isn’t very high – ne c’est pas?
If I shared your view that we’re headed into world war, I’m sure my opinion of him would be considerably lower.
I like him because he does not always follow the party line. Whenever he bucks it, it is in a direction that I favor. Furthermore, it has generally been perilous to his political standing. So in that respect anyway, he is courageous. You may recall that what drew me to LoDW was a search for reasonable conservatives :) McCain has always struck me as one of the more reasonable Republicans. That Coulter and Limbaaugh hate him so is further proof of that. Finally, there is that thing that is just a gut feel, I just like him.
I also liked him because he was the alternative to W – whom I also rather liked as a person, but I could see that guy was very, very dangerous – like a dog that’s just a little jumpy, loopy, and could go berzerk unpredictably. To top it off it was all under a cloak of Christianity. So some of my like for McCain is unreasonably tied up with my disgust for W.
I read McCain’s book by the way. It was interesting but if anything it lowered my opinion of him. Every commentor here on on LoDW is a better writer too.
Maclin: I’m not sure I was clear. My concern is less for wanderers stumbling on Mark’s site. My main concern is for exactly those people of a like mind.
I’ll throw policies and politics out the window for a moment to say that I can’t remember a candidate for president that I found so unlikable as McCain. No one in my family can watch him for even 2 minutes. It’s very depressing that we might have him in the White House for 4 or even 8 years.
I, too, find him insufferable. And I generally will not vote for anyone who trades his aging wife in for a newer model.
I’ve managed not to see McCain on tv, so I really don’t have an opinion about his likableness. Dave’s view of what makes him more acceptable is the flip side of what makes him so suspect in the eyes of many conservatives: not just his positions, but he’s widely seen as taking a sort of sanctimonious I-am-not-as-these pleasure in thwarting conservatives to curry favor with the media.
Re Shea’s blog, perhaps I ought to add that linking to a blog doesn’t for me imply agreeing with everything said there–just means it’s of great interest. I suppose I might react more strongly against him if he weren’t such an equal-opportunity denouncer.
The only time I have seen McCain on TV is on that video parody.
My dislike of him is based entirely upon his positions. And things like “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”. Which is way beyond not funny.
And I generally will not vote for anyone who trades his aging wife in for a newer model.
Can’t blame you there. For the record though, McCain’s first marriage had been on the rocks for years before he met the newer model, the divorce was amicable, and McCain takes responsibilityfor the whole mess. Not excusable, but still.
Funny what you say about the flip side Maclin.
BTW, I’ve contacted the Obama campaign for yard signs and sent in a much better version of that letter to the editor. I still don’t know how I’ll vote in November, but the sooner Clinton is out, the sooner our country can move on to better things.
Dave G There is more to the story. When McCain came back to the US after being a POW he found that his wife Carol had been in a terrible car accident in which she nearly died. She was crippled, now on crutches and had gained much weight. He began seeing his second wife to be Cindy while he was still married to his crippled wife. Cindy was very wealthy and 17 years younger.
Look, I’m not defending him. What you say is true William, but is loose about the chronology. What he did was despicable. His marriage was on the rocks for years while his wife was crippled and heavy. After some time of that they separated. After some time of that, McCain met the new model and only tehn did he divorce. Ugly business.
Y’all were asking why I read Mark Shea’s blog. This is a good example of something I would never have seen if I didn’t.
Maclin,
I hope you’ll continue reading Shea. Really. There is as you say, a lot of terrific information.
I hope too that those who are prone to smug, self-righteous anger will never find out about him. When they do, I hope they will also find a few more temperate believers in the comboxes who will give them all a gentle prod toward charity.