House of Eratosthenes

So thank you, John McCain, for your tireless efforts in behalf of McCain-Soros, clean money and motives and “reform.” You have helped bring your party down. Thanks for being the gang leader of the “Gang of 14,” which stood in the way of up-or-down confirmation of conservative justices. Hats off to you for redefining torture so that effective interrogation of jihadists is forever impossible. As a reward, you wish, now, to lead the party and become its Presidential nominee and standard bearer. I don’t think so.

Twenty months later, it would seem McCain is, indeed, the nominee of a party he has never truly represented.

I have nothing against principled opposition to a party label, understand. But thanks to McCain’s “finance reform,” and that sham of a nomination process that took place this year — the Republican party has been crippled to the point where it can no longer communicate a message. Just forget it, they tell me; that other guy is way too dangerous. Whatever it takes for the G.O.P. to “win.”

But what then? What happens on the issues that arouse my interest, if a Republican Party led by John McCain wins? What happens with…oh, let’s take the one issue with which the McCain bandwagon zealots most frequently ambush me…nominees to the Supreme Court? Anyone want to place their name beneath the statement that McCain will nominate more principled justices than President Obama?

Really? You’ll sign that in a concrete slab? Maybe put money on it? Think hard a few times.

Do the research: Our very worst Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republicans, not democrats. Earl Warren vs. Felix Frankfurter — who was worse? Harry Blackmun vs. Hugo Black. John Paul Stevens vs. Louis Brandeis. Look ’em up. See what they did. McCain, to me, typifies the Republican President who gets snookered by our shakiest Supreme Court justices. The beltway crowd. The good ol’ boys, nominated by Republicans, who seem to figure out they have to make up for that transgression of being nominated by Republicans. Maybe that’s why they sucked so much. Whatever. The fact remains — Supreme Court justices nominated by democrats weren’t that bad.

But the center of my complaint, is the center of Spero’s complaint: The McCain CFR. It has been tested in a laboratory setting — its performance has been found wanting. Who wants to disagree with me about that? What was this supposed to do, anyway? “Get the money out of politics” — FAIL. “Bring an end to negative campaigning, and focus on the issues” — FAIL. “Put government back in the hands of the little guy” — FAIL.

What to do in November? I dunno. I’m still sitting on the fence. I always vote, every two years, no later than 7:15 in the morning. It’s important. This year…meh. Maybe, just maybe, someone will use The Force and fire the photon torpedo just at the right angle into the exhaust port of my Death Star, and say just the right stuff to put me over the edge and punch a chad for The Maverick.

Maybe.

But there’s no way in hell you can get me to nibble at my fingernails in nervous anticipation over what’s going to happen this fall. In my book, this race is done. What’s left, is a comedy of errors. Like a Keystone Cops movie…more pathetic than that, really. And sad. One of two candidates will be our next President, and George Soros is in bed with both of them. Democracy has failed us this time ’round. We just have to fix it before the next show.

Couldn’t you just lie on your back and think, “Beige. I’ll paint the ceiling beige.”
- vanderleun | 08/21/2008 @ 23:08
More like, let’s all grab our ankles. And we may feel some slight pressure.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2008 @ 23:33
“More like, let’s all grab our ankles. And we may feel some slight pressure.”

At least with McCain it’ll be like a little Chiwhawa but with Obama it’ll more like race horse. Ah, the choices…let’s see do I want to ever sit again or just get it over with…?

BTW, don’t ever paint a ceiling anything other than white, pure white.
- tim | 08/22/2008 @ 08:38
Racist!
- vanderleun | 08/22/2008 @ 09:51
Anyone want to place their name beneath the statement that McCain will nominate more principled justices than President Obama?

Really? You’ll sign that in a concrete slab? Maybe put money on it? Think hard a few times.

Me. I’ll take that. AND put money on it. Consider my name signed. Historical precedent cuts NO ice with me, Morgan, and dead Supreme Court justices, nominated by dead Democrats, constitutes a weak argument from my POV. Just look at the current composition of the court and contrast Dubya’s nominees (Alito, Roberts) with Clinton’s nominees (Ginsberg, Breyer). Now try and imagine who John F’in Kerry would have nominated, if we would have had the SERIOUS misfortune of a Kerry presidency. And don’t give me the Reagan “Kennedy” argument, either… coz the answer to that is Scalia. Same-o, same-o with Souter/Thomas.

Dubya did good, with the exception of Harriet Miers… whose name he withdrew after the GOP rank and file threatened to burn down the White House. McCain will do equally well, as well… assuming he wins. The “not MY nominee” crowd casts serious doubt on that possibility, though, and more’s the pity.
- Buck | 08/22/2008 @ 11:13
Well, I’ve seen this dance before. The “True” conservatives get pissed when given a choice between a dull Republican and a genuinely evil Democrat and form a third party, because “there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two parties”. Ok, it got us Wilson, and we’re still digging out of that hole, and it got us Clinton, and we’re still digging out of that hole, but it’s got to work soon, right?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/22/2008 @ 11:35
Dubya did good, with the exception of Harriet Miers…

Dubya did two-fer-three. Pretty good. But still an example of what I’m talking about. He has what it takes to nominate quality justices — why did he even consider Miers? Answer: He was trying to get along. In the beltway, conservatives feel this “pull” that they have to get along with liberals. Liberals do not feel any inclination to get along with conservatives, because out here in the heartland, liberals treat conservatism as something odious and toxic. That’s the way conservatives should be treating liberalism, because that’s what it is.

Conservatives running for office, who make concessions toward liberal demands, do not seem to be lying awake wondering about what kind of support they might lose from the base. It’s high time that was fixed.

Reagan — if you want to count his elevation of Rehnquist to CJ, and I’ll give you that one — did two-fer-four. That’s a waste of time, because our liberal presidents do not settle for fifty percent. The same principle in politics work on the SCOTUS; liberals do not feel they have to compromise with the right wing, as conservatives feel they must with the left wing. So conservative presidents, even when they know what they’re doing, are ritually betrayed.

Why is it a weak argument to cite dead people, Buck? The same forces are still in motion today.

See, here’s what I think you’re missing: As damaging as that fifth vote would be, especially now, and I agree with you completely about that — it is not nearly as dangerous to our society as that dreadful “Landmark Decision” that is offered as payback to the liberal intelligentsia in the beltway by CONSERVATIVE (supposedly) Supreme Court justices. This is what lets dangerous criminals out of prison, and our liberal justices haven’t been engaging in them, because there hasn’t been any need for them to do so. Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Atkins v. Virginia, Grutter vs. Bollinger; all these rulings went much further than they had to in order to uphold the principles cited in those decisions. And they were all pushed (delivered) by justices who were nominated by Republican presidents, each and every one.

Well, I’ve seen this dance before. The “True” conservatives get pissed when given a choice between a dull Republican and a genuinely evil Democrat and form a third party, because “there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two parties”.

Well, THAT is a good point. But I’m not joining those “Dime” people here. Or maybe I am, but just for the year 2008…and I didn’t make things that way, McCain and his supporters are the ones that did that.

Don’t forget the best example of them ALL — abolitionists were pressured to go along with the Jacksonian democrats, or the Whigs in order to “go along to get along.” They felt so strongly about putting principles over party label, that they rejected both of the major parties and that’s how Republicans came to be in the first place. Eight years after that, the Whig party had run a candidate with a serious chance in the general election for the very last time, and within a generation it was extinct.

Seems to me this is exactly what’s about to happen now. The question that remains, is: Who is going to join the Dodo Bird and the Whig Party? The democrats, who richly deserve to…since they don’t stand for anything, anyway, except for nihilism…or real conservatives, who aren’t even insisting on anything but the most benign of principles, namely that people are good and deserve to exist without apologizing for doing so?
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2008 @ 12:04
Thanks for writing back sir. I love your website but I think you are wrong on the issues here. McCain is 100% pro life and has never taken an earmark. Jeb would be a better candidate, save for the last name. I wasn’t happy with the campaign finance thing, but that issue lost it’s virginity a long time ago. I am hard pressed to see what McCain and his supporters “did” to make you think that throwing the election to Obama is not a grievously bad idea. It’s painful to me because I heard the same things about Bush Sr. vs. Clinton.

The “best” example of them all is also the worst example. We ended up with a very nasty civil war that killed millions. What makes you thing it would be different this time? I know it’s not going to happen, because there is no one issue for the would be “Republican 2.0” people to gel around this time. Everyone wants less government “except ______”. The borders, defense, English, schools, fill in your blank. And the Abolitionists would have failed, with their one issue, save for the new states coming into the country and fanning the flames. So, instead, we get this endless pointless sliver parties: the Libertarian party, the Constitutional party, Republicans 2.0, Bill Quicks party, the list goes on. Where I’m sitting, if you are competent enough to run the country, you’re competent enough to take over and run a fourth of the country. Eat the Republicans from the inside out, like the Communists did to the Democrats, and you’ll have my vote.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/22/2008 @ 12:48
I know it’s not going to happen, because there is no one issue for the would be “Republican 2.0″ people to gel around this time. Everyone wants less government “except ______”. The borders, defense, English, schools, fill in your blank.

Au contraire. The issue for people to gel around, is central to everything we’re discussing: Is the United States, and the people living within it, good enough to simply…be? Is it worthy of a vigorous, deadly defense? A strong culture that includes a unified language? A real end to institutionalized racism, as opposed to just tit-for-tat b.s. that richocets back and forth one generation after another?

McCain isn’t just a tiny smidgen removed from me on that central issue. He’s just as much a complete opposite as Obama is. If MY candidate had to reference something before being able to answer how many houses he had, he’d smile the biggest smile you’d ever seen in your life, look straight into the camera so his face would completely fill it, and he’d say “My wife is hot, I have a lot of big houses, I’m rolling in money and it kicks ass. If that’s some kind of a problem or disease, I hope to inflict it on a lot of other people after I’m sworn in. And that means YOU. America’s sad, bitter chapter of electoral and economic jealousy is officially over.”

Now there is some change I could believe in!
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2008 @ 14:33
That’s not an issue for people to gel around, because that’s not something the government can really vote on or fix. If anything, that’s a call to calibrate the press(the one’s who are pushing this twattle), which, of course, the government is forbidden to do. As to McCain being on Obama’s side of this “issue”, I confess I haven’t seen it. He seems very proud of this country while keeping a humble outlook and a good sense of humor. Of course he wants to change some things, no one who is content with the status quo runs for office, do they? If you have seen McCain tear down the country like Obama does, please give me a link, so I can check it out. Thanks again.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/22/2008 @ 15:30
That’s not an issue for people to gel around, because that’s not something the government can really vote on or fix. If anything, that’s a call to calibrate the press(the one’s who are pushing this twattle), which, of course, the government is forbidden to do.

I can name quite a few issues upon which government can decide, directly, that in turn are hooked directly into that. Half of these, or something approaching half, have to do with making free enterprise more expensive, or less expensive, than it is at present. If you look into it, I’m sure you’ll be impressed with how monolithically our two parties line up on each side of the chasm that separates whether we’re glorious enough to live life without apology. Corporate taxes, carbon emissions caps, minimum wage & other labor regs…and then there is abortion.

It all has to do with whether we belong here, and whether it’s government’s role to make it more difficult for us to be here, and do things.

As to McCain being on Obama’s side of this “issue”, I confess I haven’t seen it.

His latest achievement in losing me was climbing on board the global-warming bandwagon. It just reeked of payback. He’s tried to backpedal on it…and I know what I’m expected to do, forgive & forget, make nicey-nice. But the trouble is, in America, global warming is nothing more than American sell-out. It’s all about lowering our productivity so that over the shorter term, foreign currency will be worth a bit more compared to the greenback. That’s an artificial inflation of the foreign currency, so over the longer term it doesn’t really help anyone.

Except, that is, for short-term investors poised to jump the right lilly-pads in the correct sequence. It’s called selling short, and it’s exactly what George Soros does for a living. There was NO REASON for McCain to do this, other than to pay off people like Soros. http://whereistand.com/JohnMcCain/7763.

So my perception of McCain is, he doesn’t really work for us. Oh sure, this year he’s saying all the right things. Isn’t this a terrible time to grant him the benefit of the doubt as he attempts to appeal to his so-called “base”? He will never, EVER, have more reason to make phony appeals to us, than he has right now.

What’s really frustrating about all this is that if only someone would put together a platform, one that says YES we are beneficial as a nation, culture, heritage and species, and we have nothing for which to apologize…such a platform, properly presented, would easily capture two thirds of the popular vote. But we’ve been beaten into submission so soundly, that nobody wants to take the risk of putting together a national campaign on such a platform. And yet — this is precisely what the electorate demands right now. Stop the jealousy, stop the phony apologies, stop the phony humility, and most of all, stop the toxic, suffocating nihilism.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2008 @ 19:12
Thanks again for responding sir. Yes, quite a few issues. That’s the problem as I see it. A third party needs a knife edge issue. The closest we have is abortion, and the numbers aren’t there, and are not going to be there while women can vote. So, a coalition of issues. That path leads, as a rule, to certain failure. See “The Road to Serfdom”. As to global warming and McCain, I think you have misjudged him. He is from an time when the government was under better control and was not so prone to lying to us. Every “Important” news service and every “Important” agency has been saying that global warming is real and our fault. You and others have been doing yeoman work on stopping this myth, but until he came out for it, there was no reason for anyone to let McCain know about it. Once he came out for it, the people who knew better got to talking to him, and I think that’s why I think he is backpedaling. I don’t think it was ever payback. McCain, clean and honorable before, has been Cesar’s Wife since the Keating Five mess. As to your last point, we have seen that platform before, from FDR. Platforms are not policy. National politics in America is a team sport, and the team is a lot more important then the plan. The nihilism is coming from below, from the collages. Trying to fix the problem top/down is unlikely to work. I hope it would not. I don’t want to live under a government with the power to do that level of social engineering.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/22/2008 @ 20:41
As to global warming and McCain, I think you have misjudged him. He is from an time when the government was under better control and was not so prone to lying to us. Every “Important” news service and every “Important” agency has been saying that global warming is real and our fault. You and others have been doing yeoman work on stopping this myth, but until he came out for it, there was no reason for anyone to let McCain know about it. Once he came out for it, the people who knew better got to talking to him, and I think that’s why I think he is backpedaling.

You’re granting him the benefit of the doubt on the character question. Okay, fair enough. I just think of him as a scheming opportunist. He takes a position on something, it seems the common cause is he figured out he’d gain something from taking that position. He’s a poll-driven candidate. Therefore, I choose not to grant him benefit of doubt. I don’t think he got snookered. But there, we’ve defined the point of our disagreement.

I defer to FrankJ’s observation at IMAO:

…the part Obama chose to be vague on was when human life begins thus determining when one is deserving of human rights, and the part McCain chose to be vague on is what defines when someone is rich thus determining when one is deserving of excessive taxation.

Conservatives need more distinctions separating them from liberals, not fewer. McCain seems to play by liberal rules, just with different parameters. People like me — and I think we’re in the majority here — are more like absolutists. People are good, they deserve to live, and if possible, they deserve not to be taxed at all.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2008 @ 23:36
Hola, sir. Poll driven candidate? He’s never budged on Abortion. Never budged on Earmarks. Never budged on the Military. Then there is the stuff he doesn’t care about, and that does seem to be driven by the polls. So he seems to have a core set of values he won’t compromise on, and a circle of beliefs that he’s flexible about. Doesn’t seem to fit the “scheming opportunist” template. Now I do know people who will not compromise on anything. They’re very brittle people to tend to froth. Not candidates for low or high office to be sure. I see in McCain what I saw in Reagan. Steel and Iron fused together to make a blade that will bend but not break. Your mileage may vary.

Conservatives need to separate themselves from liberals, but the leaders of the country are supposed to lead all of us. Seeking leaders to break the country up into factions is an extraordinarily bad idea. The Democrats do that, and it’s one of the reasons I call them the Evil party. The national Republican leadership keeps reaching across the aisle to the Democrats, and getting spat upon for their efforts. They are better men then me and I hope they keep doing it. I have traveled the world and I like it here best. I don’t want to see another civil war. There is a time for the Oak, and a time for the reed. The best, like Reagan, combine the two. The absolutists like you and I are in the majority, but that doesn’t mean much, because we will not bend and work together.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/24/2008 @ 00:54

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Nominee Yes, Standard Bearer NoThursday, August 21st, 2008

Nominee Yes, Standard Bearer No
Thursday, August 21st, 2008