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

[Brainster]

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

Here is a liberal blogger post rebuke:

Do you agree substantially with what those liberal bloggers were saying about Meghan McCain, or do you disagree?

 

[linusrichard]

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

If he had merely said that there were WMDs in Iraq, that might not have been a lie. It might have just been a horrible stupid mistake. But he said he knew there were WMDs in Iraq, and he didn't know, and he knew he didn't know. Thus, it was a lie to say he knew there were WMDs in Iraq. It might have been a lie to say there were WMDs in Iraq; I don't know whether he knew there weren't.

I realize Bush plays for the "R" team, but I don't understand why that means people on the "R" team have to defend his mendacity. He lied to you just as much as he lied to me. Actually, it was worse of him to lie to you, because you probably believed it.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

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.

You may be right; this saddens me.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

If that happens, or if the moderates kick out the conservatives and they form a third party, America will become a one party state. Let's say the American electorate swings hard right with 66% voting centre-right. Well republican party A will take 33% and 33% will go to republican party B and the democrats will come up the middle and rule unopposed with 34%.

Here in Canada, we have had a remarkably stable Conservative minority government largely because Canadas three left wing parties* have not yet come to the realization that they hate the Conservatives more than they hate each other. They came close back in December, except the Liberal membership all but ejected their leader when they heard he was climbing into bed with the NDP.

Thus, Canada is led a Prime Minister reviled by his opponents as a Bush clone who is always just one epiphany away from political irrelevance.


*Canadas political parties in a nutshell: Conservative = conservative, Liberal = liberal, NDP = liberals in a hurry, BQ = provisional government of the Peoples Republic of Quebec

 

[Allen773]

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.

Do you know how many true progressives are in the Senate? I'll give you a hint: the number is in the single digits.

Reid and Pelosi are self-serving Democrats who are more interested in the short-term good of the Democratic Party than the long-term good of the American nation.

Feinstein is hardly a liberal. She's quite hawkish on foreign policy and went along with the NSA wiretapping bill.

The intel was known to be dubious by the intelligence community, but for some reason it didn't register with Bushco. Or it did, and they didn't care.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you know how many true progressives are in the Senate?

No... is it close to the number of true scotsman?

 

[Allen773]

No... is it close to the number of true scotsman?

You know what I meant. People who are progressives and who stand by their principles.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You know what I meant. People who are progressives and who stand by their principles.

Aye.

We have the same problem on our side with people who do not meet our own standards of what we think conservatism is or should be.

Did you think Bush managed to get his approval rating so low by only pissing off democrats?

 

[Cicero]

If he had merely said that there were WMDs in Iraq, that might not have been a lie. It might have just been a horrible stupid mistake. But he said he knew there were WMDs in Iraq, and he didn't know, and he knew he didn't know. Thus, it was a lie to say he knew there were WMDs in Iraq. It might have been a lie to say there were WMDs in Iraq; I don't know whether he knew there weren't.

I realize Bush plays for the "R" team, but I don't understand why that means people on the "R" team have to defend his mendacity. He lied to you just as much as he lied to me. Actually, it was worse of him to lie to you, because you probably believed it.

While I did/do support the taking out of Saddam and his regime, I never believed the WOMD "evidence" that Powell presented to the U.N., and said so at the time. I thought it was a mistake to use the WOMD argument to go into Iraq without having the same kind of recon photos that definitively showed MRBM's in Cuba. But the fact that Bush 43 was sure they were there and knew after going into the country the truth would be known, doesn't make it logical he intentionally lied.

 

[Cicero]

Do you agree substantially with what those liberal bloggers were saying about Meghan McCain, or do you disagree?

Libs changing their tune about a person when that person changes their politics is not unusual. David Brock was considered to be a conservative hack until he changed sides on Anita Hill and started up Media Matters. Chris Hitchens was a favorite of liberals before he supported the Iraq War, but now they consider him to be a drunken hack.

I am not so mercurial about Meghan. She was a vacuous vapid vixen before and after she took on A.C.

 

[Allen773]

Aye.

We have the same problem on our side with people who do not meet our own standards of what we think conservatism is or should be.

Did you think Bush managed to get his approval rating so low by only pissing off democrats?

Bush was the epitome of modern American conservative governance. He abandoned fiscal prudence, but so did Reagan, and Reagan is the icon of modern conservatism in America. If Bush isn't conservative, than neither was Reagan.

What does that tell you? What does it say about the modern conservative philosophy in regards to responsible government?

When modern conservatives finally gained control of the entire government in America in 2000, people saw how bad it was. If it weren't for 9/11 and Iraq, Bush would have been a one-term President, and the Republicans wouldn't have lost control of Congress in 2006. More like 2002 or 2004.

I'm not saying, of course, that Bush or other Republicans were in any way involved in 9/11. But the short-term political benefits to the GOP were great.

Now conservatives in this nation are attempting to rewrite history by saying "Bush wasn't a true conservative." Well, if that's the case, then neither was Reagan, because they shared basically the same philosophy.

 

[Cicero]

Do you know how many true progressives are in the Senate? I'll give you a hint: the number is in the single digits.

Imagine if the number were closer to that of JREF political forum members. The Capitol would have to add on another wing.

 

[Allen773]

Imagine if the number were closer to that of JREF political forum members. The Capitol would have to add on another wing.

Well, there are a couple dozen hard-line conservatives in the Senate.

 

[NotJesus]

Libs changing their tune about a person when that person changes their politics is not unusual.

You didn't show anyone changing their tune. You quoted three different people and there are no direct contradictions between any of those statements.

Even for you -- pathetic.

 

[linusrichard]

While I did/do support the taking out of Saddam and his regime, I never believed the WOMD "evidence" that Powell presented to the U.N., and said so at the time.

Fair enough, my mistake.

I thought it was a mistake to use the WOMD argument to go into Iraq without having the same kind of recon photos that definitively showed MRBM's in Cuba. But the fact that Bush 43 was sure they were there and knew after going into the country the truth would be known, doesn't make it logical he intentionally lied.

You think he didn't know that he didn't know? It's possible, I guess. I think he knew he didn't know. If I had to guess, I would guess he actually thought they were there, meaning he wasn't lying when he said they were - it's only when he claimed knowledge that I think he was lying. I suppose either of us might be right.

 

[linusrichard]

LibsPeople changing their tune about a person when that person changes their politics is not unusual.

Fixed it for you. I won't deny that many "libs" do it, but I don't think "libs" do it more than ... what would it be?... "cons"?

 

[Allen773]

McCain's daughter, 24, a registered Republican since last Father's Day, believes the Republicans need to be more moderate in order to regain power. Did this bugwit miss the last Presidential election where her father, the most moderate Republican in the Party, lost?

"And what was she (Coulter) thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election?"

A.C.'s observation about McCain was too narrow in scope. She neglected to include his inchoate offspring.

"P.S. I am still trying to figure out what tattoo I should get to commemorate my time on the trail. I feel like I am finally ready to commit to some new ink. So far "McCain" in gothic letters on the back of my neck is winning my unofficial survey."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-09/my-beef-with-ann-coulter/full/

Perhaps "FUBAR" would be more appropriate.

What happens when a "Republican" takes aim at Ann Coulter? Why you get booked on the Raychill Maddow show of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZVT9KXzjEI

Meghan says she will never run for political office. While all concerned are grateful for this news, it does show yet another similarity between herself and Caroline Kennedy.

The majority of the electorate is moderate. If you drive out moderates you're sealing your own party's demise.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think he may have convinced himself for no other reason than that he wanted to invade that there were WMDs. It's called "confabukatiuon." Drunks, retarded people and sociopaths do that a lot.

 

[Cicero]

You didn't show anyone changing their tune. You quoted three different people and there are no direct contradictions between any of those statements.

Even for you -- pathetic.

Let's slow it down for you. The lib bloggers made fun of Meghan's apparel, her opinions, and her blog in general. After the A.C. rebuke, she is considered to possibly be a "genuine independent maverick" by the-reaction.blogspot, and she is considered to be a model of the Republican moderate by assorted libs in this thread.

I gave the examples of Brock and Hitchens regarding the mercuruial nature of liberal supporters. Or do you deny this as well?

 

[GreNME]

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!

Extremists of all sorts annoy me a lot. The reason I no longer identify with the Republican Party is because it's being led by extremists. For most of the election cycle I wasn't inclined to vote for Obama because I thought his idealist tendencies were too out there. My decision changed for similar reasons, but that's not an argument I think would go productively. Still, the extremes on both sides annoy the living hell out of me.

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.

Oh, I'm sure there will be a pendulum will swing back conservative eventually, because that's the way things go. That doesn't mean it has to be an extremist version of conservatism. Ironically, a lot of that is going to depend on how Obama's presidency goes: if he swings too far left, the pendulum will swing back far right, but if he gives too much to the far right, he gives over momentum to the far right when it swings back. Clinton was the latter, Carter the former. We have four to eight years to see how Obama does.

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.

That's just the tantalizing sound of moral absolutism you're describing, not passion. I'm passionate about personal (and fiscal) responsibility, I'm passionate about fair (but free) markets, and I'm passionate about both liberty and equality (the two primary distinctions between liberal and conservative focus). This includes being able to admit when the 'other side' makes a good point-- a quality both major parties currently lack (and fringe parties seem to constantly lack). If the parties could start keeping the last part in mind it would go a long way toward changing the wide swings to small ones. It would only take one decent liberal and one decent conservative administration.

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.

Not true. A lot of those people are paid to do that, college age, and while impressionable and full of energy they're not necessarily always that extreme. Heck, Meghan McCain seems to be a good example of this.

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

They don't have to be purple, they just have to be lighter shades of those primary colors. That works well enough to improve the political environment.

-----

If that happens, or if the moderates kick out the conservatives and they form a third party, America will become a one party state. Let's say the American electorate swings hard right with 66% voting centre-right. Well republican party A will take 33% and 33% will go to republican party B and the democrats will come up the middle and rule unopposed with 34%.

I'm not suggesting three parties. I'm suggesting the extreme GOP-ers continue to extreme themselves right into irrelevancy. They can be the the new Libertarian Party while the rational Republicans can be the major conservative party.

Here in Canada, we have had a remarkably stable Conservative minority government largely because Canadas three left wing parties* have not yet come to the realization that they hate the Conservatives more than they hate each other. They came close back in December, except the Liberal membership all but ejected their leader when they heard he was climbing into bed with the NDP.

Thus, Canada is led a Prime Minister reviled by his opponents as a Bush clone who is always just one epiphany away from political irrelevance.

*Canadas political parties in a nutshell: Conservative = conservative, Liberal = liberal, NDP = liberals in a hurry, BQ = provisional government of the Peoples Republic of Quebec

While I appreciate the explanation, Canadian politics are a bit more complex than that. Besides, if you want to be overly-simplistic, the conservative party in Canada is still more liberal than the Democratic Party in the US.