« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

McCain Has His Finger on the Pulse of America…in light of Rasmussen

By: clowngirl (Diary)  |  September 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

      When I read McCain’s remark “President Obama respects the Constititution” and saw there was no punch line…I momentarily understood the undying hatred he inspires in many conservatives. What WAS he smoking? And what’s gonna be the fall out if he’s caught with it right before the Obamacare vote?  I mean how can Senator McCain, who spoke with such clarity on Justice Sotomayer’s lack of judicial restraint, possibly think Obama respects the Constitution? And what is with this compulsive “Barack Obama has the best of intentions” nonsense every time he opens his mouth? Seems like everytime McCain criticizes Obama he first makes a disclaimer ” I don’t think he’s destroying our country intentionally or anything” (obviously, I’m paraphrasing)  It  starts to have a “protests too much” kinda feel.

      It ticks me off to hear McCain say “Obama respects the Constitution” because it seems to give legitimacy to the ridiculous “living and breathing document” excuse that liberals give for disregarding the clear intentions of our founders but the thing is-  as wrong as that interpretation is- there’s a large minority of Americans who think that way – and their viewpoint does, in a sense need to be respected.

      And as much as it riles me to hear McCain praising a man that I viscerally dislike, I don’t actually want to hear him talking about Obama the way Rush, myself, my friends, Sarah Palin, or most conservative writers do. (though I thank God for all the above)  McCain was elected on promises of bipartisanship and settling differences – and if the bipartisan guy starts burning bridges…

      Civility is vital to the credibility of McCain’s offer to sit down with Obama and work out a genuinely bipartisan compromise. I realize RedStaters don’t want to see that because nobody expects anything good to come of it but  there’s no real risk of it happening and consider the numbers from Rasmussen today. 71% of everyday citizens don’t think the Democrats should pass any version of Obamacare “unless there are a reasonable number of Republican votes”. 71% don’t think Democrats should try and doing on their own.  So, it would appear politically impossible to ram Obama’s agenda through unless he can successfully paint Republicans as uncooperative and hyperpartisan. That’s going to be hard to pull off when he has a high profile Republican eagerly calling for bipartisanship. McCain is calling his bluff.

    The olive branch is a political neccessity – and it’s the kinda think McCain was elected to do.  It’s fitting that he do it,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    he will buy it. McCain is a curse word to anyone who remotely considers themselves conservative. I credit him mostly with the split in the Republican party between the moderates and the conservatives, however, now with more than 40% of those polled considering themselves conservative, his kind are becoming more and more irrelevant. Good riddance you old fool.

  • mbecker908

    The difference between McCain and Obama is, maybe, 20 years.

    The time for “civility” is long past. It’s time that we recognized that the elected Democrats are enemies of the state and started treating them as such. John McCain (and George Bush) are nothing more than tools t them to get in the door with policies that will give them total control no matter who holds the White House or the Congress.

    John McCain never got elected – or reelected – because of his “bipartisanship”. If that were the case he’d be President. In Arizona he is nothing more than the guy who showed up at the right place at the right time. He got pulled into the Congress because he was a war hero and he rode Reagan’s coat tails. He got elected to the Senate because Barry Goldwater retired and McCain had done a good job pimping his name while the Democrats had no candidate with statewide name recognition to run against him.

    He gets reelected because of the tremendous advantage an incumbent has in statewide elections in Arizona. That, combined with the fact that the Democratic Party in Arizona is typically in a state of disrepair and can’t field viable candidates and can’t support them when they find one with any kind of name recognition and you’ve got a scenario – like in many other states – where incumbents win even if they’re dead – see Missouri.

    John McCain has never made a stand that you could consider to be even remotely conservative. He is a sellout of the first order and the price is an invitation to a Sunday Show and a front page mention in the NYT/WaPo. McCain is not a “negotiator” any more than Neville Chamberlain was. He has sold his party and his country cheap more times than I can count and because of the utterly clueless in the party who think you can “negotiate” with the evil that IS the Democratic Party (look in the mirror) McCain won’t ever pay the price he should pay for his fecklessness.

    As to the idea that “civility wins”, tell that to Newt Gingrich. He brought us the House in ’94 and Newt made George Patton look like a wimp. He was able to pretty much stop the march of Mrs Clinton’s brand of Marxism in it’s tracks. As soon as the “civil” folks got their fingers in the pie everything unraveled.

    Civility, and it’s progenitors, are losers. We are where we are today because the poster boy for civility and bipartisanship who owed a whole damn orchard of olive trees – George W. Bush – refused to stand up and counter attack the enemies at home.

    Consider all the schmaltzy stuff that you took such offense to the last time you made a complete idiot of yourself here to repeated below here X100.

    • cwilson

      Newt admitted himself that he was susceptible — and often succumbed — to the Clinton svengali effect. He recounted in one of his books how he’d march into the Oval Office loaded for bear, and come out thinking “Gee, Bill really understood my points”.

      …and then realize he’d traded the homestead for peanuts.

      Newt was no Patton.

      • mbecker908

        from about ’88 until ’95ish. Then he got seduced.

        And this would be an excellent example of why, after three terms in the House or two terms in the Senate a CongressCritter should be thrown off the Capitol Dome.

      • clowngirl

        Clinton was respectful and listened to and acknowledged what Newt had to say – therefore he got concessions. If he’d just been constantly combative it wouldn’t have worked.

        Don’t tell me I have to defend Newt too! I haven’t got the energy tonight. :P

        • mbecker908

          You are the most out of touch, and by far the stupidest person ever to post at Redstate.

          I was going to deconstruct the “Clinton was respectful” drivel, but everybody who matters knows better. Take a hint… YOU don’t matter.

          • Richard Mullins

            and Obama follows that and cranks it up to 11. For “slick willie”, respect wasn’t in his vocabulary. Of course, for Obama respect is a pejorative. The only thing that saved Clinton from the jaws of defeat, was his advisers. For obama, their doing him no good.

        • Martin Knight

          Clinton was respectful and listened to and acknowledged what Newt had to say – therefore he got concessions. If he

          • mbecker908

            the RMSP was started to fight Newt and the Contract With America. The first paragraph of their “History” page on their website…

            The November 1994 mid-term elections were commonly referred to as the “Republican Revolution.” Given the great gains made by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, a group of moderate House Republicans began informal meetings to discuss ways to further a centrist, pragmatic Republican agenda — one that could accommodate bipartisan legislative results.

            And the current group of “I stand for absolutely nothing and I’m proud of it” elected folks has three members of the US Senate:

            • Olymipa Snowe, ME
            • Susan Collins, ME
            • John McCain, Washington DC

            The list of Republican Reps is a list that contains every appeaser in the party, including Mike Castle, Mary Bono and Mark Kirk.

            Ick, I need another shower.

          • clowngirl

            I was not following politics closely at that point and so I really don’t have an informed opinion. I was just basing my comment of the little blurb cswilson posted about Newt feeling like Clinton really understood his points – so I really don’t know enough about it to argue,

          • cwilson

            the Slickmeister was using the appearance of listening to Newt, in order to further Billy Jeff’s own goals of snookering the man. But what the “Can’t We All Just Get Along” behavior championed by the RMSP-types just ends up with our side not just “listening” to the opposition, but to capitulating to them.

            And we’ve seen that our “Leaders” are all too willing to do so.

            We’ve also seen that the opposition has not, does not. and will not ever, deal honestly with us. While RMSP types are busy trying to convince our side to “listen” (ie. capitulate so we can “get something done”) the other side keeps a laser focus on their twin goals: #1, expand, preserve, and entrench their power and their hold on it, by expanding the scope of government in every possible way and in every possible area, and #2, destroy their opposition utterly and permanently.

            That’d be us, by the way.

            So, no, smiling nicely and “listening” is not the answer — especially when listening is apparently a synonym for capitulating. We need more Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and less Oprah and Dr. Phil. A bit of Conan wouldn’t hurt, either:

            What is best in life? – To crush your enemies, see them driven before you… and to hear the lamentation of their women!

  • Aaron Gardner

    The opinion that our Constitution is a living document deserves zero respect. I don’t respect the idea of communism, socialism, statism or any other philosophy which at it’s core is destructive to the Republic.

    • clowngirl

      There’s a lot about the Constitution that’s treated as though it is open to interpretation when it really isn’t. The 2nd amendment is the perfect example. Not only is there an independent clause saying “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but there are also numerous quotes from our founders talking about the need to preserve gun ownership as a safeguard against tyranny. But what do we do with those who believe in gun control? Do we get to pronounce them unAmerican and deport them? Shall we hurl insults about how idiotic they are and how they hate the Constitution?

      The thing is – most people who support, for example gun control, don’t probably realize they are undermining the Constitution and our freedom.

      Ideally the Supreme Court would be striking down any and every Unconstitutional provision in every law – but that definitely hasn’t happened. It seems our only option is to educate and persuade…and that requires treating people with a certain amount of respect.

      • Aaron Gardner
        • mbecker908
          • Amy Miller

            …because this is 100% true.

        • clowngirl

          I agree that the view of the Constitution being a living document should be absolutely opposed and given no respect, but it’s still neccessary to be respectful to the people who hold that view. Some are trying to destroy the country, but others are simply misguided and should be challenged on their views without any personal disrespect.

          • Leopard1996

            Show that same civility to us, (and that will be about the same time Hell freezes over) will we show that civility to them. Again, as guys like Mbecker and Martin Knight have pointed out, we tried to be civil and nice through the whole 8 years of Bush, and they attacked and attacked and attacked and had people believing that we were in the worst economy ever, when we only had unemployment between 5 and 6 % and economic growth. But those that were supposedly representing us, were being civil and nice, and in 2006 we got our asses handed to us, and again in 2008. If they are going to use the Saul Alinsky technique of Isolating and riduculing us, we need to do it to them with the force of facts behind us. That is why now, the TEA parties, and the town hall things are working, because we are finally getting the message out there that anyone will listen to.

          • mbecker908

            That got us Kennedy trying to cut a deal with the Russians, a whole raft of Democrats apologizing and making nice-nice with Sandanista, and let’s not forget Robert Bork.

            I’ve got a much longer list, but it’s a pointless exercise. The clown has been in a cave (or another planet) until last week.

          • Leopard1996

            For Reagan/bush 1 so I don’t know too much about that. But we do need to show the error of the let’s be nice strategy.

            The whole thing is starting to remind me of how we dealt with terrorists before 9/11. The terrorists were fighting a war, we were conducting a horrible CSI investigation.

          • mbecker908

            to America (and already have) than OBL, etal ever could.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • clowngirl

            People keep using it…

          • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

            You use it in the comment title box when the title is all you have to say.

          • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim
      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        You don’t win these arguments by persuading our opposition. You win by persuading the undecided middle.

        Don’t give the radicals any respect. Talk to the more apolitical types, whose minds aren’t made up.

        • clowngirl

          we win by persuading the undecided middle….and the sane in general – there are definitely some who should be written off.

          But I also think there are more folks open to persuasion than might at first be apparent. I don’t party identification is a determining factor. There are basically only 2 viable political parties – people pick one or there other – oftentimes over just one issue. A lot of folks just don’t have time to be as informed as they need to be and may change their views as they learn more. Sitll others may just be Democrats because they’ve more or less absorbed the liberal views they’ve been inundated with since birth – but when they actually examine those views (and Obama’s extremism and outrageous irresponsibility may cause many to do just that) may find they don’t really believe them.

    • cclive

      Essentially they are the mechanism that allows the Constitution to change and adapt.

      • Aaron Gardner
      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
        • cclive

          I don’t think Aaron does though. If you are against the concept of a “living constitution” the only way to make changes is the Amendment process, not via judicial activism. That should be obvious to everyone.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            So what was the point of your comment?

            Your comment looked like some silly lefty wing gotcha trap you were feebly attempting to ensnare Aaron with.

          • cclive

            The Amendment process is the only means to update the Constitution to adapt to society but society can fluctuate quickly so there is the potential for it to be abused, take the 18th for example. Since Aaron commented so strongly against the living Constitution I thought he might have some thoughts on the Amendment process which is obviously the counter to the living Constitution. He did not though.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You often ask questions, you constantly move the goal posts, you display a lack of understanding of commonly known items within Republican and Conservative circles, you show a lack of knowledge on the Constitution and you are incapable of statying on point. You are either a troll of the highest proportions or a damn fool. Your choice.

          • cclive

            and thrown some jabs but I’ve made attempts to be nice, I thought your suggestions on ways to keep Obama from controlling the media were great and when you mentioned you were going to DC for the 9/12 rally I congratulated you for taking the fight to them. In return you jump on every other comment I make and ask juvenile questions trying to goad me into arguments. Its gotten rather boring I won’t waste your time anymore, so don’t waste mine.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I haven’t asked any question of you that wasn’t appropriate. Everytime you are challenged directly to share you view with us, you act like you are being attacked. You are a fricken troll. You asked me how I felt about Amendments in the context of a discussion about “living constitution”. The two are so absolutely autonomous that it was clear for all to see that you were being a disingenuous troll. Or you are completely ignorant of the Constitution and what one means when they say “Living Constitution”. By the way nice case of projection you got going on there.

            TROLL.

          • Leopard1996

            Think of the song by the Dixie Chicks, “I’m tired of playing nice, and I’m won’t back down”. Although those morons were talking about Bush and how their little comments cost them a country music fan base. That is where anybody that is conservative or Republican is at when dealing with Liberals in particular and Democrats in general. They didn’t have any compunction of playing nice, and we tried, and got our collective asses kicked in. So now, we say screw that, attempt to defeat and expose the liberal at every turn, and if somebody like McCain doesn’t want to get into this game, then they need to step aside. Trust me, the liberals are having this same conversation about the “Blue Dogs”, and some of their older senators needing to give it up so that they can get their 60 (Granted one of the ones they were telling to go home recently died).

          • clowngirl

            I think it’s disgusting for the Democrats (Rahm Emanuel, specifically) to go out and recruit candidates that were as conservative as they could get to run Democrat – have them make all kinds of promises to their voters and then pressure them to break those promises. Those Democrats loyalties should be with their constituents – not with the sleazy party who sees them as expendable and wants to make them all liars.

            Blue dogs are probably a lot more in touch with what everyday Democrats actually want. If the Democratic Presidential primary is any example the Democrats skew their primaries to heavily favor the more liberal democrats rather than simply letting the majority pick the candidate. It was extraordinarily undemocratic.

            By the way, I met a lot of “Democrats for McCain” during the election, and the ones I know haven’t gone back to the Democratic party – they’ve become quite right wing. ( & most all of them love Palin)

          • The_Rebel

            as they say. Those conservative Democrats recruited by Emanuel will have a short life span, and the force will not be with them in 2010.

          • Leopard1996

            That want to be conservatives, need to switch party identification, or at least vote for something close to what they believe.

            If you are conservative, and look at the Democrats and see Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, then you vote for the other guy. Some of those Democrats, may have voted for McCain, but then they voted for a Democrat that gave Pelosi the damn gavel, sorry, that I cannot abide as someone who is “conservative”

          • Martin Knight

            Why would not believing in the “Living Constitution” imply that Aaron would have any problems with the “Amendment process”?

          • cclive
          • Martin Knight

            Heh heh …

            Just admit it, man … you were caught with your ignorance showing. It’s okay. That’s something that can easily be rectified.

            Just google up “Living Constitution” and Article VI and get yourself up to speed. Otherwise, please give us one example of the Amendment process being … er … “abused”.

            Should be interesting …

      • Amy Miller

        The purpose of a Constitutional amendment is to allow the Constitution to remain viable; amendments do not exist so that people like Barack Obama and skip their way through the Supreme Law of the Land and lay waste to CORE principles they find distasteful.

        • Amy Miller

          But I won’t bother retyping it all because you’re probably just reply with some pithy, trollish response, so assume I meant to say this:

          The purpose of a Constitutional amendment is to allow the Constitution to remain viable; amendments do not exist so that people like Barack Obama CAN skip their way through the Supreme Law of the Land and lay waste to CORE principles they find distasteful.

          Easy fix. Carry on.

          • cclive

            I’d agree that the Amendment process, although the only mechanism to update the Constitution, should not be abused.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Seriously, I want to know.

          • Martin Knight

            I

          • Martin Knight
          • Martin Knight

  • Pingback: Gail Mulligan

  • Pingback: Gail Mulligan

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: spirits drink

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: liqueurs

  • Pingback: randki w warszawie

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: arredo bagno

  • Pingback: wedding planner italy

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: moonshine still

  • Pingback: Upgrade

  • Pingback: Look At These Guys

  • Pingback: Click Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: working from home jobs uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Kira Sturdy

  • Pingback: Union Millwork Installers

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: home distilleries

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: air compressors

  • clowngirl

    Obviously there will be some attempt at compromise – I just don’t think there’s much risk of anything being worked out.

  • ColdWarrior

    in Maricopa County since the Nov. 2008 election. The Party had, in Nov., 2008, 1,989 precinct committeemen representing the 694,000 registered Republican voters in Maricopa County. The quota was about 6,300. Those 1,989 were split about 50-50 between moderates and conservatives. No more. Since then, we’ve recruited 434 more PCs. Most at Tea Parties and congresscritter protests. Most, if not all, are conservatives. That sends a STRONG SIGNAL that change is afoot in the AZ Republican Party. And more are in the pipeline. And they are motivated. I recruited 5 in the last three days. And other conservative PCs are doing the same. And this infusion of conservatives into the PC ranks within the Party will do more to impact how McLame acts and votes than any blog post. And will impact how McCain views his reelection prospects and the direction of the Party in general.

    Want to be part of a revolution? A conservative revolution? Then become a Republican Party precinct committeeman.

    Now.

    And Pinal County has also had a surge here in AZ.

    Want to impact the Party “leaders?”

    Become a PC.

    Go here to learn more: www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

    Go for it!

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

    P. S. If you are having success recruiting conservatives into the PC ranks, please report it here at Redstate.com

  • snowshooze

    McCain spent his time sucking up to Democrats.
    He should have been stomping down on them. He alienated his core ( Me ) by voting for the bailout and crossing the isle.
    I felt completely sold out by his actions and would never consider offering him a second chance. Ever.
    I am a Republican, and if I wanted to be a Democrat, I would sign up.
    I would rather burn in hell for my beliefs than live in luxury as a gutless coward.
    McCain does us an injustice by not stepping aside.
    We need a REAL Republican. We are not interested in gradually dealing away our rights. McCain is all to willing to do so.
    My attitude dictates that the only time I would cross the isle would be for a trophy hunt, and I would take my gun and my knife to gather scalp.
    McCain deserved his defeat. He sold us all out. We should never forgive, or forget. We can’t afford to do so.

  • clowngirl

    It’s not what you do it’s why you do it and it sounds like you’re building an army that will be useful for a lot besides opposing McCain!

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Concentrating on how people went about recruiting, what they looked for, why it’s important: anything that people looking to duplicate the feat could use themselves.

    Moe Lane

    PS: I’d ix-nay on the ain-McCay thing, though: goodness knows that Arizonian Republicans may have views, but it’d get in the way of a general primer. :)

  • ColdWarrior

    I will not allow my children to live under socialism or tyranny.

    ’nuff said.

    Go here to learn more:

    www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

    If you aren’t yet a Republican Party precinct committeeman, you need to become one and then recruit every other conservative you know do do likewise.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …and he pressing very hard on them… :(

    I think you’re starting to recognize the erratic and unpredicatable behavior that is so infuriating to conservatives about Sen McCain.

    But ever more, what raises the ire of conservatives is how often McCain has snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory by cutting a “compromise” that gives away the conservatives’ farm – but which gains him the spotlight and the approbation of the liberal press and intelligentia. And one never knows when he’s going start “operating” and what he’s willing to defend to the end (if anything).

    Case in point, McCain Feingold and his ongoing escalating advocacy of even more government restrictions on political speech whenever his previous efforts backfire.

    Which is why McCain’s efforts to form a “bipartisan compromise” sends shivers up our spines, because “bipartisan” is a moving target. Worse, his cooperation will give cover for a few others (like Snowe and Collins and other MSP members) to join in – and that veneer of “bipartisanship” (as defined by he media) will give cover for swing Democratic senator to join in. And the press and pundits will once again give McCaomo the limelight that he so much enjoys and make him feel loved again by the press that so reviled him in the campaign.

    Which is why your optimism that McCain is “calling Obama’s bluff” borders on wishful thinking, based on McCain’s past track record.

    Which is why I have much preferred people like Enzi trying to negotiate, because they have much clearer understanding conservative principles that they won’t compromise away, and therefore will resist the siren call to sell our nation’s birthright for a bowl of porridge. I can’t have that confidence in Sen. McCain because of this legislative record.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    There are less than 10,000 people in my entire county, and I’m (running for election to be) precinct committeeman for about 800 of them.

    So when I see you talking about 2000 committemen in one County, I realize you’re operating in a different world. All of my constituents know one another, most of them having had the same sixth grade teacher (whose daughter lives down the street).

  • Ausonius

    was that Baby-Boomer dominated America was not about to turn power over to an older generation, after electing two Boomer presidents.

    McCain might have won, had he successfully demonstrated the radical, un-American nature of NObama, had he not illogically fantasized that an “above-the-fray” campaign would win somehow, and had he stood on conservative principles.

    But this maverick, when he gallops, veers left way too often!

  • mbecker908

    something being “worked out” as long as people are willing to discuss the “political necessity” of passing out olive branches to the enemy.

    John McCain isn’t calling anybody’s bluff. The point of calling a bluff (or of bluffing in the first place) is to win. McCain – and you – aren’t about winning, you’re about settling. In politics, and in war, that’s called losing over time and it’s a game that the Democrats play to perfection. And, as long as stupid people on our side tolerate it, we’ll continue to lose.

  • farstar99

    and McCain’s the engineer.

  • clowngirl

    I haven’t followed McCain for as long as you guys – or at least not as closely. The write ups of his bi-partisanship at the time were, of course, positive. It’s possible I have a skewed view – but I don’t share your impression that McCain is willing to sell out the country to get some media lovin. McCain/Fiengold is something he thought was neccessary to prevent corruption (how’s that going?) the gang of 14 saved the filibuster, the Torture Ban was neccessary to restore our reputation as a nation with a deep respect for human rights. The recently released evidence that waterboarding yielded vital information possibly justifies its extremely limited use – but there was at least some torture taking place early on that wasn’t strictly neccessary and was just sick – hence the need for the Torture Ban.

    Early on when asked about Justice Sotomayer -McCain was very non-commital (at least in the interview I saw) said he was listening to every word and watching very closely – or something like that. I heard that and immediately thought “he’s going to oppose her – but he’s making sure to wait until after she’s had a chance to present her whole case” I reread his statement on her after the nauseating ” Obama respects the Constitution” remark. It’s actually a very take-the-high-road type thing. He never says she doesn’t respect the Constitution, doesn’t blast her on her rather thoughtless rulings, just – very respectfully says she doesn’t share his philosophy of judicial restraint and (rather brilliantly) draws a parallel to how Democrats opposed Justice Estrada, who was also very qualified, because he didn’t share their judicial philosophy.

    I think he may be doing something similar with Obama – giving him every chance – forcing Obama to define himself and not hide behind Congress. I dunno, maybe I am being over -optimistic, but I think that’s going to work to our advantage – the more this bill is talked about the more people seem to hate it – and it opens the door to Republicans pushing their ideas. ( which I think will sound pretty good to the public at large) so he’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt – hear what he has to say and (unless it’s a 180 from what he’s been promoting) then reject it.

    I don’t see how you can compromise on this bill. Democrats want socialism and Republicans want to get the government out of the way a bit. There’s no common ground there – but everyone wants affordable health care. Republicans can talk about how de-regulating, tort reform, etc. will actually start to acheive that while Democrats policies – mandates for people to buy insurance, community ratings everywhere, etc,, etc. will drive up the cost for millions of Americans. (Aside from the other million things wrong with their plan) I think Republicans should take the Compassion banner away from the Democrats on this issue. Talk about how many people don’t have insurance because community ratings, not being able to buy insurance across state lines, etc. drives up prices – then some of them get sick and it all snowballs.

    Anyways I’m rambling now and have to go to work. :)

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I’m actually pleasantly surprised to not be getting killed for this post – figuratively speaking. (Had misgivings right after posting it and actually tried to take it down.)

    But y’all – for the most part- are disagreeing politely.

  • mbecker908

    You are a damn fool.

    1. McCain/Fiengold is something he thought was neccessary to prevent corruption… It’s a clear violation of the First Amendment and GWB’s gutless response – let SCOTUS deal with it – has given us this nightmare. It’s nothing more than an incumbent protection act, which anybody with an IQ of at least 11 knew going in.

    2. the gang of 14 saved the filibuster… Oh, did I mention that you’re ignorant too? Nobody was trying to “kill the filibuster”. The point was to move nominees out of committee and get them floor votes in a reasonable time and in order to do that we might have had to stop the filibuster on presidential appointees, NOT on legislation. Republicans have never filibustered an appointee and, given spineless schmucks like McCain, probably never will. G14 got us essentially nothing. At least 7 very good nominees were thrown under the Straight Talk Express, several more just got fed up and withdrew (Miguel Estrada for one) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that G14 got either of the SCOTUS nominees approved.

    3. the Torture Ban was neccessary to restore our reputation as a nation with a deep respect for human rights. Any chance I might have one day found a reason to respect you or your opinion just evaporated. The US is signatory to treaties on torture, we have statute on toture, both USC and UCMJ. McCain’s amendment did absolutely nothing to extend any concept of “human rights”. And the very idea that you would even broach the subject on “human rights” with a statement like “restore our reputation” is so patently offensive I wouldn’t walk across the street to spit on you if you were on fire. Oh, and waterboarding is NOT torture, nor is any other enhanced interrogation technique used by the CIA under any statute or treaty.

    I was right. You are a troll. And a poor one at that. And, consider this polite because I’m in a big hurry.

  • Martin Knight

    I think the treatment that was meted out to him during the campaign last year may have somewhat opened his eyes to the fact that he was being played for the past eight years but, it’s obvious he’s still jonesing for it.

    McCain-Feingold has done nothing to stave off corruption – and I believe McCain knew that it wouldn’t. The fact that he actively carved out exceptions for media companies while gladly curtailing everyone else’s free speech rights made it very clear that it was all about getting his name in the headlines and sticking it to George W. Bush – who was stupid enough to sign it.

    Which, all in all, makes him an absolutely terrible and compromised negotiator for our side. Every single one of his “Bipartisan” breakthroughs ends up with the Democrats getting 90 to 100% of what they want in exchange for assurances from the Democrats that they might consider giving us 10% some undefined time in the future.

    End-result; dejected Republicans are wondering how they just got beaten despite having a 10-seat majority, Democrats are high-fiving each other in the cloakroom and McCain is happily on his way to be showered with praise for his “Maverickness” and “Bipartisanship” by liberal political talk show hosts.

    PS: The Gang of 14 did not “save” the filibuster. In case you are not aware, the so-called “Nuclear Option” was meant to eliminate the filibuster for Presidential nominations so that all Presidential nominees (whether the President is a Republican or Democrat and whether or not the Senate is controlled by Republicans or Democrats) will get an up and down vote.

    The filibuster would have been preserved for legislation, as it ought to be. Everyone knew the shrieking editorial published by the New York Times – abruptly reversing the paper’s decades long position that the filibuster be scrapped in its entirety – urging “reasonable Republicans” to join the Democrats and “save the filibuster” was aimed directly at McCain … and he took the bait as they knew he would.

    The end-result is that many seats that could have been filled by strong Conservative jurists by George W. Bush were left empty – thanks to Arlen Specter – for Obama to fill with Far Left ideologues.

    McCain may be doing the right thing at the moment … but given his history, the average Redstater is only going to trust him about as far as they can throw the Straight Talk Express.

  • clowngirl

    the more he drops in the polls. After his last press conference the number who strongly disapprove of him jumped what- 4-5 points? And wasn’t that the first time his overall approval dropped below 50 %?

    Becker, I hear what you’re saying – but it’s possible to give Obama the benefit of the doubt – hear what he has to say – give him a chance to be reasonable and incoporate ideas that wil actually work and then – when he proves he won’t do that – he’s the bad guy. There’s no harm in talking.

    Obama doesn’t need any Republican votes at all to pass this unless Nelson or Lieberman defect. If Republicans are dead set on not even talking to Obama – don’t you think that would give him the excuse – and empower Democrats- to just ram it through?

    That said, I’m all in favor of keeping the pressure on McCain and making it clear we don’t want any bill from this President and this Congress.

  • izoneguy

    to tear up the train tracks……

  • clowngirl

    but it’s hard for me to not see McCain as someone who loves his country deeply.

    I did know that the “nuclear option” dealt only with filibusters for judges – but I don’t really see why that should be an exception (I would’ve loved to have seen Sotomayer filibustered.) and there’s also a slippery slope argument that once the filibuster has been eliminated for judges it opens the door to eliminating it for legislation as well.

    But I understand why conservatives would be nervous. I’m nervous too – though more about Snowe and will just be praying this thing falls apart.

    ( as a side note, this is probably coincidence – but I prayed all through August that Obama’s approval rating would be at 45% by September and on September 1st Rasmussen had him at exactly 45%!)

  • cwilson

    as far as I can throw him.

    I remember the Spring of 2001. We had a 50-50 Senate, with Dick Cheney as the tie-breaking VP. (‘Course, Trent Lott’s “power sharing” deal with the duplicitous Dems made even THAT ‘majority’ a mostly-gelded one, like Lott himself). Bush had just won election after the 37 days of h311 in FL. The Dems were ranting from Day 1 that “The Selected-not-Elected President” had no mandate, and shouldn’t get to pass any bills, set any agenda, appoint any judges. In fact, many of his cabinet posts were still unfilled — and undersecretary positions were stalled in committee for over a year (’cause why should the unpresident get to actually HAVE an administration at all?)

    Now, one of McCain’s big issues in the GOP Primary the previous year was Campaign Finance “Reform”. He lost.

    One of W’s big issues was the need for tax cuts to stimulate a faltering economy, damaged by the dot-com bust. He won.

    So, here we are: a very tight political situation, and the Republican President needs a few “wins” to solidify his support. Plus, W was, in fact, correct on the tax cut issue with regards to the ongoing recession. What did John “My Ego is Bigger than God” McCain do?

    He demanded two solid weeks of floor time in the Senate, to address HIS campaign issue of CFR, before he would deign to allow the President’s agenda to be considered. He threatened to personally filibuster, if his whims were not accommodated.

    So, John “Maverick” McCain got his way. The Senate debated — and passed — CFR first. By the time the Senate got around to discussing the actual president’s tax cut agenda — as opposed to the agenda of the guy that LOST — Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords had Jumped, and the Senate was 51-49 Democrat. Harry Reid was Majority Leader, and controlled floor scheduling and debate time. Far Left Dems were Committee Chairmen, not Republicans.

    And the only tax cuts Bush could get thru were under parliamentary rules that prevented them from being permanent.

    Oh — and to add insult to injury, John McCain voted against them.

    When your taxes go up next year — in the middle of the second dip of our double-dip recession — due to the sunset provision of the Bush tax cuts…you can blame John McCain’s vanity.

    If he were on fire, I wouldn’t even spit on him. I might be persuaded to use a different liquid, though.

  • clowngirl

    Becker,
    I’m more in sympathy with your POV than you might think and I’m sure that there are many things I could learn from your experience – but it’s hard for me to take the time to respond to someone or really consider what they are saying when they continually call me an idiot, or an enemy of the state ( or imply such things) maybe I’ll look at your posts again when I am less tired.

    I will make one comment. You say the torture ban was unnecessary, I went to Texas A&M for the first 2 years of college and there was still hazing during my time there – but not anything like what happened back in “old army days” ( as the period before hazing laws was nostagically called) from what I heard, there was MASSIVE hazing – even though most of what was done was illegal already. But after a specific HAZING law was passed things changed dramatically. Passing the law signified a new commitment to deal with the issue.

    I don’t understand why you are just mad at McCain for the torture ban. Didn’t it pass the Senate 98-0? And I don’t really see why you are getting so furious at me for alluding to a need to recommit ourselves to the high standards we’ve generally always upheld – with a few very unfortunate and very high profile exceptions.

    As to waterboarding- what is the argument as to why it shouldn’t be considered torture? (I’m honestly not familiar with it)

  • $peciallist

    “As to waterboarding- what is the argument as to why it shouldn

  • mbecker908

    Playing on train tracks would be ok for starters.

    The “torture ban” was absolutely unnecessary. The very idea that you think waterboarding, sleep dep, etc is even close to torture shows that you – and McCain – are absolutely incapable of rational thought. This was nothing more than a hammer McCain hauled out to try to embarrass Bush and it was picked up by the Dems and the media. What part of THERE WAS NO FREAKING ISSUE UNTIL JOHN MCCAIN MADE IT ONE don’t you get. Until he opened his worthless mouth the Dems were shouting in an echo chamber. As soon as he joined in, they had all kinds of credibility. That’s his role, giving the damned Democrats cover and cred where they deserve none.

    Of course the measure passed 98-0, just how politically stupid are you? Oh, you’ve already answered that question several times. By the time it came to a vote the spineless wonder in the White House had caved in – AGAIN – and there was no point in voting against it.

    What you’ve done, and what McCain led the US Government to do, is to accuse the US Military and the CIA of torturing people, where absolutely no evidence of said behavior has existed. No one has been charged with torturing anybody, let alone been convicted. And don’t even think about pointing to a naked pyramid in Abu Ghrab as torture.

    The US “is” the standard for human rights. We are now and we’ve always been. You and McCain have given cover to every despot on earth at the expense of people who are your betters, the men and women who serve and defend your butts.

    As far as waterboarding goes, do your own homework. You are simply showing your complete ignorance.

    I was wrong about you being an idiot. You’ve got a lifetime of improvement before you get to that level.

  • clowngirl

    that does sound rather selfish.

    Ok, I understand why y’all dislike McCain somewhat better now

    They say that there’s only 2 ways you can operate with regard to another person; positive overide – in which case negative things about them are minimized and your see mainly the good or negative overide – in which it’s the other way around. Kinda demonstrates why it’s hard to change a strongly held opinion either way.

    In future, I’ll try and resist the urge to defend McCain and just accept the fact a lot of y’all don’t like him.

    With regard to Obama though – during the election a large percentage of the nation was in a very frustrating state of postive overide (probably due to constant puff pieces) but that hasn’t lasted – the percentage who strongly approve has shrunk to (some days) less than a third and increasingly bounces around- but the dislike of Obama (those who strongly disapprove) seems to be pretty stable and steadily, gradually on the rise. Perhaps this suggest people are probably taking a dislike to Obama for more substantial reasons.

  • mbecker908

  • 6eorge Jetson

    nt

  • Martin Knight

    Becker and I are generally on the same page on most stuff, like this one – but he’s the meaner nastier less patient one. So I’ll take the time to get you up to speed.

    I did know that the

  • mbecker908

    why the days of “being nice” and “finding common ground” are over and the days of acknowledging that Democrats are enemies of the state and doing whatever we have to do to wipe them off the metaphorical landscape are here, go read this and this just for starters.

  • mbecker908

    Just look at the facts. In context.

  • redneck_hippie

    president get to 35% in Sept.” !!!!!

  • mbecker908

    in a manly sort of way of course Martin. :-)

    So, we did a Vulcan Mind Meld late last night. I was headed off to bed last night after spending a little “quality time” here and the last thing I did was to re-read your comments here. I just about posted a note under your earlier comment to the effect that you always seem to find a way to say what my less pissed off self likes. On virtually every topic I feel like your older, nastier brother.

    Mom always liked you best. :-)

  • clowngirl

    I still don’t see the issue as so open and shut. Yes, appointing judges is an executive branch function but the power of the executive has been expanded in so many other ways that the issue becomes less straightforward.

    incidentally, when Sotomayer was up Mitch McConnell initially said he wasn’t ruling out a filibuster. He didn’t wind up having the opportunity to filibuster but it wasn’t ruled out on principle.

    I will agree with you that the Democrats were acting out of purely partisan motives and should not have been standing in the way of those appointments.

  • mbecker908

    blah, blah, blah.

    That is a new record for stupid statements clown. I’m pretty much speechless because I’m completly overcome with your stupidity and naivity.

    No, I don’t think it would “give him an excuse”. First of all, he doesn’t need an excuse. Second, “empower Democrats”? You don’t thing raw numbers do that? Third, so what? The objective should never be to reach a acceptable compromise, it should be to kill this piece of crap.

  • Martin Knight

    On virtually every topic I feel like your older, nastier brother.

    Coming from you, I’d take that as a seriously high compliment …

  • clowngirl

    The Democrats are doing such a great job horrifying the public and destroying the better part of the political capital they had with independents and moderates, even with some Democrats ( as Dick Morris talks about today) – why not let them continue?

    If McCain starts blasting Obama and guaranteeing that Republicans aren’t going to vote for any bill whatsoever – then the focus is all on “Republican obstructionism” if McCain is all magnanimous and open to genuine bipartisanship (which Obama has shown he is incapable of) then the focus is on Obama and how horrific this bill is.

    I don’t agree with you about the Democrats having the power to pass this because of their sheer numbers – the vast majority of Americans (71% as previously mentioned) do not want to see Democrats passing a bill without Republican support. The base may be happy to have the Democratic party go all communist because they have a huge amount of centralized power and the MSM in the tank, but the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans WILL NOT be happy to see that and there are plenty of Democrats up for election in 2010 who can’t afford to support this bill without cover. whether there are enough…

    Also, Enzi said the other day that if he hadn’t been as deeply involved as he has been, we’d already have national health care. I don’t know that that’s literally true – but it’s certainly possible that having him open to discussing the bill has drawn things out and – so far – the longer things drag on the fewer people like Obamacare.

    But actually, it sounds like Obama is just trying to cut a deal with Snowe anyway – if he does that rather than accepting the offer of genuine bipartisanship it will just emphasize he doesn’t care about the concerns of the majority of Americans and just wants to shove his agenda down our throat.

  • clowngirl

    I hope Van Jones organizes another boycott though so more right wingers can enjoy the ratings surge and/or increased business that comes from being the target of deranged liberals.

  • mbecker908

    Other, of course, than the one on your head.

    Those two links are not in any way unusual they are absolutely typical of the conduct of the Democratic Party since the late ’60′s. But then, you’ve been living in a cave until early last week so you wouldn’t know that.

  • mbecker908

    You think that they make nice-nice with idiots like McCain and, oh gee!, everything just magically falls apart?

    Obama’s numbers are down – for now – and the Ds are in temporary disarray because of of nasty people in the hinterlands who are making all kinds of noise and holding their feet to the fire. The PROBLEM will be when Congress is back in session and everybody follows your advice and starts working together.

    You are just far too stupid to realize that a “bipartisan solution” is nothing more than a Trojan Horse. My god but I would like to have you on the other side of the table in a business deal.

    By the way, there is no difference between “we’d already have nationalized health care” and “we’ll have nationalized health care in three steps”. He will do what he’s going to do. The nastier and uglier we make it – and keep making it – the sooner the house of cards comes down. You and McCain just want to use white glue on the House instead of Super Glue, but aren’t bright enough to realize the result is the same.

  • Martin Knight

    I still don

  • clowngirl

    You write:

    Has the power of the Executive been expanded to include writing and passing legislation? No.

    No, the executive does not write and pass legislation but, by the use of signing statements presidents have decided they could delete passages of legislation they did not like and dictate how legislation should be “interpreted”. That, in my view, is a serious separation of powers issue.

    There are many ways that the powers of the executive have been expanded – both on the National and local level – far beyond what our founders ever intended, but I don’t have time to get into it before heading off to work.

    Filibustering judges wouldn’t mean that the Senate was no longer operating in an advise and consent fashion, all it would mean is that it would take 60 votes to consent rather than just a simple majority.

    You ignored my point about Mitch McConnell not ruling out filibustering Sotomayer. I don’t remember many on the right saying she should be allowed to be confirmed because it would be Unconstitutional to prevent it. In fact, there were right wingers on my Facebook page (early on) that were openly hoping she’d somehow be filibustered.

    I realize many on the right support expanded executive powers (or did while Bush was President) and support the use of signing statements but I don’t think there is anything inherently conservative about either position. Nor do I think conservatives are angry with McCain for the “gang of 14″ on primarily Constitutional grounds.

  • Aaron Gardner

    …if you really want to get back to basics you would reject both.

    Have a President that vetoes every bill that is unconstitutional and congress could go home after the first quarter, not to be heard from until next January.

  • Martin Knight

    No, the executive does not write and pass legislation but, by the use of signing statements presidents have decided they could delete passages of legislation they did not like and dictate how legislation should be

  • clowngirl

    “Have a Congress that vetoes every bill that is Unconstitutional and Congress could go home after the first quarter, not to be heard from until next January.”

    TOO true,

    Our founders underestimated the complacency of later generations. I hear there was a suggestion to add an amendment to make sure the income tax never got higher than 10% but they decided against it because it was pretty much universally agreed THAT IT WOULD NEVER GET NEARLY THAT HIGH. They thought there would be blood in the streets long before anything like that happened!

    Can you imagine if they were alive today?

  • clowngirl

    You ask why I say I’m unfamiliar with the argument for why waterboarding is not torture – it’s because I’ve simply never seen it spelled out. Most of the time when I’ve seen or read someone saying it isn’t torture they speak as if the rationale behind it is obvious. The one point I’ve heard brought up often is that it does no permanent damage – but I’ve heard from others that it can. So, I’m not even satisfied on that point.
    But is permanent damage the criteria for torture? what if something is excruciatingly painful for a prolonged period – does that not qualify just because there will be recovery?

    There seem to be two different questions. 1. Is waterboarding torture? and 2. If it is torture, is it at least humane enough to be used in extraordinary circumstances?

    Terrorists do not abide by any sort of honorable code of warfare – and as such, it follows that the rules should be adjusted for them.

    The left makes a big deal out of waterboarding but I think it’s mostly manufactured outrage. I don’t think most people are really horrified at the thought of bona fide terrorists being waterboarded for crucial information – what did horrify people were reports of torture and/or mistreatment that was degrading and unneccessary – and sometimes perpetrated against the innocent.