Megan McCain "Am I Not Worthy Of Being A Member of Republican Party?" -In A Word, NO!

[Monketi Ghost]

Who said it's amazing? I do find it a spectacle to watch though. And it's some really unwilling self-reflection they're doing. Hiding your head in the sand while the worst demagogues among you take over the reins can hardly be described as self-reflection.

 

[tomwaits]

Who said it's amazing? I do find it a spectacle to watch though. And it's some really unwilling self-reflection they're doing. Hiding your head in the sand while the worst demagogues among you take over the reins can hardly be described as self-reflection.

I'm not sure what you mean. How have these demagogues "take[n] over the reins"? What makes you think that?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Well... when the "leader" of the party is emascualted by having to apologize to a blowhard media figure who is seen by many as the party guy who leads the best...

 

[Beerina]

You know as well as I do that Coulter doesn't believe 2% of the stuff she says. She just says it on TV and in books for the money, and laughs all the way to the bank.

Awww, don't spoil it for the Political Twoofers! ("Pwoofers"?) It's fun to rage at her dementia as if it's real!

 

[Cicero]

No.

It makes about as much sense as all the other blithering idiocy you come out with.

You are the reincarnation of Lord Haw-Haw as a liberal.

 

[linusrichard]

This is the point, McCain was never the moderate he played himself up to be, on his many many appearances on the daily show and the like.

I think the McCain phenomenon was less about being seen incorrectly as a political moderate before the election, and "revealing himself" as a conservative during the election (although that did happen), but about being what I might call "personally moderate," in the sense that he was dignified, honest, decent, respectful, ethical, etc. And I don't know how much of that was actually true before the election, or actually stopped being true during the election, but I think the perception that he went from being those things to not those things hurt him more than the perceived shift from political moderate to political conservative.

 

[GreNME]

Coulter's an idiot, and the conservative wing of the GOP has gone insane.

What's Meghan's sin? Questioning the claim by Coulter that her dad was more liberal than Hillary. What kind of idiot would believe that?

Coulter would rather be an important person in a losing party than a minor figure in a winning party. I've got a hunch she is going to get her wish.

I think this point really hit the nail on the head, but not just regarding Coulter or even Ms. McCain. It's really starting to look like the more extreme or far-right really are kind of losing it, and it's doing so at the expense of a lot of political capital right now.

There needs to be an opposition party that can stand up to the ruling party. There also needs to be a valid conservative voice in politics, if only for the sake of the many conservatives in the country. Lately, the GOP is starting to look more and more like it isn't up to the task of being that party, and as a result a lot of conservatives that should be focused on for rebuilding the Republican base are being shunted out or ostracized because they aren't extreme enough or willing to be caustic enough.

The only good thing to hope comes from this can go two ways: 1) all of this backfires on the bombastic elements and the Republican Party becomes dominated by the more moderate elements once again, or 2) the GOP continues to estrange so many moderates than they form or join a different party, and that eventually becomes the de-facto voice of conservative America. Both are viable outcomes, in my opinion.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are the reincarnation of Lord Haw-Haw as a liberal.

What a strange lie.

Perhaps you could try to stay on-topic rather then shrieking insane abuse?

Just a suggestion.

 

[leftysergeant]

What I get is that you seem to find it amazing that when a party loses an election, they do a bit of self-reflection to figure out why.

What is amazing is not that the Limbaugh party is reflecting on why they lost sp seriously to obama, but that the dimbulbs have somehow come to the conclusion that they were not nasty enough, and far enough to the right and that the bricks on the front of the locamotive say nothing about their ability to lead in a time of crisis.

Conservatism, as served up by the fat deaf eunuch and the scrawny little hoyden, is a superstition, a religious belief proven wrong by all science and history.

 

[Brainster]

I think this point really hit the nail on the head, but not just regarding Coulter or even Ms. McCain. It's really starting to look like the more extreme or far-right really are kind of losing it, and it's doing so at the expense of a lot of political capital right now.

There needs to be an opposition party that can stand up to the ruling party. There also needs to be a valid conservative voice in politics, if only for the sake of the many conservatives in the country. Lately, the GOP is starting to look more and more like it isn't up to the task of being that party, and as a result a lot of conservatives that should be focused on for rebuilding the Republican base are being shunted out or ostracized because they aren't extreme enough or willing to be caustic enough.

Yes, this is the problem I find myself in; the conservatives are starting to annoy me more than the liberals. And the liberals annoy me a lot!

The only good thing to hope comes from this can go two ways: 1) all of this backfires on the bombastic elements and the Republican Party becomes dominated by the more moderate elements once again, or 2) the GOP continues to estrange so many moderates than they form or join a different party, and that eventually becomes the de-facto voice of conservative America. Both are viable outcomes, in my opinion.

Much as I would like to agree here, I have to say no. Although the activists in both parties are pestilential, you cannot have a political party without them for the simple reason that there are no passionate moderates. The GOP will start winning again when the country decides that Obama and the Democrats have gone too far to the left.

 

[Chaos]

What a strange lie.

Perhaps you could to stay on-topic rather then shrieking insane abuse?

Just a suggestion.

Please.

It is only a lie if the one to tell it knows it is false.

As things are, Cicero is at worst completely booping nuts.

 

[Cicero]

Please.

It is only a lie if the one to tell it knows it is false.

Careful. That sort of rationalization can undermine the liberal position that Bush 43 intentionally lied about WOMD's in Iraq.

 

[Allen773]

Careful. That sort of rationalization can undermine the liberal position that Bush 43 intentionally lied about WOMD's in Iraq.

It's hard to undermine facts, but you're welcome to try.

 

[jj]

Careful. That sort of rationalization can undermine the liberal position that Bush 43 intentionally lied about WOMD's in Iraq.

Since the intent is obvious in retrospect, your claim otherwise is akin to other historical denials.

 

[Cicero]

It's hard to undermine facts, but you're welcome to try.

Please. If there were any fact that Bush lied about WOMD's the Dems would have presented them to Congress as articles for impeachment. But since they failed to come with any, perhaps you could share your "facts?"

 

[Allen773]

Please. If there were any fact that Bush lied about WOMD's the Dems would have presented them to Congress as articles for impeachment. But since they failed to come with any, perhaps you could share your "facts?"

The Democrats in Congress (save for Leahy, Kucinich, and a few others) are spineless. They are under the mistaken impression that this is a conservative nation.

Bush had plenty of motive for invading Iraq, and he had a golden opportunity after 9/11. The intelligence about WMD was dubious, but the Bush administration seized on it anyway.

 

[Cicero]

The Democrats in Congress (save for Leahy, Kucinich, and a few others) are spineless. They are under the mistaken impression that this is a conservative nation.

Bush had plenty of motive for invading Iraq, and he had a golden opportunity after 9/11. The intelligence about WMD was dubious, but the Bush administration seized on it anyway.

I've heard many excuses for the impotence of the milk toast Dems, but suggesting that Reed, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Boxer, Schumer, Schultz, Feinstein, Rangel, Kennedy, etc, cobble together legislation that is designed to placate a "conservatives nation" is a first.

Dubious intel does not equate to Bush lying about WOMD's.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

...Much as I would like to agree here, I have to say no. Although the activists in both parties are pestilential, you cannot have a political party without them for the simple reason that there are no passionate moderates. The GOP will start winning again when the country decides that Obama and the Democrats have gone too far to the left.

Many of us (moderates) are plenty passionate. Many of us simply use logic to apply our political passion to issues (I know, novel concept) as opposed to strict ideologies, out-of-context sound bites, party alignments, and slogans.

This brand of passion, admittedly, tends to draw less public notice as it involves less drama and is harder to label with an encompassing moniker, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

If I'm being too literal and your intent was to state that moderates are harder to identify and less likely to have the unified voice than are the extremes...well, that's obviously true.

If you're implying that there can be no successful politics without extremism (and the pandering that goes with) then I am tempted to suggest that you are perhaps more cynic than skeptic...or that I'm off my rocker to think there's even a chance of significantly improving the political landscape. I'll have to consider this for a while...

 

[Cicero]

Back to the OP, here are two liberal blogs reviewing McCainBlogette.com pre A.C. rebuke:

"John McCain's daughter has a campaign trail blog we've been scouring, and the most salient thing characteristic is "Boy is she blonde!" (Also: what's with the purple suit on her mom? Why do people in Phoenix always seem to be the ones keeping Dallas-era fashion alive?) Anyway, Meghan McCain's blog is mostly unmockably anemic, right down to a Jeff Buckley/Dandy Warhols/Kanye West iPod playlist that can only be described as NOW That's What I Call Music They Play At Retail Outlets! But one thing was kinda bothersome: she can't quit it with the product placements in the captions! "Top by Elie Tahari," says one. "T-shirt by Viva La Glam." "Boots by Giuseppe Zanotti," adds another. And we're gonna skip over the obvious joke for a minute — which is to say, the fact that you could give a **** where she got those fugly boots and by the way, those headbands are so over already — and wax a little earnest for two seconds."

http://jezebel.com/gossip/vagina-mo...interests-supplying-her-ugly-boots-315659.php

"It really is unbelievable. It sounds as though it were written by a forty-something marketing guru trying to pass as a twenty-two year old in an effort to target -- I don't know, the female +18 set who worry over fashion and have a little-girl crushes on their Dads? It reads like bad Vogue, or Chicken Soup for the Campaign Daughter's Soul. Who do they really think they're targeting with this?"

http://monetslilies.typepad.com/the_blackbird_whistling_o/2007/10/meghan-mccain--.html

Here is a liberal blogger post rebuke:

"A McCain I can believe in: Meghan unloads on Coulter"

"In lashing out at the extremist core of the Republican Party, Meghan is, in a way, being a good McCain, just like her father, who once upon a time did much the same. His maverick-ness was always more myth than reality, but it wasn't entirely an act. But John changed, hugging Bush, cozying up to the crazies, and pandering to the far right to secure their support for his presidential bid. Perhaps his daughter's similar independent streak, on display here, will prove to be more genuine."


http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/03/mccain-i-can-believe-in-meghan-unloads.html

 

[Brainster]

Many of us (moderates) are plenty passionate. Many of us simply use logic to apply our political passion to issues (I know, novel concept) as opposed to strict ideologies, out-of-context sound bites, party alignments, and slogans.

This brand of passion, admittedly, tends to draw less public notice as it involves less drama and is harder to label with an encompassing moniker, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

If I'm being too literal and your intent was to state that moderates are harder to identify and less likely to have the unified voice than are the extremes...well, that's obviously true.

If you're implying that there can be no successful politics without extremism (and the pandering that goes with) then I am tempted to suggest that you are perhaps more cynic than skeptic...or that I'm off my rocker to think there's even a chance of significantly improving the political landscape. I'll have to consider this for a while...

Only extremists (and yes, you can be extreme on one issue) are passionate, because only extremists are convinced that not only are they right, but that the other side is so wrong that ruin and devastation will stalk the land if their policies are enacted. And no, I'm not kidding about that; many conservatives believe that Obama's about to change us into the USSR minus the Cossacks, while many liberals believe that Bush was trying to change us into Nazi Germany minus the Aryans.

I'll grant you that most Democrats and most Republicans aren't like that, they're sensible people. But those aren't the kinds of folks who man the phone banks and volunteer their time as precinct committee members; for that kind of work you have to be a bit of a fanatic about politics.

In American politics there are red cars and there are blue cars. Purple just can't compete with the two primary colors.