May 23, 2008

"John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity..."

John Hawkins — of Right Wing News — is a having a bit of a problem with the Republican Party's candidate.

56 comments:

former law student said...

Jeeze. Just because on one occasion McCain didn't say "secure the borders first" Sometimes you just answer the question that's asked.

Good thing he's not a Democrat. If this caused him to call his candidate a liar, without honor, without integrity, the Clintons' actions would make his head explode.

George said...

Nose? Off!

Face? Spited.

Actually happened in 867.

Vikings. Nuns.

Freder Frederson said...

Gee, It can't be--Mr. Straight Talk express actually is changing his position.

The MSM would never let him get away with it. They are completely biased against McCain and would call him on it immediately. Hawkins must simply be mistaken. The NYT would never let such a "flip flop" pass unnoticed.

vbspurs said...

A whole 25 bucks??

Jeez, I can only imagine what Hawkins would've given if he had actually supported McCain.

$30.

Listen, problem is you can't ALWAYS have a right-wing conservative in the White House, just like you can't ALWAYS have a left-wing Liberal there either.

Both little sets of Party apparatchiks will have to get through their noggins that sometimes, the nation needs a breather from the ideological pendulum swings.

We're at war. McCain is an experienced ex-military man who is pro-defence, and pro-guns. He'll do.

Cheers,
Victoria

Richard Fagin said...

I wasn't yet 16 years old and already had more political maturity than the Right Wing News pundit.

Watching my father's business evaporate in the early '70s I used to tell him, "January 20, 1973, we'll have a new president and all this stuff will be behind us." That was until the Democrats nominated McGovern. When a 15 year old can see clear danger enough to know that Democrats should have held their noses and voted for Nixon, who is this guy not to do the same for McCain? Even a crook was better than someone who was so naive.

Sloanasaurus said...

Most hard core conservatives despise Mccain. They despise him because McCain is a true centrist.

Trooper York said...

Lucky for us that Barack doesn't ever stretch the truth. Just
the other day he was telling about all of his close Jewish buddies.
It's enough to have a minyan.

rhhardin said...

McCain is like having an avid boater for a spouse. I'm told the proper course is not divorce but just keeping him away from water.

Trooper York said...

No that's a Gremlin and the only one in the race is married to Bill Clinton.

Trooper York said...

That's why he makes sure she never gets wet.

vbspurs said...

No that's a Gremlin and the only one in the race is married to Bill Clinton.

Wait Trooper. I thought Gremlins were ugly ass machines with a skunk stripe across their top, and a fat misshapen undercarriage?

Oh. Right. As you were.

Cheers,
Victoria

Tibore said...

I was about to compose a post built around the word "apparatchik" too, but Victoria beat me to it. Too many people in both parties act more like the hoariest fictional cliché of Communist party enforcers than they do critical thinkers, and the word "apparatchik" applies far too well to these people.

Maguro said...

I'm sure McCain is distraught to have lost the coveted "Right Wing News" endorsement. Probably won't sleep a wink tonight.

rdkraus said...

John McCain is not a conservative.

End of story.




He HAS a record. Look at it.

vbspurs said...

Sorry Tibore! You have to get up pretty early to beat me to a juicy word like that.

P.S.: McCain gave back Hagee's endorsement. Can one do that? What does one say? "Thanks, but no thanks. Smell ya later."?

MadisonMan said...

I have to think that if some screaming right wing loon has his undies in a bundle because of something McCain said, well, then maybe I can vote for McCain.

I think it's a bad idea to vote for someone who always pleases the far right or far left wings of either party. Compromise is good for the country sometimes.

Pastafarian said...

Is compromise good for the country on every single issue? Border security is a pretty important issue. Hopefully we fence-supporters won't be able to revel in "I-told-you-so's" as a mushroom cloud rises over Chicago a few years from now, after a few Middle-eastern gentlemen smuggle the components of a fissile weapon across our porous southern border.

Balfegor said...

Gee, It can't be--Mr. Straight Talk express actually is changing his position.

It . . . could be. Or more likely, that his "enforcement first" position was just the position he took to pander to Republican primary voters. Previously, I'll admit, I had thought that he still supported "comprehensive reform," but had genuinely bowed to the political reality that the American public won't stand for that kind of thing. Evidently, he hasn't bowed. But he will kneel to us in time.

MadisonMan said...

I reject the notion that the choices are either a completely locked-down Country with fences everywhere or a nuked city. But thanks for posting the right-wing talking point.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TitusTimeClockofTheHeart said...

I think the problem fellow republicans is that we try to compare Mccain to our current great president George W Bush.

We should never even go there because there will never be anyone as amazing as he has been.

Yes, the past 8 years has been bliss but we need to move on and support our new republican John Mccain.

I know and hope all of you are with me.

Thank you.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

McCain IS a liar. He says he believes in securing the borders and enforcing the laws first, but in reality and secretly he is for open borders. Just look at who is his advisor on this matter is. McCain wants to give amnesty. Screw the laws. Screw the ordinary working man. McCain's loyalties do not lie with the American citizen. Sure he wants our votes and is pandering and telling lies with the best of the to get those votes. Once in office.......we are screwed.

McCain screwed our First Amendment rights with McCain Feingold. He caved in and stabbed us in the back with the 'gang of 14'. Never mind the Keating scandal that caused untold amounts of financial damage to individuals and institutions. McCain is a weasel and there is no way in HELL that I would vote for him. Our only hope would be that he pick a competent VP who could step up into the Presidency.

We are basically screwed as a country either way. The Dems have let the cat out of the bag. They plan to turn us into a socialistic country and McCain isn't much better with his crackpot ideas about global warming and unthinking acceptance of non-scientific theories that will adversely affect our economy.

WE ARE SCREWED.

vbspurs said...

WE ARE SCREWED.

God, it really is 1976 all over again. What a hideous 4 years we're in for.

Pokey cars, no petrol, fits and starts economy and a defeatist president, whomever he will be.

(I only half believe this. America may catch a cold, but she rarely gets pneumonia)

Cheers,
Victoria

rcocean said...

I found Hawkins post rather strange. He comes across as a conservative Andrew Sullivan.

-He distrusts McCain and attacks him during the primaries. Hunter is his first choice.

-When McCain wins in February, he not only falls in in line & supports him, he writes columns praising McCain and demanding other conservative also support him. He gives McCain money.

-McCain now drops the pretense of supporting enforcement first and reiterates his long held belief that we need "Amnesty Now".

-Hawkins goes beserk calls McCain a liar and a man without honor. Was he too stupid to parse McCain's prior statements on immigration?

-McCain is a liar. But Hawkins will continue to defend McCain and attack Obama. He will not support a 3rd party, or urge others NOT to vote for McCain.

What a drama queen.

BillHall said...

The best part of this Right Wing guy's referenced blog was when he reminded us of the mangy bunch that the Republicans put up this time around...remember when there were Republicans salivating over the prospect of...Fred Thompson? lol. Seems rediculous now. Reading over that pathetic list of candidates again made me proud to be a Democrat.

Balfegor said...

-McCain is a liar. But Hawkins will continue to defend McCain and attack Obama. He will not support a 3rd party, or urge others NOT to vote for McCain.

Why, if one thought "liar" a disqualification for the presidency, would one even bother voting? Obama lies just as much as McCain -- it's just that with Obama, we don't know which audience he's lying to, or if he's lying to both. And this is not a unique failing on the part of Obama or McCain (or Clinton).

...remember when there were Republicans salivating over the prospect of...Fred Thompson? lol. Seems rediculous now.

Yes, yes it does. But the Democrats' equivalent fantasy candidate? Poised to become their nominee. I don't know whether to call it ridiculous or pathetic. At least the Republicans woke up.

rcocean said...

Constantly voting for the moderate Republican (aka Lesser of 2 evils) just results in conservatives losing at a slower pace.

You end up with the same liberal/socialist polices and increased government power, it just takes a little longer.

Better for McCain to lose and come back in 4 years with a real conservative. People need to think longterm. Ford wasn't any better than Carter, and his loss in '76 lead to Reagan.

Simon said...

Trooper York said...
"No[,] that's a Gremlin[,] and the only one in the race is married to Bill Clinton. That's why he makes sure she never gets wet."

Awwwwww... Trooper...

Simon said...

I find it almost impossible to believe that in a pivotally important election where defeat of the enemy is critically important yet our chances are grim to begin with, instead of rowing with the rest of us, a number of people who self-righteously think of themselves as the "real" conservatives are zealously trying to drill holes in the bottom of the boat. In a tizzy that McCain is not conservative enough, they propose to throw the election to Obama, a strategy that is to advancing conservative goals what Vidkun Quisling was to resisting the German army.

What I want to hear from these Fifth Columnists is a coherent, reasoned explanation of how eight years of President Obama, conjoined with a Democratic majority in Congress (very possibly filibuster-proof) will not only fail to do serious (quite possibly irrevocable) damage to conservative goals, but will, in fact, advance those goals. That is your burden, John, RCocean, DBQ, et al - and bleating about the gang of 14, BCRA and immigration reform doesn't even pass the laugh test as a substitute. In the absence of such an argument, failure to hold noses and vote McCain is quite simply not a respectable or intellectually defensible position.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"Constantly voting for the moderate Republican (aka Lesser of 2 evils) just results in conservatives losing at a slower pace."

Slowing the tide of lost ground is all-but the sine qua non of conservatism, rcocean! Have you even read Burke?

"You end up with the same liberal/socialist polices and increased government power, it just takes a little longer."

The idea that McCain's policies are the same as Obama's, or are as likely to lead to the same result in a shorter span of time, is so thoroughly deluded that I don't know what possible response can be made.

" Better for McCain to lose and come back in 4 years with a real conservative. People need to think longterm. Ford wasn't any better than Carter, and his loss in '76 lead to Reagan."

And who, pray tell, is this Reagan waiting in the wings that you have in mind? Who is this well-known, unifying national figure who will sweep the entrenched Obama administration from office and return conservative principles to the oval office? Newt is wonderful, but as much as it kills me, he'll never be President. Too divisive. I like Sarah Palin, and I have no particular beef with Jindal, but to suggest that either of them are a Reagan in waiting is a stretch too far. So: names, please.

rcocean said...

Please explain, Simon, what terrible things Carter did that would have been avoided if RINO Ford if been re-elected. Tell me, what horrible things Clinton did that Bob "viagra" Dole would have avoided.

And I'm talking about important things, not Lewinsky or things like energy prices which no POTUS has control over.

McCain differs only slightly from Obama. He's slightly more conservative on taxes and spending. He MIGHT if there is a vacancy, and Joe Lieberman approves, appoint one or two slightly more conservative SCOTUS justices.

On foreign policy McCain would be a mad bomber. He's still a JFK 'bear any burden' type.

On issues like illegal immigration, AA, H-1 Visa's, "Free" trade, gay marriage, global warming, etc. he and Obama are twins. Nor does McCain have any loyalty to the Republican party or the conservative movement. Its all about him baby - he's a maverick.

paul a'barge said...

Frederson: Gee, It can't be--Mr. Straight Talk express actually is changing his position

Mr Frederson, with all due respect, changing your position is something you do when your wife is not having an orgasm.

John McCain is a liar.

Big difference.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Simon: I believe it is way too late to save conservatism or even save our country. Voting for McCain will not change anything. It will just mask the decay and prolong the death of the United States. In fact, I think we NEED to experience full frontal liberalism/socialism for a few years instead of the sneaking, frog in the hot water bath, socialism that we have now to wake people up to the dangers that we are blindly and cravenly waling into. Let's have it shoved down our throats and crammed in our faces. And yes, I do mean to make an obscene analogy here because that is just how I feel about our Government and the greedy, cowardly fools that we have in office and the idiotic and blind public that allows this to continue.

Perhaps if people wake up to what is happening and revolt against our socialist liberal overlords we might be able to get back to conservative principles. My prediction is that in 30 years there will be no more "united" United States.

Besides.....it doesn't matter who "I" vote for in California since ALL my votes for the last 30 years have been negated by giving 100% representation to a slight majority; or my votes are blithly overturned by a few judges. There is zero point in voting. It has been an exercise in futility for years.

reader_iam said...

Slowing the tide of lost ground is all-but the sine qua non of conservatism,

That's what it used to be, and that's the theory.

But for diehards, now it's more about "revolution." That's why to some of us, hard left-wingers and hard right-wingers resemble each other far more than one would think possible. Sometimes it's to laugh (if ruefully and sardonically).

Another way (perhaps a corollary) in which they strongly resemble each other is their obsession with the presidency. They'd better off concentrating a good chunk of that energy on Congress AND state and local politics. Instead, it's as if they'd rather have the perfect Dear Leader, who somehow will magically rally the troops and lead them down the streets, miraculously then paved in gold.

They'd be better off rallying themselves for a long, hard slog--but that's not nearly so interesting. And it takes a lot more work and personal sacrifice.

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"Please explain, Simon, what terrible things Carter did that would have been avoided if RINO Ford if been re-elected. Tell me, what horrible things Clinton did that Bob 'viagra' Dole would have avoided."

That's an irrelevant comparison, and even if it weren't, would put me in the position of mere speculation (would Ford have signed FISA? CERCLA? The Panama Canal and Clean Water Act? Who knows?), which makes me even less inclined to indulge it. The issue is what Obama can and would do, a fortiori given something Clinton lost only two years into his term, i.e. a pliant Congress. Or do you think that we're magically going to take back control of one or both chambers this fall?

"McCain differs only slightly from Obama."

As I said above, that concept is deluded as a general statement, and utterly so when applied to the Supreme Court specifically. If you think there's no difference between the kind of judges McCain will appoint and the kind of judges Obama will support, you haven't listened to what the candidates have said.

"[H]e's a maverick."

And that very quality is the reason we might salvage the Presidency in a year when we're going to be slaughtered in the House and almost certainly take further losses in the Senate. If you want to blame someone for this situation, I suggest you look to Denny Hastert, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and most of all, George W. Bush, whose mixture of corruption (yes, pork for votes is corruption) and near-total incompetence have done such broad-ranging and systemic damage to the credibility of conservatism as a governing force that it's necessary to run a maverick in order to win. These men were handed a golden opportunity to bury the Democratic party for a generation - and they frittered it away. All that was necessary was for them to govern as conservatives, and they blew it. You want to accuse McCain of heresy, knock yourself out, but better heresy than particide.

Freder Frederson said...

I find it almost impossible to believe that in a pivotally important election where defeat of the enemy is critically important

So is that how you see your fellow Americans (are you even an American) that you don't agree with Simon, as the "enemy"? That is truly appalling.

You and DBQ denigrate the opposition as though they threaten the very existence of the country yet still complain that Obama is somehow anti-American. When you imagine Democrats as the enemy and call some Republicans "fifth columnists", it makes me think you are completely unhinged (but I already knew that.

DBQ--Look up the definition of socialist and point to one program of Obama or the Democratic party that is socialist. (Hint, raising your marginal tax rate a couple points is not socialism.)

rcocean said...

The difference between conservatives, liberals, and moderates is quite simple. To use an analogy, the USA is like a ship that's hit an iceberg and taking water.

The Liberals want to forget about the hole in boat, and just go on deck and have a party.

The moderates want to pump out half the water that's coming in. Just slow the rate of sinking and everything is Jake.

Only the conservatives want to go down into the bilges, patch the hole, stop the in rushing water, and pump it all out.

Its absolutely crazy that after 8 years of Bush, CONSERVATIVES are supporting McCain. At best, McCain is Bush III, at worst - he's Jimmy Carter Part II.

Freder Frederson said...

(would Ford have signed FISA? CERCLA? The Panama Canal and Clean Water Act? Who knows?)

Are you saying these things are bad? Cleaning up abandoned hazardous waste sites and protecting our waterways. Don't you think 100 years of Imperialism in Central America is enough.

All that was necessary was for them to govern as conservatives, and they blew it.

Hey Simon, have you ever considered that American Conservatism is fundamentally flawed and that rather than "blowing it", they merely demonstrated how ill-equipped conservatives are to govern and that conservatism is just a bad governing philosophy.

The only marginally good thing during the Bush years was the economy. Anyone with a brain saw years ago that the economic gains were based on a completely ridiculous and unsustainable, and downright fraudulent, PONZI scheme based on ever-escalating real-estate values. Now that bubble is collapsing. Wall Street needs to come up with another way to create money out of thin air or we are all screwed.

MadisonMan said...

Freder, if I can properly parse Simon's reference to the enemy, why can't you?

Simon said...

RIA:
"That's what it used to be, and that's the theory."

I think of conservatism as starting with a cast of mind, an instinct, a tendency; it believes that what is may be of value simply because it is (contra Oakeshott's rationalist). In the absence of questions of fundamental justice, it that looks at change - particularly radical change based on abstract reasoning rather than experience - with skepticism. And it follows from there that the first duty of a conservative is to to preserve what can be saved, put off the destruction of what can't be, and to limit the collateral damage when it's torn down.

Our job, as WFB put it, is to stand athwart history yelling "Stop!" - or, at least, "not so fast, sunny jim!" RCocean would apparently prefer to cry over the grave, in the hope that the corpse can be reanimated by his tears, and I have no beef with that, per se, unless that second-order duty distracts us from first-order duties noted above.

Simon said...

(Addenda: put another way, from my own experience, I was a dispositional conservative before I grew - some might say degenerated - into a political conservative, and the latter was by no means an inevitable development. Indeed, I doubt it would have happened had I not moved to America.)

Freder Frederson said...

Only the conservatives want to go down into the bilges, patch the hole, stop the in rushing water, and pump it all out.

No, the conservatives think that by firing half the crew and shutting down all the pumps and creating air backed securities and selling short on iceberg futures the ship will repair itself and everyone will get rich.

And if that doesn't work they will get the government to bail them out.

Maguro said...

So is that how you see your fellow Americans (are you even an American) that you don't agree with Simon, as the "enemy"? That is truly appalling.

Project much? We are involved in war now, you know.

Simon said...

dust bunny queen said...
"I think we NEED to experience full frontal liberalism/socialism for a few years instead of the sneaking, frog in the hot water bath, socialism that we have now to wake people up to the dangers that we are blindly and cravenly waling into. Let's have it shoved down our throats and crammed in our faces. ... Perhaps if people wake up to what is happening and revolt against our socialist liberal overlords we might be able to get back to conservative principles."

Is it "what were the last words of Tsar Nicolas II," Alex?

Freder Frederson said...

Freder, if I can properly parse Simon's reference to the enemy, why can't you?

Simon is clearly talking about domestic politics. Even if he was referring to our overseas enemies, his post would be just as vile since he would be contending that McCain losing means the terrorists win.

Freder Frederson said...

Is it "what were the last words of Tsar Nicolas II," Alex?

Oh yeah, Russia under Nicolas II is a perfect example of the wonders of conservatism. The decrepit conservative monarchies of Europe killed an entire generation and were responsible, through their incompetence, blindness, and love of the old order, for the rise communism and fascism. The conservative values you hold so dear set in motion the greatest slaughter in the history of mankind.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Arguing with Freder is also a colossal waste of time. Might as well reason with a rutabaga. Idiot.

Freder Frederson said...

Arguing with Freder is also a colossal waste of time. Might as well reason with a rutabaga. Idiot.

In other words, you can't find anything in Obama's agenda that is remotely socialist. Except the shocking fact the he realizes that we can not continue to spend money we are not taking in.

And here I was thinking not spending more than you make was a conservative value.

reader_iam said...

Only the conservatives want to go down into the bilges, patch the hole, stop the in rushing water, and pump it all out.

And they'll continue trying to do that, even when it becomes clear to everyone else that we're actually a train.

Oh, OK. Couldn't resist. But I would have said the same thing if it were a commenter from the other far side who'd put the liberals down in the bilge and the conservatives on the party deck.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I said: Arguing with Freder is also a colossal waste of time. Might as well reason with a rutabaga. Idiot.

Freder said:In other words, you can't find anything in Obama's agenda that is remotely socialist. Except the shocking fact the he realizes that we can not continue to spend money we are not taking in.

There by confirming his rutabega status since this is a thread about John McCain and his lack of conservative principles in addition to John McCain being a liar and not a thread about Obama, for whom I could give a flying fuck.

Freder Frederson said...

And in his zeal to paint an Obama victory as the second coming of Lenin, Simon of course misstates history. Nicolas II abdicated after the February revolution which resulted in a democratic and left of center government (Lvov and then Kerensky). If the new government had withdrawn from the increasingly unpopular war, like the people wanted, it is unlikely the October Bolshevik (who had very little support) Revolution would have occurred.

Nicolas was a dumb, dumb, man from a stupid family riddled with disease from centuries of inbreeding. He presided over a disastrous war fought for no good reason. After the bloodletting, most of the countries of Europe jettisoned their royal families because of the disaster they were responsible for.

It is interesting that the only country that still glorifies members of the very same family (who have only gotten dimmer in the ensuing century) as chosen by God to rule is the home country of Vicoria and Simon.

Freder Frederson said...

There by confirming his rutabega status since this is a thread about John McCain and his lack of conservative principles in addition to John McCain being a liar and not a thread about Obama, for whom I could give a flying fuck.

You are the one who claimed we needed to be punished with full bore socialism so the conservatives in this country (Nixon's silent majority no doubt) would "wake up to the dangers that we are blindly and cravenly waling into."

MadisonMan said...

Rutabagas aren't in season. Might as well argue with spinach.

rhhardin said...

There's always McCain on Imus, Apr 28, 2006, saying that he preferred clean government to the First Amendment.

real audio

He spent the next week explaining what he meant.

rhhardin said...

cont.

I'd say McCain siezes on one thing as a point of honor and sticks to it.

Other things may interfere that also involve honor, and then the first temporarily sinks onto the back burner where it's safe from contradiction.

blake said...

remember when there were Republicans salivating over the prospect of...Fred Thompson? lol. Seems rediculous now.

Not to me, it doesn't. Fred was the only guy in the race (either side) who wasn't interested in pandering.

Reading over that pathetic list of candidates again made me proud to be a Democrat.

Yeah, how good it must have felt to see Kucinich, or have the three front-runners with virtually identical policies and just a different target of blame (whites/men/the rich).

The Reps were not great, but at least some of them had different policies. They weren't all, "The government's going to solve [whatever] problem."