0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 08:41 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If anybody else wants to try it, here it is:

CHECK YOUR VIEWS AGAINST THOSE OF THE CANDIDATES


I dont get any candidate at over 50:

Hillary Clinton
Score: 46

Barack Obama
Score: 43

Mike Gravel
Score: 39

Ron Paul
Score: 12

Rudy Giuliani
Score: 12

Mike Huckabee
Score: 11

John McCain
Score: 7

Mitt Romney
Score: 6


I didnt like the test though. Biased questioning, and more of a choice between partly overlapping platform points than a systematic apportioning of views. But always interesting to try one nevertheless, so thanks for the link!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 08:43 pm
sozobe wrote:
I don't think we have it sewn up but posts like that are certainly encouraging!

Razz
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:34 am
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
If anybody else wants to try it, here it is:

CHECK YOUR VIEWS AGAINST THOSE OF THE CANDIDATES


I dont get any candidate at over 50:

Hillary Clinton
Score: 46

Barack Obama
Score: 43

Mike Gravel
Score: 39

Ron Paul
Score: 12

Rudy Giuliani
Score: 12

Mike Huckabee
Score: 11

John McCain
Score: 7

Mitt Romney
Score: 6


I didnt like the test though. Biased questioning, and more of a choice between partly overlapping platform points than a systematic apportioning of views. But always interesting to try one nevertheless, so thanks for the link!


I probably didn't see as much bias as you did, but I did think there were insufficient options to fully address the issues and that could be seen as a form of bias. Had all the options that more closely fit my point of view been available, it might or might not have scored the way it did for me. I sure didn't know I was for McCain. Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:30 am
From the American Conservative front page..
Quote:
http://www.amconmag.com/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:36 am
And, according to Ann Coulter on Hannity last night, McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Given that previously Hillary was an extreme leftist, this would make McCain what?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:39 am
Pity. Looks like the boys at Weekly Standard are slouching towards a position of "Looks like we'll have to support that traitorous shitheel McCain"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:50 am
blatham wrote:
And, according to Ann Coulter on Hannity last night, McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Given that previously Hillary was an extreme leftist, this would make McCain what?


... the latest object of Coulter's intense hatred. Certainly you haven't forgotten your belief of her utter disregard for veracity, and placed her opinion in a state of higher regard, merely because it suits your agenda?

No, no ... you're just stirring and stirring this a.m.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:04 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
And, according to Ann Coulter on Hannity last night, McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Given that previously Hillary was an extreme leftist, this would make McCain what?


... the latest object of Coulter's intense hatred. Certainly you haven't forgotten your belief of her utter disregard for veracity, and placed her opinion in a state of higher regard, merely because it suits your agenda?

No, no ... you're just stirring and stirring this a.m.


If you guys here on the the right - yourself, okie, foxfyre, cjhsa etc begin to gain some perspective on how extremist your movement has become, that would be a wonderful thing. I don't expect it to happen because your partisan and personal investment looks certain to continue to trump all else. Consider, because it is accurate, that I'm forwarding the words of people like Coulter and the rest below, for the benefit of others.

Quote:
Conservative crackup over McCain continues
On Wednesday, we brought you some of the more apoplectic reactions from conservatives after Sen. John McCain's victory in Florida's Republican primary. Well, the tenor of the debate on the right over McCain's candidacy has by no means cooled over the past couple of days. If anything, as we get to the key primaries of Super Tuesday, the anger over the prospect of Republican presidential candidate John McCain has grown. Some prominent conservatives are even threatening drastic action.

Take Ann Coulter. In an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" that's now been widely remarked upon, she told the two hosts that if McCain was nominated, and running against Sen. Hillary Clinton, she'd vote for Clinton.

The brothers Limbaugh -- Rush and lesser-known sibling David -- have been hitting McCain hard in recent days. On Rush's Web site, in a list of quotes from his Thursday broadcast he includes, among others, "McCain's kind of like the Clintons in a sense: you tell the truth about them and they think it's a personal attack" and "Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to John McCain to die of anal poisoning." (We hope there's some sort of legitimate reference in that second one that we're just not getting, but we doubt it.) Then David, in a column on Townhall.com Friday, wrote, McCain "is the anti-conservative. He instinctively sides against conservatives and relishes poking them in the eye.

"He enjoys cavorting and colluding with our political enemies and basks in the fawning attention they give him. Adding insult to injury, he now pretends to be the very thing he is not: an across-the-board Reagan conservative."

Then there's Michelle Malkin, last seen implying that perhaps there was something amiss with the voting in Florida that led to McCain's win, who was set off again by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance with McCain Thursday. "So, Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed John McCain. He extolled McCain for 'reach[ing] across the political aisle to get things done' ...

"To which I say: When did it become the Republican Party's top priority to 'get things done?'" Malkin wrote.

She continued: "'Get things done' is mindless liberal code for passing legislation and expanding government.

"And as McCain's ample legislative record demonstrates, 'reaching across the political aisle' never entails pulling opponents to the right. It always entails selling out the right.

"How about defending our side of the political aisle?"

In a column, Thomas Sowell went after McCain's prized reputation as a "straight talker." "We have been hearing for years that Senator John McCain gives 'straight talk' and his bus has been endlessly referred to as the 'Straight Talk Express.' But endless repetition does not make something true," Sowell wrote. "... When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.

"Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal."

Meanwhile, McCain's chief remaining rival on the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is quickly racking up endorsements from influential conservatives. Sean Hannity, previously a barely closeted supporter of Rudy Giuliani's, was one of the first to jump. Hannity's fellow radio host Laura Ingraham endorsed Romney on her show Friday morning; joining her for the broadcast was former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Santorum, who has been outspokenly anti-McCain, made his endorsement of Romney official on Ingraham's show. In a conference call with conservative bloggers on Friday, Romney acknowledged the support he's gotten, saying: "When Sean Hannity says he's voting for me, when Laura Ingraham says she's endorsing me ... Rush has been going after McCain pretty aggressively. Michael Reagan has been pretty aggressive. The world of conservatism is pretty solidly behind my effort."

The right is not entirely anti-McCain, though. The New York Times on Friday printed a good roundup of conservatives ready to rethink their position on him, the New York Post endorsed him, radio host Michael Medved suggested his fellow hosts needed to come to grips with the reality of the situation, and the McCain campaign itself has kept up a steady patter of e-mails to reporters announcing new endorsements, including Ted Olson, the former solicitor general who's a favorite of conservatives.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:13 am
The conservatives v the republicans.

It's been interesting to watch over the past 18+ months as the language drift has been developing.

I was looking into a folder with NewsMax headlines recently ... slide slide slide from using Republican to conservative almost exclusively.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:32 am
There are a lot of interesting elements to this movement breakdown. One of them is the dichotomy that has always existed as a central feature in American culture - the 'intellectual vs the practical man'.

Rush, in a quote I pasted here a few days ago, alluded to how he stood in opposition to the "republican establishment". An interesting framing of things given his admitted "water-carrying" for the Bush administration and his centrality in the propagandizing efforts of that administration.

But there's something to his claim. It applies to him and Coulter and Malkin and a whole host of such people who are, in their own minds and in mine as well, quite different political or American creatures than Bill Kristol or Ted Olsen. The Limbaugh/Coulter group come out of a different social strata and educational background. They are anti-intellectual in a visceral way where Kristol or Olsen or Norquist or others in the New York/DC republican world are intellectuals (if we use any coherent sense of that term). And clearly, there's a pragmatism to the Kristol crowd which allows a greater fluidity in political stance than we see with Limbaugh/Coulter who aren't merely less well educated and less intelligent, but also much more simple-minded and knee-jerk in their ideologies.

To see these two different traditions in opposition to each other ought not to surprise...it's been the way of things in the US probably more often than not.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:41 am
ehBeth wrote:
The conservatives v the republicans.

It's been interesting to watch over the past 18+ months as the language drift has been developing.

I was looking into a folder with NewsMax headlines recently ... slide slide slide from using Republican to conservative almost exclusively.


That is interesting, isn't it bethie. The Republican "brand" has suffered serious damage thanks to the Bush administration and re-defining oneself as 'conservative' is, for many, an attempt to avoid the cognitive dissonance that has arisen from supporting a party and a movement which has been such a failure. It has been interesting (and fun) to watch folks here (and elsewhere) evolve from "Bush is one of the greatest Presidents ever" to "Bush is not a real conservative".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:47 am
Almost as interesting as 'liberals' preferring the term 'progressive' huh? Smile
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Almost as interesting as 'liberals' preferring the term 'progressive' huh? Smile


There's at least one thread on that.

I, personally, don't find it quite as interesting as there is no viable Liberal party in the U.S. There is, however, a Republican party.

Language transformation is fascinating to wathc.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:11 am
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
And, according to Ann Coulter on Hannity last night, McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Given that previously Hillary was an extreme leftist, this would make McCain what?


... the latest object of Coulter's intense hatred. Certainly you haven't forgotten your belief of her utter disregard for veracity, and placed her opinion in a state of higher regard, merely because it suits your agenda?

No, no ... you're just stirring and stirring this a.m.


If you guys here on the the right - yourself, okie, foxfyre, cjhsa etc begin to gain some perspective on how extremist your movement has become, that would be a wonderful thing. I don't expect it to happen because your partisan and personal investment looks certain to continue to trump all else. Consider, because it is accurate, that I'm forwarding the words of people like Coulter and the rest below, for the benefit of others.


The thing is though, I have asked you to give me/us an example of an extremist position I hold or any of us hold, and you can't seem to come up with one. I think to suggest one you would likely have to intentionally distort what our position is. That is unless you consider anything right of far left to be extreme.

To equate Ann Coulter's satire with conservative extremism is to admit you don't read what the lady writes. Nobody has suggested her satire itself isn't extreme. But conservatives can usually tell the difference between satire and exaggeration for effect and serious opinion. Maybe all or most liberals have a cognitive deficiency in that department? I don't know. Is her satire extreme? Of course it is. Does she sometimes foray into bad taste? Yes she does, sometimes in a manner I find objectionable. Most public figures on all sides of the political spectrum do. But Coulter is also consistently on point and is usually funny. It has made her a multi millionaire.

I was also amused that you lumped Limbaugh into the same box with Coulter when they so frequently disagree sharply on various issues. So I wonder which one is the extreme one? Or how do you explain calling opposites extreme?

I can't remember ANY of us who identify ourselves as conservative ever stating that we considered President Bush to be a conservative as we define conservative. At least we haven't after he was in office for awhile. Nor have we identified Senator McCain as a conservative though he does have an 80+ rating on conservative issues. It's just that on some of the most important issues to conservatives (taxes, immigration, etc.) he has not voted conservative and therefore he is not trusted to carry the consevative banner on those issues.

Will conservatives consider McCainpreferable to a person who votes left of center more than 90% of the time? Of course we would. And if you think Ann Coulter would vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, I have a nice used bridge, only gently walked across on Sundays, to sell you. She did have a point as usual though. If we elect Hillary Clinton, we'll have the same kinds of damage with none of the responsibility.

(I'm not willing to risk supreme court nominations just to be able to enjoy that though.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:20 am
Quote:
The thing is though, I have asked you to give me/us an example of an extremist position I hold or any of us hold, and you can't seem to come up with one. I think to suggest one you would likely have to intentionally distort what our position is. That is unless you consider anything right of far left to be extreme.

A truly purposeless endeavor it would be. If you hold a position, it will not be extreme, in your view.

As I said earlier, the only solution here is to simply watch as the realignment continues and as the majority of Americans continue to reject the extremism you don't perceive.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:38 am
Quote:


I was also amused that you lumped Limbaugh into the same box with Coulter when they so frequently disagree sharply on various issues. So I wonder which one is the extreme one? Or how do you explain calling opposites extreme?


They agree on hating Liberals. Constantly. The fact that they have minor differences in position is immaterial. It's just a different flavor of poison that drips from their mouths.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:48 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
The thing is though, I have asked you to give me/us an example of an extremist position I hold or any of us hold, and you can't seem to come up with one. I think to suggest one you would likely have to intentionally distort what our position is. That is unless you consider anything right of far left to be extreme.

A truly purposeless endeavor it would be. If you hold a position, it will not be extreme, in your view.

As I said earlier, the only solution here is to simply watch as the realignment continues and as the majority of Americans continue to reject the extremism you don't perceive.


Since you won't state the 'extremism (I) don't perceive', it's pretty difficult to take you seriously. Smile
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:02 pm
not specific to this discussion, but this

Foxfyre wrote:
how do you explain calling opposites extreme?


is revealing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:16 pm
ehBeth wrote:
not specific to this discussion, but this

Foxfyre wrote:
how do you explain calling opposites extreme?


is revealing


It sure is. If A says yes and B says no, which one is the extreme one? Who gets to decide?

But in the political, fiscal, and social spectrums, there are differences in the majorities of Republicans and Democrats but very little uniformity in either. And in a exhaustive polling process, the Pew research center, no friend to conservatism in general, was unable to identify any clearly defined extremism as I define it anywhere:

PEW RESEARCH CENTER POLL

People like Bernie who tend to hold people like me in contempt can rarely define why they do. All they know is they don't like me and tell me so by identifying me as stupid or unable to articulate a coherent argument or I am extreme or I am full of hate or ..... or...... or even while they consider themselves to be intellectually and morally superior.

And it is that.....on both sides of the aisle.....plus poorly defined personal feelings plus inability to empathise or compromise that prevents substantive debate on the issues, I think.

I think that probably also explains why we continue to elect so many presidents that are so unacceptable to so many people.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
The thing is though, I have asked you to give me/us an example of an extremist position I hold or any of us hold, and you can't seem to come up with one. I think to suggest one you would likely have to intentionally distort what our position is. That is unless you consider anything right of far left to be extreme.

A truly purposeless endeavor it would be. If you hold a position, it will not be extreme, in your view.

As I said earlier, the only solution here is to simply watch as the realignment continues and as the majority of Americans continue to reject the extremism you don't perceive.


Since you won't state the 'extremism (I) don't perceive', it's pretty difficult to take you seriously. Smile


You've dedicated a lot of time here and you deserve at least this much of an answer.

Consider the oft-quoted line (you've probably quoted it yourself) from Bill Kristol's dad Irving, "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." (We'll ignore as irrelevant to this discussion that he wrote this just about the time when the CIA was providing the funding to start up Commentary magazine).

One can make a reasonable case that many who occupied the leftist community in the 60's and 70's held an extremist positions. They, of course, would not have perceived things that way. That is your dilemma now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 01:40:05