From Politico, a reminder that voters are ignoramuses, and the media like to keep them that way:
McCain faces little incoming fire
By: Jonathan Martin
January 15, 2008 08:56 AM ESTKALAMAZOO, Mich. — His opponents aren’t going after him. … In short, McCain is getting a free pass, and it’s beginning to show. In campaign events across western Michigan, voters are once again being reminded of the qualities of character that have made him an admired figure on the national political scene, without the distraction of ads designed to muddy that image.
… Even those who mentioned immigration — or “the illegal aliens,” as Wolfis put it — seemed unaware that McCain was an outspoken Republican advocate for providing illegal immigrants with a pathway to citizenship last spring.
Sharon Hoogendoorn, who works at Hope College in Holland, Mich., where McCain also had a town hall meeting Monday, said she was a border hawk and felt strongly about the issue. Asked how that squared with McCain’s stance on immigration, Hoogendoorn, who is leaning toward the Arizona senator, said, “I think that’s how he feels — we didn’t bridge that issue today. But I’m pretty sure that’s how he feels, as well.”
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
15 comments:
Well you can credit our wonderful capitalistic democratic process and corporate media bias in large part.
Illegal immigration and the economy, which will suffer more because of it, are on the top of most voters minds. Yet, somehow we are treated to a NH Democratic debate on TV where any questions on this topic is *prohibited*.
As for among the Republicans, it's barely allowed to be mentioned. Romney, the only one who raised it honestly in pointing out McCain's shamesty, is attacked for doing so in the MSM. Meanwhile, the MSM gives McCain a free pass to lie about his record to no end.
Are things getting so bad in this country or am I just getting too old? Have the Neocons turned America into the new failed Soviets?
* we have higher rates of reelected incumbants than the old Supreme Soviet
* a hopelessly failed Neocon Politburo driving the main policies of both parties
* the Neocons insisting on their utopian world democratic revolution by any means necessary despite all reality checks
* an almost mandatory blind obedience to Neocon ideology least one be groundlessly be smeared as some form of running dog of capitalism (racists, anti-semite, terrorist hugger, etc)
* a shallow and uncritical MSM that reads in unison like Pravada on issues near and dear to the party line complete with laughable propaganda against anyone outside the one neocon party line
Either nobody knows nothing or they're all Know Nothings?
Bravo!
Though he's an awful lefty, Chris Hayes has a good explanation of just how ignorant voters are here. It's not just that they're ignorant about specific issues, they don't know what an "issue" or "policy" is. I say a point for Caplan and Converse.
Oh, and I forgot...
* exporting our "American Way" world revolution to ungrateful 3rd worlders using ever growing loans from our main capitalistic rival, China (hastening our decline)
* formally (hate speech laws) and informally (pressuring family, friends, colleagues, and employers into denunciating transgressors) enforcing public “criticisms and self-criticisms” when anyone dare utter crime speak whether based on facts (Dr. Watson, Imus) or not imagined (Duke LAX, Jena 6)
And I’m sure I’ll think of more.
There's an old saying by Newt Gingrich (I think) that 'a politician who is not agressively, actively conservative is a liberal by default.'
That is to say that you can't just say you're for this policy or that - "smaller government," "lower taxes," whatever. You have to vigorously, through the force of your personality, push for it - because otherwise you go the way of the rest of Washington, won over by Strange New Respect, well-financed special interests, and constant pleas from various constituents to "do something" when they "hurt."
Given that, that gives at least some legitimacy to being more concerned about temperament than policy. Scored on points, George Bush had better policy positions than McCain in 2000. But he's certainly been no better a president, and arguably worse. Perhaps more than his ideology, his temperament has been his undoing.
McCain?
The problem is that whatever gains McAmnesty might actually make on shrinking government will be lost shortly after the recipients of his amnesty start voting en masse. He may shrink spending for a very little while, but in the end it will have all been pointless. So I'm willing to take my chances with Romney, who can't afford to flip again on immigration.
As for immigration's effect on this election - the 3 states the media's paid any attention to have relatively few illegal immigrants. As the races move to states that do, they are also moving to states where campaigning will be more wholesale than retail. That puts a premium on where a candidate stands.
I'm guessing McCain made a deal with The Powers That Be a couple years back: reign in his criticism of the neocon project and process (particularly, curtail criticism of Bush), and get a viable shot at the presidency in 08.
I'd be very surprised if this kid gloves treatment of McCain wasn't part of such a deal.
I voted in Michigan yesterday, and I didn't vote for McCain. Open borders, McCain-Feingold, opposition to tax cuts, Keating Five - what kind of conservative is he supposed to be?
"* formally (hate speech laws) and informally (pressuring family, friends, colleagues, and employers into denunciating transgressors) enforcing public “criticisms and self-criticisms” when anyone dare utter crime speak whether based on facts (Dr. Watson, Imus) or not imagined (Duke LAX, Jena 6)"
You are describing the establishment of matriarchy here. A matriarchal society will inevitably annihilate free speech. Consider that female socialization strategies do not select for "free speech". On the contrary. Female dominated societies will produce mass conformist populations, and that is what is happening now. Millions of adult males are conforming to their wives' and girlfriends' political expectations during various social and family interactions: This behavior is fundamentally female and conformist and not individualist. Meanwhile, the gender gap in the Michigan primary set a record. Men are rejecting matriarchy in the privacy of the voting booth...it is amazing that they aren't doing it in larger numbers.
The recent demographic news from AP tells more on this story: Northeast USA is essentially a matriarchy at this stage of the game.
"New England's fertility rates are more like Northern Europe's."
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080116/D8U6N7F02.html
In northern European societies across the globe, American or otherwise, women are achieving higher education levels than men, earning more money, having fewer babies, and voting into existence socialist welfare states. These areas are also being aggressively invaded by third world immigrants.
I expect Romney to eventually take McCain to task for his amnesty position. He's certainly shown a willingness to get nasty when necessary. For now there may still be too many viable candidates in the race for negative campaigning to be the best approach, but just wait.
Disappointing that Ron Paul didn't do better in MI, but that's life.
Listening to NPR this morning they had an audio excerpt of McCain's gracious congratulations speech to Romney's win in Michigan.
The part that had me about fall out of my chair was when McCain made the quickly recovered, Freudian slip and and said "Mexic- Michigan voters..."
Should be on the Morning Edition audio for today, Jan 16.
dave david
The morphing of America into the old Soviet Union is what I was describing. I wouldn’t consider the old Soviet Union a political matriarchy by any means.
The commonality is some tortured idealists trapped in the echo-chamber bubble of their own theories. They have little experience in the neither real world nor tolerance for experiences that challenge their beautiful models of World Revolution and the new Democratic/Soviet Man.
It’s telling that the conservative Neocons are often decedents of more radical leftwing idealists (Communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists) who espoused the same ends of remaking the world into a utopia by any means necessary.
Maybe we'll sacrifice another 100 million to sate their same questions about the nature of man.
Anon -- Dave David is correct. Look at the conformism on the View, Tyra, any women's show (you'll have it inflicted on you in the waiting rooms of hospitals, auto repair centers, everywhere).
Neocons like (Malkin, Hanson, Cheney) mostly wanted to kick some ass. Figuring it had been far too long. Which it was.
I voted in Michigan yesterday, and I didn't vote for McCain. Open borders, McCain-Feingold, opposition to tax cuts, Keating Five - what kind of conservative is he supposed to be?
The Latin American Banana Republican variety, of course!
Post a Comment