October 18, 2008

So, how's this McCain guy working out, anyway?

Is he as great a candidate as the media has been telling us for the last decade he would be?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

59 comments:

eh said...

Democrats love him.

Vernunft said...

He must not be, they keep telling us he sucks now. And I trust them.

For once.

Anonymous said...

What you se from there is pretty much what we see here Steve. McGuinty has survived by intimidating the GTA media into sanitizing this trail of corruption, ineptitude and authoritarianism.

The REAL Dalton broke every election promise he ever made and hides under his desk as renegade Mohawks vandalize the province's deeding system, his generals punish civil rights protesters, kids in mini cars and duck hunters for the massive native and immigrant gang crime spree and provincial public sector unions skim all revenue surpluses in pay hikes.

Look beyond the GTA MSM sycophantcy to see the real Dalton...he really is the text book definition of an oily political hoodlum.

georgesdelatour said...

McCain's main political weakness is his decency. Eight years ago he lost the Republican nomination. He was the frontrunner. Then some people completely unconnected to the current President spread a rumor among voters that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. The lesson McCain took from the experience was that he would never ever stoop that low. But actually the lesson is, stooping that low works. You can achieve excellent results by doing that sort of thing.

none of the above said...

McCain's campaign hasn't been all that sharp, but I think he was almost doomed from the beginning. Anyone following eight years of George W Bush would have a hell of a time being elected as a Republican. During a global financial meltdown, with gasoline prices still up above $3/gallon, winning seems almost impossible.

I suspect McCain is focusing on the Ayers connection (which looks pretty fluffy, to me) mainly because nothing short of a career-ending political scandal for Obama will win this election. Short of the proverbial dead girl or live boy in his bed, Obama wins.

Henry Canaday said...

Right now, it looks like this election was lost in the first two days after the bail out was announced, when McCain and the Republican Party allowed the impression to settle in that this was just one more expensive catastrophe that happened on a Republican President's watch and was primarily the fault of Wall Street, which is identified with the Republican Party, even though its major executives tend more often to be Democratic Party donors.

Name me the candidate who could have blasted through, immediately and effectively, the media clamor, to make the essential point that this catastrophe began with the corruption of home financing standards to meet racial goals, a policy that Republicans have tolerated but to which the Democratic Party has a quasi-religious devotion.

Romney has the brains to understand this, but would he have had the nerve to do it, immediately and effectively? Giuliani has the nerve, but would he have had the brains? Huckabee has the folksy charm to say it nicely, but would he have had the brains?

masaponax said...

Yeah, but that was before the Messiah arrived.

Chief Seattle said...

Not much the Republicans could have done after 8 disastrous years of Bush. For everyone that thought Karl Rove was a Machiavellian genius - how's that permanent Republican majority working out for you guys?

Anonymous said...

MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK

Anonymous said...

Well, he worked out extremely well in the primaries where he beat that nutjob, Mitt Romney. When he won that contest, something changed and he lost his allure somehow.

airtommy said...

That's not really fair. McCain the 20-year Senator was a pretty good candidate. But when McCain launched his Presidential campaign 2 years ago, he decided he must change his character and become Bush Jr. Nevermind that Bush is the most unpopular President in ... well, ever?

The fault lies in Bush's disastrously unpopular policies. And the fault of those poicies lies in Bush's laziness during the formative years of his life. He never developed enough knowledge to recognize the B.S. that Cheney, Rove, et al were shoveling. Literally, Bush was taught the basics of foreign policy in 1999 by Richard Perle.

McCain was FORCED to latch onto Bush because the Republican voter base has been living in an echo chamber for the last 10-15 years and is no longer willing to vote for a rational candidate. The wingnuts simply can't relate to anyone who doesn't believe in fairy tales.

disenfranchised1 said...

No.

Mr. Anon said...

He's working out just fine for the liberal press which wants Obama to win. Almost as good as if the Republican party had nominated a wax figure to oppose "he who shall not be opposed".

McCain was always the perfect strawmen for the liberal journalists who fawned on him and fed his vanity.

Anonymous said...

Good Christ!

Better than the Socialist wing-nut he's running against. He's not my first choice but for God's sake, would either just put up a vote for Ron Paul sign or start acting as if one of the candidates is better for the country than the other.

I know you started getting hits when you started bashing Bush, but it is about time you decided whether; A) you really don't matter so you can write what you want or B) you really want to see a disaster for the country that will make the Johnson years look like the best of Eisenhower's.

Unless you're living in Ayn Rand land you are stuck here in America with the rest of us. Don't pretend you'd prefer Obama or that you won't vote for McCain when it comes time for you to hang a chad.

And if you're not voting for McCain, then tell us why you're voting for Obama because those are the only two people with a chance of getting elected in this go around.

Anonymous said...

Guess you gotta have W in the mix for the contrast.

Plus, he's getting older. You referred to old person's tourettes. Holding in his real opinions might be costing him psychologically.

Anonymous said...

The other day I saw Mick Jagger on TV strutting around like a gay chicken. Maybe this was cool back in the 70's; I wouldn't know. But it's sure pathetic today.

Normally I would laugh, but it was such an apt metaphor for the McCain campaign. Instead of focusing on winning, he's been focused on strutting around, like a gay chicken. He wanted to show the world he was a different kind of Republican: one too good to bring up the Rev. Wright, one eager to use gov't power to bail out Wall St., one equally willing to stick his finger in the eye of social conservatives each day and then suddenly appall many non-redneck Republicans one day with his pick of trailer trash Palin.

It's all gone down horribly in flames. Overall, I think it boils down mainly to not using the God given kryptonite, dynamite weapon of Rev. Wright against Obama. But McCain would rather strut than actually win.

Tsoldrin said...

I think most of the real McCain was destroyed by Rove in 2000. What's left is difficult to see through the lens of Candidate McCain and his forest of neocon handlers.

It might be noteworthy that the tiny bits which have resonated have been mostly in the realm of conservatism, such as when Palin was mistaken for a Buchananite Paleocon and more recently with the Joe the Plumber redistribution of wealth flap. Too little, too late. In another time this might bode well for the future, but I think we all know that the dems are going to use their unprecedented power to terraform the political landscape to ensure a very long (perhaps permanent) reign.

Blode said...

Sounds like somebody's bitter! Bitter your guy Romney got ignored.

I'm feeling it because my guy Paul lost, but he didn't even get ignored, really. He was just out there, ideologically. Romney, on the other hand, would have the vote of everyone who isn't a hard-core leftist, and this "Which Flavor of Media-Approved Progressive" candy-store election season never would have happened.

Reasons McCain can't lose (or so says the MSM):

Since he's been in combat, and a POW, everyone will believe everything he says on defense policy

McCain-Feingold melted the hearts of all the folks with lefty ideas about making the political process "fair", and those folks could never, ever be wooed by a "community organizer"

No one will notice that an anti-abortion stance is still anti-abortion even when advocated by someone who is neither Catholic nor fundamentalist (either that, or people will do a control F on the Constitution and try to find the word "abortion", shrug their soldiers, and decide to leave the matter to the states)

Conservatives will have to vote for him, since no matter how far from the center they are he's still slightly right of center (i.e. right of Chairman Mao).

Face it, righties (that's all of you - Russel Kirkers, John Birchers, AJN / Rothbardians, Randians) - elections are worthless to you as long as you don't control a decent-sized chunk of the media. Period. This election will be portrayed as "left versus right" with "the right" taking a thorough drubbing. The failure of a guy you don't like will be used to mock you.

zylonet said...

"McCain's main political weakness is his decency."

Would that be the decency to:

1) support amnesty
2) support the bailout
3) support environmental destruction via mass immigration
4) support vastly increasing housing costs via mass immigration
5) support curtailing free speech via campaign finance laws
6) vote on economic matters despite being a complete nimrod on all such issues
7) consider Israel's interests to be the same America's?

What part of decent is any of that? The McCain of the past 10 years (maybe longer) is a complete poison of man.

Anonymous said...

I lived in South Carolina during the 2000 primary and McCain's "baby" didn't make waves or was unknown amongst regular people. I was pretty involved, but I didn't know about it until after Bush was elected president. I never once heard it mentioned during the primary.

Here is the way it really was: the consensus everywhere, everywhere, EVERYWHERE was that Bush was "one of us", especially when it came to values, and McCain was the guy who liked to say to us "F off". There were dozens of stories of McCain the maverick and the media was in love with him. There were even stories about the media's love affair with the "maverick". The media critically wounded McCain with their gushing.
Worst of all, it was apparent that they loved him, less for campaign finance reform and more for hating us.

I never saw a single McCain sign in Charleston, but tons of Bush ones.

As the election in S.C. approached, people were getting excited about spanking the tar out of McCain for being so disrespectful. That reached a fever pitch when McCain won New Hampshire and the media was so jubilant.

I was a regular person on the ground, a military dependent working in the city, who lived during this and the myth that this rumor caused him the nomination just isn't true. Beware the cocoon.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

and then suddenly appall many non-redneck Republicans one day with his pick of trailer trash Palin."

Sarah Palin is not trailer trash. What kind of trailer parks do you live near, where the denizens are beauty queens who sound like suburban Minnesotan house-wives?

And as for those oh-so-sociable blue-nosed republicans of whom you speak - the ones who think Sarah Palin is some kind of uncouth Annie Oakley - to hell with them. Conservatives never should have thrown in their lot with country-club-trash.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

And if you're not voting for McCain, then tell us why you're voting for Obama because those are the only two people with a chance of getting elected in this go around."

You should reconcile yourself to the fact that you're screwed no matter who's elected. I refuse to vote for either. They are both awful, each in his own way.

Also, I think a lot of people have already absorbed the fact that this country is terminally ill. The time will come, possibly in our life-time, when it will fall apart. And a lot of things will be decided by means other than elections.

Let's! said...

He's probably running better than Bush 41, Dole or Bush 43 would be under similar circumstances. We already knew he was no Reagan.

Anonymous said...

"Is he as great a candidate as the media has been telling us for the last decade he would be?"


Sometimes people who pose as your friends and offer you endless bad advice are your ABSOLUTE WORST ENEMIES in DISGUISE. The media liked McCain to a)drag the GOP leftwards-a la Irving Kristol and b) because they knew he would alienate the base enough to lose.



I'd like to see the Democrats run Dennis Kucinich, because I know he'd lose. But that would be my advice to them if I was posing as their friend.

M

travis said...

McCain's main political weakness is his decency. Eight years ago he lost the Republican nomination. He was the frontrunner. Then some people completely unconnected to the current President spread a rumor among voters that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock.

That rumor cost him the South Carolina primary. This year the Obama campaign played the race card in South Carolina, following losses in New Hampshire and Nevada, and even managed to blame Bill Clinton. But if the Clintons had wanted to play the race card, they would have leaked the Wright tapes. As Lee Atwater understood, it's not about whether the race card will be played; it's about who will play it and when.

Reg C├Žsar said...

He doesn't have to be a great candidate. When asked the secret to winning wars, Moshe Dayan said, "Fight Arabs."

Well, Democrats are our "Arabs". Samuel J Tilden, who lost, is their fourth most successful candidate ever:

61.05* Johnson 1964
60.79* Roosevelt 1936
57.42* Roosevelt 1932
55.97* Jackson 1828

54.70* Roosevelt 1940
54.23* Jackson 1832
53.39* Roosevelt 1944

50.97* Tilden 1876 L
50.84* Pierce 1852
50.83* van Buren 1836
50.08* Carter 1976
_______________________

49.72* Kennedy 1960
49.54* Polk 1844
49.51* Truman 1948
49.24* Wilson 1916
49.23* Clinton 1996

48.62* Cleveland 1888 L
48.50* Cleveland 1884
48.38* Gore 2000 L
48.27 Kerry 2004 L
48.25 Hancock 1880 L

47.34 Seymour 1868 L
46.81 van Buren 1840 L
46.73 Bryan 1896 L
46.05* Cleveland 1892
45.65 Dukakis 1988 L
45.51 Bryan 1900 L
45.28* Buchanan 1856

44.96 McClellan 1864 L
44.38 Stevenson 1952 L
43.83 Greeley 1872 L
43.05 Bryan 1908 L
43.01* Clinton 1992
42.72 Humphrey 1968 L
42.49 Cass 1848 L
41.97 Stevenson 1956 L
41.84* Wilson 1912
41.34* Jackson 1824 L
41.01 Carter 1980 L
40.77 Smith 1928 L
40.56 Mondale 1984 L

37.60 Parker 1904 L
37.53 McGovern 1972 L
34.17 Cox 1920 L
29.46 Douglas 1860 L
28.84 Davis 1924 L

* = highest vote percentage that year
L = lost election

Any bets on how close to the top Obama finishes? Regardless of who wins, more votes for Obama than against would be truly historic. Only seven Dems have managed that in 180 years.

400 Electors? Steve was in kindergarten last time that happened!

rightsaidfred said...

The Left/Democrat/Media has run an eight year negative campaign against Bush, and by association Republicans. This has taken a toll.

Obama tapped into a surprising millenarianism. I'm sure Hillary Clinton lies awake at night wishing she had crushed this no-experience lightweight early on. But she didn't go after him early when he could have been taken out with the Wright/Ayers/Rezko stuff.

If Obama wins, we'll look back and say that when he beat Hillary he won the election.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

During a global financial meltdown, with gasoline prices still up above $3/gallon, winning seems almost impossible.

Would that prices were still around $4 a gallon. The Republicans were actually making major headway on that front ("Drill, baby, drill") until prices began to come down. I have a hunch they'll rise again once the Dems are securely in office and more drilling here is out of the question.

McCain and the Republican Party allowed the impression to settle in that this was just one more expensive catastrophe that happened on a Republican President's watch

Indeed. But how were they to combat that perception? The MSM was all on board with it, the well-heeled Obama campaign was on board with it, and the GOP had very little money to put on ads to really contest it. One thing we haven't heard about is that the GOP is still very much reeling financially from its abandonment of its base.

Republicans used to have a huge fundraising advantage among small donors. They should be doing better. They're not. Giving the middle finger to your base tends to do that.

As the election nears, GOP voters may be returning to the nest, but they're not bringing their wallets with them.

I think most of the real McCain was destroyed by Rove in 2000. What's left is difficult to see through the lens of Candidate McCain and his forest of neocon handlers.

McCain was already a self-righteous prick before the 2000 primaries. His push for McCain-Feingold came long before then.

but I think we all know that the dems are going to use their unprecedented power to terraform the political landscape to ensure a very long (perhaps permanent) reign.

Politically there may be very little we can do. The best (non-political) thing we can do is quite simple: have more kids, then educate them properly, which means not giving their little brains over to the leftist education establishment or to the teevee.

For everyone that thought Karl Rove was a Machiavellian genius - how's that permanent Republican majority working out for you guys?

Rove was a superb tactician.

That isn't a compliment.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Obama, you worked with someone who partcipated in the bombing of American citizens -- terrorized women and children. Little kids, Mr. Obama. You worked with him -- you...(list his mutual activities) will you call for his resignation now and demand that he not be involved in any activites at all related to the government? And will you now call him a terrorist? WILL YOU NOW CALL HIM A TERRORIST? Answer the question, sir.

---If McCain would have simply phrased the question like that at the debate . We'd see the Ayers' issue get immediate and lasting traction. Instead we have had Dole and Duller. What is wrong with the guy?
king S.

Truth said...

"Mr. Obama, you worked with someone who partcipated in the bombing of American citizens -- terrorized women and children. Little kids, Mr. Obama."

Answer:

"Well Mr. McCain, William Ayers could have been considered a terrorist 25 years ago. He had his day in court and was exonerated. He is a now a venerable and well respected college professor. He could have been considered a terrorist just as you could have been considered a boob for finishing 5 from the bottom of your college class, a cad for trading in your wife for a younger, richer model in her darkest time of need a wimp for singing like a songbird to your captors rather than hanging yourself from the bars of your cell or a dangerous incompetent for 'allegedly' killing those 44 soldiers on the Forrester. Of course we both know you are none of those things today."

Anonymous said...

truth, ayers has admitted guilt and was never "exonerated". quote was "guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country"

gf said...

truth, ayers has admitted guilt and was never "exonerated". quote was "guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country"

Exactly. But worse than that:

"Ayers boasts that he bombed New York City's police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972--and proudly adds, 'I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.' Asked whether he would do it again, he answers, 'I don't want to discount the possibility.' Or, as he puts it in Fugitive Days: A Memoir, 'I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.'"

DiverCity said...

Terrible! Which is why I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin.

Anonymous said...

truth, your post is vile.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Well, he worked out extremely well in the primaries where he beat that nutjob, Mitt Romney.

Yeah that's Mitt Romney: successful consultant, investor, Olympics CEO, governor - and nutjob.

Gee, who would've ever thought that an honorable war veteran would lose out to some guy who never bothered to serve and never even wanted to? I mean it's not like it's already happened like 4 elections in a row.

I never saw a single McCain sign in Charleston, but tons of Bush ones.

Even now I've seen maybe 3 McCain bumper stickers this entire election season; ten thousand Obama stickers. I live in the reddest of red states. He'll win the state handily but there is zero enthusiasm for him.

He's probably running better than Bush 41, Dole or Bush 43 would be under similar circumstances. We already knew he was no Reagan.

Those 3 weren't running against Obama, and they didn't have a woman like Palin to even choose as a running mate; a woman who, in spite of her weaknesses, has definitely helped the campaign.

Blode said...

Something that keeps me awake at night:

Baldwin - against Patriot Act; ignored by media
Barr - voted for Patriot Act, now opposes it; ignored by media
McCain - voted for Patriot Act; fawned over by media until he faced Obama
McKinney - voted against Patriot Act; ignored by media
Nader - against Patriot Act; ignored by media
Obama - voted for Patriot Act; fawned over constantly by media

The argument that the four candidates who oppose the Patriot Act deserve to be ignored because they won't win is bogus from a sequence-of-events perspective. First we pay attention to them or ignore them - THEN we go to the polls.

The media doesn't have to like the Patriot Act. The media likes big government and the state of anxiety caused by the permanent bureaucratic SNAFU known as the Federal government.

Anonymous said...

Not that I'm a huge McCain homer, but JM (or Hillary for that matter) could have ended this thing with a 30 second spot featuring the Rev. Wright.

Trouble is, I honestly believe the networks, other than FOX News, would refuse to show it.

I can still remember the awful Andrea Mitchell melting down when some Republican organizations went of the reservation and ran a few spots featuring the Rev.. Those ads were immediately pulled and some networks refused to air them, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

truth, ayers has admitted guilt and was never "exonerated". quote was "guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country""

"Truth" is a fountain of tendentious nonsense. As for example in his last post: he is now blaming McCain for killing 44 soldiers on the Forrestal. In a previous post it was 140 some odd sailors whom he had purportedly killed. Of course, in reality, there are no soldiers on an aircraft carrier anyway. He believes anything of convenience he finds on the internet that he can use as an argument. I think he must have been on a debate team once - he argues as if he had been.

"Truth" isn't worth the keystrokes required to refute him. I'd advise ignoring him completely - he may eventually just go away.

Truth said...

"I think he must have been on a debate team once - he argues as if he had been."

I was, is that a bad thing?

"truth, your post is vile."

Politics are a vile game.

none of the above said...

Blode:

Unless there was a vote for the Patriot Act in the Illinois legislature, too, I'm pretty sure Obama didn't vote for it.

Truth:

Obama wouldn't bring up the claim that McCain was responsible for that disaster unless he had ironclad proof, and would do himself no good bringing up McCain's captivity. But I'm pretty sure McCain and Obama's teams had analyzed that line of attack pretty deeply before the debate. McCain came out hard enough against Obama to look unambiguously negative, and I don't think that played well. A louder, fiercer attack would have played well with the base, but I'm guessing it wouldn't have done much for anyone still undecided.

Anonymous said...

Better question Steve, how well did Palin working out? That in-the-flesh Annie Oakley folkhero, that Capraesque champion of real Americans, the political reformer that was going to turn around this campaign and bring full-throated conservatism to the forefront of the national scene, single-handedly defeating amnesty and sealing off our borders (and in godless's specific variant of this unhinged optimism, securing the future of HBD science). Yeah, that panned out real, real well. It's stunning how well you could anticipate her dismal performance in this race by the supposition of a just slightly above average IQ, extrapolating from her lousy college academic record. The lack of any prognostication about this on your part is a rather conspicious absence, considering the nature of your site. Are you genuinely without any curiosity about what could well be one of the lowest IQ candidates running for national office in living memory? What this says and confirms about IQ?

Anonymous said...

The media controlls the country by setting the terms of public thought and hence greatly influences elections. They invariably support the most progressive candidate. McCain was the most progressive repub so the media threw their support behind him and he won.

Anonymous said...

Truth, you are an ass.
1- The ship was the USS Forrestal.
2- McCain was in a A4 Skyhawk and the Zuni rocket that caused the conflagration came from an F4 Phantom. McCain not only did not cause the incident but behaved in a brave and exemplary manner.
3- McCain has been repeatedly commended for his behaviour as a POW by the only people who count: his fellow POWs.
4- You didn't even get the number of dead right on the FORRESTAL. It was 134.
McCain's campaign has not been a good one and he is by far not the best of candidates but he is a far better man than his opponent and slimey smear merchants such as "truth".

tommy said...

"Well Mr. McCain, William Ayers could have been considered a terrorist 25 years ago. He had his day in court and was exonerated.

He was never exonerated. The evidence was deemed inadmissible because of the illegal methods the FBI employed in gathering it. (This was the era of Hoover and COINTELPRO.) The prosecution was dropped. There was no trial and, therefore, no verdict.

In the years since, Ayers has boasted about doing practically everything he was ever accused of doing.

harmless kook said...

"Face it, righties (that's all of you - Russel Kirkers, John Birchers, AJN / Rothbardians, Randians) - elections are worthless to you as long as you don't control a decent-sized chunk of the media. Period. This election will be portrayed as "left versus right" with "the right" taking a thorough drubbing. The failure of a guy you don't like will be used to mock you." - blode

If you're implying that we will be viewed somewhat indulgently as are those who attend comic book conventions dressed as their favorite superheroes, then the consequences of an Obama victory won't be all bad.

"Or, as he puts it in Fugitive Days: A Memoir, 'I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.'" - gf on Ayer's homicidal tendencies

What position do you think Ayers will hold in the Obama White House?

"Also, I think a lot of people have already absorbed the fact that this country is terminally ill. The time will come, possibly in our life-time, when it will fall apart. And a lot of things will be decided by means other than elections." - mr. anon

Last time I thought outloud about this, someone attempted to send me to a re-education camp of sorts. I guess he thought I would fare better emotionally if I simply gave in to the PC rhetoric on any number of issues. Still, I'd like to know what the probable results of an Obama presidency would be for the sake of planning.

Also, the conspiracy theorist in me can't help believing that McCain was deliberately installed as the Republican nominee with the intent that he would do his best to lose the election. The hoopla surround the Palin pick aside, McCain seems intent on losing or at least on not making any effort to win. I see the mortgage crisis as being linked. People have known for years that this bubble would burst. The overextension of credit in general started a good decade before the subprime mortgages so I can't help thinking that many economists, keynesian or supply-side, had a good idea where this would all lead and let it happen.

That being said, I don't believe 9/11 was allowed to happen.

Truth said...

"Obama wouldn't bring up the claim that McCain was responsible for that disaster unless he had ironclad proof"

No, that's the way it SHOULD work amongst gentlemen. Maybe you were not around during the Navy Swift Boat campaign 4 years ago.

"3- McCain has been repeatedly commended for his behaviour as a POW by the only people who count: his fellow POWs.

Yeah, but strangely enough they each had the same quote:

“John McCain is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life...”

"and slimey smear merchants such as "truth".

I know you are, but what am I?

"That being said, I don't believe 9/11 was allowed to happen."

I don't either, I believe that Osama Bin Laden forced the entire US Air Force to stand down while a 747 went 1200 miles off course and flew headfirst into the Pentagon, from a cave in Afghanistan.

Finally someone on this forum agrees with me.

Anonymous said...

"The media... They invariably support the most progressive candidate."

The media are backing Ralph Nader?

Truth said...

Hey, but on the bright side, his choice for VP did show the nation she is ready to be taken seriously by important and powerful world leaders around the globe!

http://www.break.com/index/ridiculous
-and-funny-sarah-palin-rap.html

l. ron hoover said...

Better question Steve, how well is Palin working out? That in-the-flesh Annie Oakley folkhero, that Capraesque champion of real Americans, the political reformer that was going to turn around this campaign and bring full-throated conservatism to the forefront of the national scene, single-handedly defeating amnesty and sealing off our borders (and in godless's specific variant of this unhinged optimism, securing the future of HBD science)...

This comment is so good it's a shame it's anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Steve-o, this election is in the bag.

Of course, first you have to get past the jerky movements, the drooping left eye, the scar tissue from numerous surgeries, the lack of height, the flaking skin, the wispy hair.

Then we just have to work thru the jarringly more youthful wife, the pained facial expressions, the pettiness, the codger-ish attitude, the incoherent thinking. Again, nothing a good consultant can't deal with.

After that, it's just a matter of messaging people past Campaign Finance Reform, Immigration Reform, a long history of contempt for Old Right values, and eight years of disastrous Republican governance.

But really, once you deal with all that, I mean, there is just no way this guy can lose.

--Senor Doug

Blode said...

"Blode:

Unless there was a vote for the Patriot Act in the Illinois legislature, too, I'm pretty sure Obama didn't vote for it." - none of the above

Why don't you look it up?

Blode said...

Harmless Kook, could you rephrase? I really don't know what you meant. I don't mind being mocked, I just meant it's a shame that people think McCain is a conservative.

airtommy said...

It's well known outside the right-wing echo chamber that this quote is false:

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers has clearly stated that he did not say that he did not set enough bombs.

Obviously, Ayers was a right-wing nut who felt that freedom isn't free and that the only language the terrorists understand is violence. I'm glad he's reformed himself.

Anonymous said...

Ive been reading a bit about the USS Forrestal fire. Judging by Wikipedia and other sites, a wet-start by McAmnesty (no, Im no fan) doesnt seem to be a part of the story at all.

In fact it sounds a bit unlikely just on the face of it.

Would you park a heavily armed/fueled aircraft right behind a jet exhaust, wet-start or not? Im not even a pilot or a sailor but I wouldnt like to try that.

Accounts place McAmnesty's A-4 on the deck edge and as you would expect the exhaust is directed out to sea.

This handy pic on wikipedia shows the story.

A rocket fired from one of the F-4s on the left (circled red) hit A-4, nose no.405, or 416 (McAmnesty's a/c) and the fire started from there. If the graphic is correct there is clearly no way for the exhaust from the A-4 to have ignited any munition on the Phantom across the deck.

Canadian Cincinnatus said...

The first rule of politics is, don't take advice from the enemy.

Considering that it is widely recognized that mainstream journalists are the enemy, it is surprising how many conservatives are willing to take their advice.

harmless kook said...

Harmless Kook, could you rephrase? I really don't know what you meant. I don't mind being mocked, I just meant it's a shame that people think McCain is a conservative.

LOL. Totally missed the reference. Also, if you are the creator of Blode, we might be distant relations. But trust me, you don't want to know for sure.

blode said...

Just for the record, I'm not a creator of The Blode, I'm just a fan.
- iSteve's Friendly Neighborhood Blode

Blode said...

"Unless there was a vote for the Patriot Act in the Illinois legislature, too, I'm pretty sure Obama didn't vote for it."

I'm not prepared to let this drop quite yet, because I'm curious. How many Obama supporters do you think are unaware of this?

I'm convinced that he's being mistaken for a leftist statist, like Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. Those two can't stand the Patriot Act; they're classic dovish social-democrat types in the mould of McGovern and whatnot. Those people I can live with because they're only out to screw the country with statism in one way.

Obama, on the other hand, never met a way of messing with American lives he didn't like. This makes more of a an all-purpose statist than a leftist statist. This must be why all the libertarians like Andrew Sullivan and Charles Murray don't like him. Wait - apparently they do like him after all.

Must be because of his nice speaking voice.

none of the above said...

blode:

The revisions/extensions to the Patriot Act, not the original--he wasn't in the Senate then, so couldn't have voted for it. Though Obama also supported/voted for the telecom immunity bill, whose main purpose seems to be preventing the full scope and nature of post-9/11 domestic spying from being discovered.

And in general, the Democrats talk a good game about being pro-civil-liberties, but they've been only marginally less enthusiastic than the Republicans about tossing out all those inconvenient things like privacy and individual rights and presumption of innocence, "for the duration" of an endless war on terror.

But here's my guess about why so many libertarians (David Friedman, Tyler Cowan, etc.) lean toward Obama: The Republicans under Bush have expanded the size, scope, and power of government as quickly as they could. They've been the primary guys pushing police state measures at home and endless war overseas. Maybe a lot of those guys figure that the Democrats are unlikely to be worse. That's my bet, to be honest--compared to the amazing mixture of incompetence and nastiness of the Bush administration, it will be a good long time before I vote for another Republican. Though I have faith that, once they get into power, the Democrats will be working day and night to bring that day closer with their own mixture of incompetence and evil.