House of Eratosthenes

Here we are…nine months away from my first vote for a third-party candidate since 1992. And if you told me nine months ago that I’d be seriously considering that again, I’d have told you you were nuts.

I thought I had learned my lesson. Trouble is, I can tell a setup when I see one.

The LA Times has endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and at least two of its reasons for doing so should give conservatives pause: the liberal paper likes McCain because he’s weak on border fences and strong on global warming.

Excerpts [emphasis added]:

As the Republican field indulged this campaign season in an orgy of ignorance on immigration, McCain stood his ground, sponsoring legislation that would provide a route to citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million immigrants here illegally. His rivals have argued for mass deportations and strong border fences.

Similarly, McCain has led his party in its halting effort to confront the reality of climate change. He introduced the Senate’s first attempt to address the problem legislatively in 2003, and although that bill failed, McCain has supported cap-and-trade systems that could reduce greenhouse gases, and he has stayed that course despite criticism from fellow Republicans. [emphasis NewsBusters]

I’m supposed to consider this “maverick” because at least we’ll get some strict constructionists nominated to the Supreme Court. Who the hell says, might I ask? We got the strict constructionists we do have, out of Presidents who had enough umpshun in the gumpshun to survive whatever forces in the beltway tend to make a guy more “hip” and “with it.” For a little while.

It seems, after enough time, they all rust over no matter what kind of metal was used to forge them.

And McCain shows signs of oxidization and wear all over the place. “Maverick,” now that I’ve thought about it for awhile, is probably farther off the mark than any other one word that could be used to describe this candidate. All something has to do is become cool, The Thing To Do, and he’ll be in. And nobody knows who exactly gets to decide what’s cool. Here’s this phony science promoting a theory that has “world government propaganda” written all over it in bright, glow-in-the-dark red crayon — it seeks to assert THE WORLD WILL END IF OUR TAXES AREN’T RAISED. Hey, that is what it says. I’m not twisting that around or modifying it in any way. That is the core message. All the rest is just hyperbole, cherry-picked “facts,” my-scientists-are-smarter-than-yours types of gimmicks, and other decoration. The core message is that we can die free, or live a little while longer if strangers decide how we do that living, and we pay them for the privilege.

And McCain’s choking down this donkey-doot sandwich and ordering seconds.

Strict constructionist judges my left nut.

I don’t oppose McCain because I’m afraid he’s too liberal. I oppose him because he has failed to position himself as a representative of The People. He could wake up tomorrow morning with just about any ol’ crazy thought rattling around in that head of his, and rest assured, whatever crackpot idea it is will be fashionable. Either he’ll make it that way, or it was like that when he found it. Either way, his administration would be an administration of…well, I really don’t know who exactly.

Highest bidder, I guess.

H/T: Michelle.

Oooh, Morgan. You need to go read Gerard. Twice, maybe.
- Buck | 02/05/2008 @ 11:14
Look, dude, I understand completely about the third party candidates, but the last time that significant numbers of conservatives did that, we got 8 years of Clinton.

I want to say that to you again, so that you’re very clear of what it might mean in this election. 8…..years…..of…..Clinton.

I despise McCain, and am a hardcore Libertarian. I’m not voting for Ron Paul or any other Libertarian because fiscal conservatism is so precious to me that I have to vote Republican for no other reason than to keep a Democrat out of office.

This post may cause some conservatives just to stay home on election day. That could put an Obama or Hillary in the White House. Do you really want a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who thinks that wage garnishment is an appropriate means of funding nannystate-healthcare because you’re upset at McCain?

I “feel your pain” on this one. I do. But you have to do your part in the conservative blogosphere to help get out the conservative vote. Maybe McCain will surprise us. Who knows? But you have too large of an audience, and therefore too much responsibility, to advise conservatives to give in to Billary or Osama.
- muttley | 02/05/2008 @ 11:57
Gerard’s argument is that the big three issues (and only 33% of them find any passion with me) are “done deals.” Gentlemen, I submit to you if the nominee really is McCain, then this election itself must be a “done deal.” The pendulum has swung. This would represent, to me, that even the mildest sort of stuff that might be called “conservatism” is all done for now. Maybe people don’t have a problem with it, so much. But it’s the dish at the potluck that goes home in the same condition in which it arrived.

Consider the consequences of refusing to admit this…and then winning.

In 2010 and 2012 the democrat selling point is going to be, those Republicans have been in charge long enough. And what could we have been thinking back in 2001 when we voted them in? Letting Enron get away with murder, taking out that poor, poor, put-upon Saddam Hussein, four thousand dead in Iraq, shredding the constitooshyun…

…oh, and the incumbent President McCain is just Bush III, will go the talking points. Smart money says they will have offered an olive branch to Prez-Mac – support this-or-that abominable Kennedy bill, and we’ll spare you from our heated and hating invective aimed at your predecessor. Smart money says Prez-Mac will go for it. He will have jumped at the chance. He will have given them the moon, the sun, everything in between. And smart money says Prez-Mac will get fooled. So we’ve put those horrible, horrible, awful, despicable Republicans in charge for ten or twelve years now. And – I can hear it now — it’s time for a change.

Will it work? Hoo-boy. It will be bullet-proof. The democrats could resurrect Vladimir Lenin and run his dried-out carcass, and win 50 states.

And what wonderful victories will we have scored against the deranged leftists in the 24 or 48 months in between? Pfffft. A stalwart, constructionist successor to John Paul Stevens? Double-pfffft. Let’s face it. When/if he retires during a McCain administration, the circumstances will be identical to those by which he was appointed in the first place. A RINO President with bushels of sins on the head of his affiliated party for which to apologize …and all to eager to do it. What about his cabinet appointments? If Juan Hernandez is an indicator, I’m not holding out any hope at all.

McCain will be just a swell guy. Until it’s time to gear up for the midterms and/or the 2012 elections. And then we’ll be instructed to hate him for being an evil radical conservative Republican. Enter the glass sarcophagus from Red Square…or whatever.

With Hillary, there’s guaranteed “buyer’s remorse” the minute her hand comes off the Bible. And THAT is what the nation really needs.

I’m not all about “party purity.” I’m more about, if the country’s made up its mind that it’s tired of law-and-order, good-over-evil stuff, and we’re engaged in a battle to try to get it to pretend otherwise…let’s embrace reality instead. Let’s concentrate our energies on responsibility for actions. Let the country go left, but buy up an advance order of “Don’t Blame Me I Voted For (blank)” bumper stickers.

I’m not some salivating, crew-cut, far-right stalwart guy, thirsting for more ideological zeal. I’m Henry Rearden, during his trial.

”Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?”
“I do not care to consider it.”
“Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?”
“Fully.”
“It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe.”
“Go ahead.”
“I beg your pardon?”
“Impose it.”
The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. “This is unprecedented,” he said.
“It is completely irregular,” said the second judge. “The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court.”
“I do not.”
“But you have to.”
“Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?”
“Yes.”
“I volunteer nothing.”
“But the law demands that the defendant’s side be represented on the record.”
“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?”
“Well, no … yes … that is, to complete the form.”
“I will not help you.”
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a –” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
“I want,” said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you.”
“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”
“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”

I will not help the electorate pretend that it is administering reason or moderation. If we’re all so committed to turning to the left, I say let’s admit that’s what we’re doing. If this highly corrupt government-media complex that we all know damn good and well is running things, needs the help of the electorate disguising it, making it look like a democracy when it’s really just a George Soros bumper sticker slogan sound bite echo party – I will not help them.

I do agree with you that the times are dire, and things are about to get bad.
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2008 @ 14:45
Gerard’s argument is that the big three issues (and only 33% of them find any passion with me) are “done deals.”

Beg to differ, Morgan. That’s how Gerard supports his argument…examples of conservative angst over losing the culture war(s). His argument is summed up quite nicely at the end: 16 years of Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. That’s his argument. And that’s pretty damned powerful stuff. To me, anyway.

We can ~~argue~~ discuss this all day and all month and all Spring, Summer, yadda, yadda, but the fact remains: the alternate to whomever the GOP nominates is at least four years (best case) of C/O or O/C. We could afford eight years of mis-management under Clinton The First, what with The End Of History and all. Times weren’t all that bad and although it’s not been easy picking up the pieces of the military and intelligence communities after eight years of Billy Jeff, the task is gonna be a whole Helluva lot harder after Clinton Redux. Assuming there are pieces left to pick up, or we can get into the Hot Zone(s) to pick ’em up.

The stakes are THAT high. Call me Chicken Little if you want, but now is NOT the time to “give ’em enough rope.”

My $0.02.
- Buck | 02/05/2008 @ 17:59
Well then, you need to come up with a convincing argument why things under a McCain administration would be any better.

Until you do, all we’re debating is whether the left flank will receive the credit/blame for running things, when in fact, it’ll be running things either way.

What will the loonie leftists demand out of Prez-Mac, that he won’t jump through flaming hoops to give ’em, before they even ask? I’m having a lot of trouble even thinking of one thing.
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2008 @ 18:17
Gotta agree with Morgan on this one. If McCain’s elected, I will be squarely in the Libertarian camp come November.

I suspect that there is no functional difference between McCain and Clinton, save one:

Who gets credited with the failure of this nation.

Would I rather the Republicans get slammed for economic turmoil, an open border policy, a failed War on Terrorism, and a nanny state that makes England look like an individualistic utopia? Hell, no.

Let’s lay the guilt squarely on Liberal shoulders. And make sure that it’s understood that any of Bush’s contributions came about as an olive branch to the Democrat party, and the Repubs bizarre movement leftward during his Administration.
- sanskara | 02/05/2008 @ 20:01
This is a fascinating schism. I hope each of the two sides, in large part at least, respects the viewpoints of the other because I’m sure the divide will persist throughout the campaign.

For me, it’s a game of likelihood, and in that spirit I do not take these dark omens about judicial appointments lightly. What is the likelihood that a President Rodham or a President Obama will bollox it up? It’s pretty damn good but by no means guaranteed (see below). What is the likelihood that a President McCain will salvage the situation? That isn’t guaranteed either. It isn’t even 50-50. I would go so far as to characterize this potential with the word “remote.” Our guy from Arizona has got Republican-turncoat written ALL over him. He has all the loyalty of an alley cat.

In fact, this is the one area where I agree with Ann Coulter in that controversial statement she made: I would lay LONG odds that McCain would mess things up just as badly as Hillary, if not moreso. This is the little-discussed uneven playing field of the Supreme Court. Republicans nominate stealth-liberals. Democrats do NOT nominate stealth-conservatives. And frankly, if McCain managed to get a “good one” in there…I would be surprised. I would be flummoxed. I would be flabbergasted. I’m talking five-to-one odds here. McCain, my money says, will surely biff it up, and biff it up good.

I do not mean, by this, that I would vote for Hillary over McCain. I’m really not sure about this. I’d probably flip a coin.

It all comes down to — I can not rely on Mac for anything. He’s too much of a dealmaker. He doesn’t represent us, or really, anybody outside of the beltway.

He has serious integrity issues, in my book. His position on illegal immigration is nothing more than front-manning unscrupulous businesses, sucking in illegal labor at an unacceptable cost to the public safety and to the national security. The “Bush said my kid was the product of an affair” thing has been suggested…sniffed ’round-about…probed…it hasn’t led anywhere. The evidence says McCain made it up. And really, I’d bet Bush has more integrity in his little finger than McCain has in his whole body. And there are areas where I have my share of problems with Bush — notably the “jobs Americans won’t do” thing. I see that as his version of “Read My Lips.” McCain’s a dozen notches below that.

Now, I hear we’re about to repeat the mistake of 1992. This has been of great concern to me. But nowhere is it carved in granite that this is to be compared to 1992. We chould just as easily compare it to 1912…when the Republican party was again divided, and in that episode had hung on to the White House not for twelve years, but 52 (Cleveland notwithstanding). YES, a dem got in there. But he ended up making an ass out of himself, and when he left office he was succeeded by a Republican…and another Republican…and another Republican.

Sure, Wilson nominated three Supreme Court justices, the most liberal of which was Louis Brandeis. But Brandeis was a brilliant jurist, it was he who came up with the thing about the states being “laboratories,” and overall he didn’t really do any harm. When FDR began to rape and pillage the independence of the judiciary, Brandeis and McReynolds (a second of the three) were there to stop him.

And when you review the history of the Supreme Court in the 20th century, you’ll see the liberal justices who were fairly harmless, were nominated by donks. The ones who have dealt out the most deadly damage were the ones nominated by Republicans — many of whom managed to fool the Presidents who nominated them. Why is this? Who knows? Maybe they want to be invited onto the lecture circuit after retirement, and feel they need to atone for something first. Is that an insignificant concern to have nowadays? A factor from a decidedly distant and different past era? Eh, maybe. But why am I to think such a thing, when Stevens, Souter and Kennedy are still sitting where they are?

I won’t argue that the potential isn’t here for some serious damage. My argument is that McCain is not the White Knight who can prevent it, and I really don’t understand where you guys get off pretending this has any likelihood. At ALL. He’s worse than nothing. And in the 2000 primaries, I voted for him.
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2008 @ 23:27
[…] [Discuss this post with MKFreeberg over at House of Eratosthenes…] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Why I Won’t Support McCain | 02/06/2008 @ 06:10
This strikes me as a little odd. You have always maintained your number one issue is terrorism, not much of anything else. Now you seem to be worried about any number of other things.

I feel that McCain would vigorously pursue terrorism. Clinton and Obama? Nope, it’s all about “diplomacy.” Isn’t that the real choice that faces us?
- Allen L | 02/06/2008 @ 13:51
Easy to identify the disconnect here. It’s in the presumption that McCain can be relied upon to pursue terrorism.

Or anything.

I’m undecided on what he will do. On what he can be counted on to do, I’m not undecided at all. Butkus. Zilch. The man’s a bouncing football.

(Quoting from the long-faced democrat nominee in ‘2004, here…)

AND I’VE ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENT ON THIS, BACK TO DAY ONE!!! 🙂
- mkfreeberg | 02/06/2008 @ 14:06

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Why I Won’t Support McCainTuesday, February 5th, 2008

Why I Won’t Support McCain
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008