Romney Battles The Democrats
posted by Hawkeye® -- Tuesday, February 05, 2008
4 Comments
View From Above
Thoughts and satire about news & politics. Check out the Archives for other great articles.
|
|
|
Daily Wisdom |
February 05, 2008
 |  |
4 Comments:
Oh My! What WILL you do? Democrats to the left of you and Democrats to the right of you, although whether it is possible for anyone to be more to the right of Hawkeye is something I seriously doubt.
You're not gonna vote for a, gasp, MORMON are ya? Wow! What about 'Mad' Mike Huckabee? Isn't he the Christian right's candidate of choice? Mmm, maybe a few too many skeletons stashed in the closet of the Arkansas Governer's mansion to make the distance.
McCain is, of course, a worry. Ever seen this? Allow me to quote from another site:
'After all, this is a guy who just a few years ago said that, "I will hate the gooks as long I live." Just a few years before that, he bashed then-teenager Chelsea Clinton for being "so ugly." He's a guy who dumped the wife who stood by him while he spent five years in a Vietnamese POW camp, for a woman 17 years his junior. A guy who changed his religion for political convenience. A guy who told the world last year it was safe to walk around Baghdad. A guy who joked about bombing Iran. A guy who recently admitted that he doesn't know anything about the economy. A guy who has flip-flopped on everything from abortion to tax cuts to torture.
A guy who is so confused, he thinks Vladimir Putin is the president of Germany.
And when conservative luminaries such as Joseph Farah, founder of World Net Daily, write stuff like this about your war service...
"When the Navy pilot was shot down over a lake near Hanoi, his captors did not know who he was - John McCain, son of the admiral in charge of the Pacific fleet. McCain was seriously injured in his ejection and in need of medical attention. In exchange for what passes as first-class care in Vietnam, McCain talked. He told the North Vietnamese about his father. He told them about the chain of command. He described himself as one of the "very best pilots" in the Navy.
Such behavior by a POW is strictly frowned upon in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military code of conduct.
"OK," you say, "McCain should be given a pass for this because he was badly hurt. Wasn't his behavior at the Hanoi Hilton honorable after he recovered from his wounds?"
No, not exactly. While serving as a POW, McCain was one of the captives who agreed to be used for propaganda purposes by the enemy. In fact, some argue that an interview he gave to a communist publication - detailing an accident aboard his ship, problems with low morale among U.S. servicemen, the chain of command in the U.S. Navy and other pertinent information - went far beyond mere propaganda and crossed the line into disclosing military intelligence secrets.
On June 5, 1969, the Washington Post carried a story titled, "Reds Say PW Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral." The article states that, "Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner."'
So yeah, I'd be staying away from McCain too. But Mittens? From a fringe cult that oppresses women and free speech? Really? Uh oh.
Cheers
Elroy
PS. By the way, how's that 'I'm a Fredhead' thing working out for you? I see all his campaign bumpf has vanished from your blogspot – that must have been a sad time for you. My condolences.
As you might have noticed, Mr. Jetson, the blog proprietor-unlike most of the Democrat, liberal set-does not blindly agree with whatever the party sends his way. There is actual cogitating going on, here, as opposed to bobble-headed zeal.
Your comment attacks the Republican candidates and suggests that a good Repug wouldn't vote for Romney because of his religion, McCain because of his life choices (swift-boating, from a Democrat?), or Huckabee because of his religion (or because of Arkansas skeletons...that's too ironic to even discuss!). All this from the party that professes progressivism and tolerance. Wow!
Nice to see you Dems have your swiftboat attacks ready for McCain, though. It should be interesting to see John Kerry come out supporting his fellow 'Nam Politico, against your attacks.
Won't bother me, though. I ain't voting for McCain anyway. You probably should, though. He resembles nothing more than a Democrat for all of the reasons you so carefully set out...
Elroy,
I am amused that you should question whether anyone could be more to the right of little ol' me. But to be fair, I am not as far right as you might think. According to some common measuring tools available on the internet, I am 70-75% to the right. But according to others, I am barely 10% to the right of center. I guess it depends on the measuring technique employed.
As for Mormons, I have friends who are of that persuasion. I happen to disagree with their interpretation of scripture and I certainly do not believe in the writings of Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, I have found them to be generally good and decent people who are willing to live according to their faith more than many in the more "mainstream" Christian denominations. And in fact, I did vote for Romney in the primary.
I actually like Mike Huckabee on many issues, and would hardly classify him as 'Mad'. On social issues he actually scores best among the top tier candidates. That's why he won the states he did on Super Tuesday.
Believe me, I'm no McCain fan. I'm not sure that everything you suggest about him is accurate, but even if it is, I'd vote for him over Hillary or Obama in a heartbeat. McCain is no Ronald Reagan, and Reagan is the guy who conservatives would love their candidates to emulate. Looks like it ain't gonna happen though.
Thanks for your condolences about Fred Thomson. They were heartfelt... I'm sure. It was indeed a sad day when I pulled his stuff from the blog. Fred is a man of principle who embodies many of my deepest convictions. Unfortunately, he was not a great campaigner, but he is a "real" person... not a slick self-promoter like the rest of the crowd.
Pauldel43@ntlworld.com
‘As you might have noticed, Mr. Jetson, the blog proprietor-unlike most of the Democrat, liberal set-does not blindly agree with whatever the party sends his way. There is actual cogitating going on, here, as opposed to bobble-headed zeal.’
Glad to hear it; however, it would be a mistake to assume that liberals blindly agree with whatever the party sends them in bobble-headed zeal. However, as libs think that such behaviour is very much conservative territory, let’s just call it quits on this particularly petty tactic and agree that both sides do actually think king and hard about the decisions they make and positions they take.
‘Your comment attacks the Republican candidates and suggests that a good Repug wouldn't vote for Romney because of his religion’
That’s what I have read and heard. Mormons spent a lot of time in the USA being hunted down like dogs and I believe that some animus still remains among certain Christian groups.
The Mormons do appear to have a vigorous disregard for womens’ rights, homosexuals and intellectuals which I find antiethical to the concept of personal liberty freedom that conservatives purport to hold so dear, but they do have some interesting notions of collectivism which I would have thought would have you guys running 2000 mph in the other direction.
However, I guess that is now rendered moot now that Mittens has decided to save some dough for his retirement. See ya, Mittens ¬– we hardly knew ye!
‘McCain because of his life choices/
Life choices? To what, sir, do you allude?
‘Swift-boating, from a Democrat?’
Well no, I though I had made it clear that it was ‘Swiftboating’ by a Republican, to whit one Joseph Farah, the man who founded the sadly unironic website WorldNetDaily and who says of life: "The choice is simple: The world of standards and morality, of marriage, order, the rule of law, and accountability to God? Or the world of anything-goes, aberrant sexual behaviour, doing-your-own-thing lifestyles, and moral codes that change with the speed of the latest public-opinion poll?"
Not one of ours, buddy-boy. The other quote was from the WaPo which, although you may think it to be Pravda-on-the-Potomac, in 1969 was an objective, if not quite a conservative, rag.
‘or Huckabee because of his religion’
If a man running for president says things like
‘"If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."
"If you're with Jesus Christ, we know how it turns out in the final moment," he said. "I've read the last chapter in the book, and we do end up winning."
"Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't," he says. "So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.
‘[I will oppose gay marriage] until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he's changed the rules.’
And my favourite:
"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," the former Arkansas governor said. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."
Which suggests that if it were not for those pesky women exercising their right to choose what happens to their bodies and their lives, you could have had an all-American underclass instead of importing one from Mexico.
I’m sorry, but opposing abortion for the purposes of economic exploitation does not seem particularly moral to me. WWJD?
‘or because of Arkansas skeletons...that's too ironic to even discuss!’
No it aint’! The Clinton’s closet was opened, shaken out, scoured, prodded, probed, pulled apart and generally investigated by a star chamber at a cost of $80,000,000 at the behest of the Republican congress and what did they find? Nothing. I trust you are not suggesting that Governor Huckabee not be subjected to similar scrutiny? Surely if there is wrong doing then it should be investigated no matter what the political stripe?
All this from the party that professes progressivism and tolerance. Wow!
There is nothing unprogressive about questioning how the religious convictions of a presidential candidate might impact those that do not share them, nor addressing their historical record. This is the kind of scrutiny that presidential candidates expose themselves to and that Republicans are more than happy to explore when it comes to Democrats.
As for ‘tolerance’, you obviously misunderstand the concept. Let me tell you a thing or two about tolerance. Liberals may profess to be tolerant, but they’re not suckers. Here is the clarifier: they are tolerant of the tolerant.
To expound; if you are tolerant of my beliefs and moral code I shall be tolerant of yours. If, however, you seek to impose your beliefs and moral code upon me against my will then I will not tolerate it. What kind of a mug do you take me for?
Toleration, then, has its limits. It is a two-way street, an act of co-dependency. Read this: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/25/102417/140
Here’s a dilemma I saw on the news the other day. In Oxford, England, the local Muslims are agitating to be able to broadcast their call to prayer to the public, arguing that the Christian Church do exactly the same thing with bells.
The Muslims want equal rights, but local Christian church goers are up in arms. ‘We have been tolerant of their beliefs long enough!’ they cry, ‘No more!’ The Muslims, on the other hand, say that they do not require that the Christian bells be stopped, they just want their religion to recognised as equally valid. ‘The Christians say they are tolerant’ say the Muslims, ‘so why won’t they tolerate us?’
The Christians, however, look at some Muslim cultues and say ‘Well, these societies are not at all tolerant, so if we show them too much toleration they will grow powerful and then not tolerate us’.
So both sides are calling for tolerance and understanding. Who is right?
‘Nice to see you Dems have your swiftboat attacks ready for McCain, though.
Um, again I must point out that the ‘attack’ on John McCain I quoted comes not from the left but from the right, but McCain is not being ‘Swiftboated’.
To be authentically swiftboated one must be subjected to relentless attacks in all media on one’s honesty and have one’s service belittled by a group who falsely claim to be witness to certain events, who are funded by a political party and whose aim is purely partisan.
The SBVFT were a sham, as was well proven at the time, yet conservatives denied it ¬– the vets were instead held up as good patriots with nothing to gain but an acknowledgement of the truth ¬– yet here you are more or less admitting that it was a purely political stunt. Interesting.
But here we are again faced with the situation that a tactic valid for Republicans is somehow unfair if used by Democrats, so who is the hypoctrite? Had the Republicans backed off and offered a fulsome apology and retraction, they may have a case to complain about if the Dems pulled a similar stunt on them, but as they didn’t, well, such are the consequences of their actions.
The simple truth is that tactics one uses in warfare can used against one, so be careful what you wish for. This is one reason that I oppose – it gives everyone else a green light to do it too. Conservatives seem to think that they have exclusive rights to SBVFT type malarkey and cry ‘Waah! No fair’ if they think such ploys are being used against them, but that’s just too bad.
Again, having said that, is it not possible to debate McCain’s war record with being accused of the same bad behaviour perpetrated by the accusers? Is this not rank hypocrisy?
The SBVFT helped sink Kerry, but legitimate questions about GWB’s war service or lack thereof were greeted by howls of protest. Why? What was there that was off limits? Why is inquiry about GWB off limits? Live by the sword, buddy…
‘It should be interesting to see John Kerry come out supporting his fellow 'Nam Politico, against your attacks.’
Yes it will, but I repeat – these are not liberal attacks. I quoted one conservative and one paper which, in 1969, did not have an agenda to crush Johnny’s presidential pretensions. All John has to do is tell everybody what really happened – y’know, the truth.
‘Won't bother me, though. I ain't voting for McCain anyway.’
Well it looks like he’s your guy now, so what will you do? Stay home? Join Ann Coulter and vote for Hillary?
‘You probably should, though. He resembles nothing more than a Democrat for all of the reasons you so carefully set out...’
What is this bizarre notion that McCain is a liberal? Truly, this is nuts! He is a dyed-in-wool con for all the reasons I so carefully set out – he’s racist, he thinks it is OK to personally insult childrento score political points, he’s disloyal, he’s an opportunist, he’s inconsistent, he know nothing about economics or foreign affairs, he thinks war is good for a laugh and has no idea what is actually happening around him. See? A near-perfect Republican.
‘I am amused that you should question whether anyone could be more to the right of little ol' me. But to be fair, I am not as far right as you might think.’
No? Do go on…
‘According to some common measuring tools available on the internet, I am 70-75% to the right.’
Is that all? That must be a conservative estimate!
‘But according to others, I am barely 10% to the right of center.’
Crikey! Which measuring technique is that? Don’t give me the URL – my score will crash the site.
Try this one: http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright
I wound up in the far bottom left-hand corner. What about y’all?
‘As for Mormons, I have friends who are of that persuasion. I happen to disagree with their interpretation of scripture and I certainly do not believe in the writings of Joseph Smith.’
Hey! We agree on something!
‘Nevertheless, I have found them to be generally good and decent people who are willing to live according to their faith more than many in the more "mainstream" Christian denominations.’
Although they do seem somewhat controlling. Somewhat. Somewhat? The Moonies live according to their faith! So do the Exclusive Brethren, the Family and Wahabbi Muslims, but I don’t see them running for pres.
‘And in fact, I did vote for Romney in the primary.’
Can I interest you in a leaflet explaining LDS?
‘I actually like Mike Huckabee on many issues,’
So do I, actually.
‘and would hardly classify him as 'Mad'. On social issues he actually scores best among the top tier candidates. That's why he won the states he did on Super Tuesday.’
He says he understands that it is vital to deal with CEO salaries and the plight of the working poor and poverty in general, and says "You can't just say 'respect life' exclusively in the gestation period’ although until he explains just how he reconciles that position with wanting to raise an indentured labour class to replace the Latinos I’m just going to stick with the ‘ Mad’ thing,
The differences between the far left and the far right are not so much about economics anymore – on that issue there is some broad agreement ¬– the differences are more about social issues.
Unless, of course, you are still one of those Freidmanite free-marketeers in which case we will disagree on everything.
‘Believe me, I'm no McCain fan.’
Oh, I do.
‘I'm not sure that everything you suggest about him is accurate,’
Oh, but it is!
Racism:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
Insulting children: http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html
Disloyalty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Senate_liaison_and_second_marriage
Oppportunist
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3610781
War Joke:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_unplugged_Bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_0419.html
The Economy:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/18/mccain-economy/
Foreign affairs:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2008/01/23/mccains-age-whos-the-president/
Awareness of surroundings:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/roberts-cnn-mccain-iraq/
‘but even if it is, I'd vote for him over Hillary or Obama in a heartbeat.’
Unfortunately the Democrats nominees are working really, really hard to become Republican before the election.
‘McCain is no Ronald Reagan,’
That’s a relief! Silver linings and that…
and Reagan is the guy who conservatives would love their candidates to emulate. Looks like it ain't gonna happen though.
No, it ain’t. Freidmanomics, Thatchernomics and Reaganomics are, thankfully, on the way out. Isn’t it funny that for all their bleating about the outrage of actors ‘sticking their noses into politics’, conservatives’ favourite politician was…an actor! And is an actor! (Hi Arnie!) And might have been an actor! (Bye Fred!)
Reagan would never get elected today because he would never be able to get past the years that he was a dyed-in-the-wool, full time, 100% New Deal Democrat ¬– the flip-flop brigade would beat him down on both sides of the isle.
‘Thanks for your condolences about Fred Thomson. They were heartfelt... I'm sure.’
I’m gonna miss him. That deep baritone voicing platitudes, that loping gait, those empty rooms, that split conservative vote..ah, vale Fred.
‘It was indeed a sad day when I pulled his stuff from the blog. Fred is a man of principle who embodies many of my deepest convictions. Unfortunately, he was not a great campaigner, but he is a "real" person... not a slick self-promoter like the rest of the crowd.’
Um, no, Hawkeye, he was an ‘actor’. Are you sure it was him you were in love with? Or Arthur Branch?
He was not a great campaigner because he didn’t really campaign. He joined late and just sort of wandered about a bit. If that sort of drive and energy is what you require of a leader then I hereby nominate my Labrador Retriever.
Cheers
Elroy
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home