House of Eratosthenes

As the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, [Sen. McCain] was wrong on the constitutionality of the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous illegal alien amnesty.

Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The conservative base has no such obligations – and it is imperative that they get in the game before it’s too late.

And then he makes a prediction…

The weirdest part of this? I don’t think anyone will be swayed by Palin’s endorsement. No one seriously believes she’d be backing him if not for her personal loyalty to him, and McCain’s sufficiently infamous for his centrism that even her support won’t scrub him clean in the eyes of tea partiers. Which means this is actually a pretty shrewd move on her part: She gets credit for being a good soldier, especially in light of the sniping at her from his former campaign aides, whereas he gets maybe a few extra votes from conservatives. In fact, someone should make a video at her rally for McCain in the same mold as that now-famous video outside Obama’s rally for Coakley, where college kids babbled about getting to see The One in person while showing no enthusiasm whatsoever for the candidate. That’s what we’re going to end up with here, I think.

Yes, Palin has an excuse, yes Palin is caught between a rock and a hard place. Suppose she endorsed Hayworth or Simcox. Or simply didn’t say anything at all. Oh dear God, can you imagine. She could survive it, but only just barely. I think what’s going on is, in that scenario she’d lose the “salt of the earth” types — those who don’t give a rat’s ass whether McCain sinks or swims over in Arizona, but dammit, want to see some good old-fashioned character in whoever’s taking charge. Right or wrong, she’d lose them. And without them, her movement loses definition.

No, I don’t think this is shrewd on her part. I think it’s necessary. Even so, I’m not altogether sure I agree. Malkin’s right, and I hope McCain loses.

The democrats are saying two and two are five. The Republicans, last time they were in charge, said two and two are four but it doesn’t really matter let’s spend the money anyway. McCain’s all about saying it adds up to four-and-a-half.

We’re getting fed up with all the nonsense — I think Arizonians are too — and McCain isn’t doing his bit to bring it all to the inglorious end it so richly deserves. Depending on the issue, four-and-a-half is every bit as wrong an answer as five.

Very glad you see it that way. We respect principles before men, or we deserve the men we get.
Palin has shown me she does not understand the very things that a leader by principle must articulate. I don’t want her common sense, or Harry Reid’s. The Founders did not establish the Republic on common sense, but on uncommon understandings.
So instead of being dissapointed by her, I will be informed and armed.
- jamzw | 01/23/2010 @ 11:02
Au contrair. I disagree with Palin over this decision of hers. But I’ll still fight for her to take command of the job, assuming she wants to do so.

I’m sure she wouldn’t agree with me on every decision I’d make, but I’m reasonably sure she’d fight for my right to make them…as opposed to, for example, that foppish git Bloomberg who last I heard was still telling NYC residents what they couldn’t eat. (Deliberately using British insults there.) I know some people I respect a great deal, deserting Palin in droves over this. Sorry, I cannot respect that decision. It’s silly and hypocritical. It is saying “I want my leaders to keep their noses out of my business, and know what hill they wanna die on, but I don’t want to show any such sense of prudence or self-restraint.” There’s really no rhyme or reason to it. What, this is a tip-off, a clue that Palin’s position on illegal aliens resembles McCain’s?

No, it was a calculated move. If it turns out to be wrong, that doesn’t prove she’s an idiot, and if it turns out some folks disagree with it that doesn’t mean it’s unprincipled. She weighed the things about him, good and bad — there’s plenty of both — and came to a conclusion. I’d come to a different one. What of it.

Now, if she endorses someone like Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter, then we can talk!
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2010 @ 11:54
Olympia Snow and Arlen Specter coombined have done less damage than the Rooster. They don’t call his assault on the Constitution Specter-Feingold. At least Specter is in the right party now, and not long for that.
It is precisely because McCain once resembled a conservative that he can link to so much damage. Even the most destructive men in history have done more good than bad. All bad doesn’t carry very far.
Only principles do that.
There is a vast difference between being wrong, which is the primary way of learning, and what Palin did. She just made herself into a bit player, of which I was only convinced yesterday to be a good thing. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. She doesn’t have enough shame. I’m past my limit.
- jamzw | 01/23/2010 @ 19:35
Well, okay then.

I don’t have a response. If you’re saying “she really shouldn’t have done that” you’re preaching to the choir. If you’re saying “lips that touch McCain’s shall never touch mine,” well, alrighty. To each their own.

Palin’s value, generally, doesn’t have much to do with making the right friends anyway. It has to do with antagonizing the correct enemies. She and Mac share this weakness of giving up a little bit too much to show the classy side I’m afraid. But he’s made one hell of a lot more mistakes in this department, than she has.
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2010 @ 21:45

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

On Endorsing McCainSaturday, January 23rd, 2010

On Endorsing McCain
Saturday, January 23rd, 2010