On the VDARE.com blog, Peter Brimelow suggests:
Obama and the Democrats can easily break this [Palin] momentum. All Obama has to do is ask John McCain (who, despite appearances, is still the GOP presidential nominee) to pledge, in the spirit of the “bipartisanship” that McCain was going on about Thursday night, that they will both work together for amnesty in the next Congress, regardless of which of them goes to the White House and which of them remains in the U.S. Senate.
McCain would be really stuck. He can’t refuse because (a) he really wants an amnesty and was fanatically committed to the Kennedy-Bush version; (b) he actually believes all this innumerate nonsense about the Hispanic vote.
But he can’t agree because that will utterly dispel the delusions of his desperate base.
Checkmate!
Obama could specifically offer McCain an agreement in which they both pledge to work together to pass in 2009 the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), which was proposed by John McCain.
"The comprehensive immigration reform bill that Senator McCain wrote with Senator Kennedy is not entirely to my taste, but I'm willing to put up with the parts of Senator McCain's amnesty plan that I don't like so that we can be sure something finally gets done. After all, I have to admit that Senator McCain has worked far harder over the last four years to provide amnesty to illegal aliens than I have. Therefore, to break the logjam in Washington, I'll offer to take his word for it that the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill is the right approach to amnesty. Clearly, Senator McCain is the expert on amnesty, not me. Giving amnesty to illegal aliens undoubtedly means more to him than, to be frank, amnesty means to me, so I'm willing, if he's willing, to pledge to pass his illegal immigrant legalization bill, which -- did I mention? -- he wrote."
If McCain replies that he's no longer for his bill, Obama could say with a puzzled look on his face, "Oh, so you were for it before you were against it? I see ..." and nod his head slowly, while scratching his chin, furrowing his brow and biting his lip in a thoughtful manner. Then, suddenly (and, preferably, with Franklin Roosevelt's Mid-Atlantic accent), "But, aren't we talking about your own bill? If it is a bad bill, why did you propose it? If it is a good bill, why are you against it?"
FDR could have gone on in this disingenuously ingenuous vein for weeks, having a grand old time at his rival's expense while the Republican base's enthusiasm for its nominee collapses, but, somehow, I don't think Obama can bring himself to play dumb, even to get elected President.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
58 comments:
I'm teetering on the brink of an attack of depression right now. How does one keep one's sense of humor in light of America's appalling situation?
This is one of the reasons why I think Obama would be a better president than McCain, in spite of his obvious flaws. At the very least, his cautious nature will keep us from blundering into any more land wars in Asia or spending a gajillion dollars that we don't have.
Why not just wait until Bristol discovers Levi cheating and they both end up on Maury Povich?
McCain's response: "Hey man, Sarah Palin eats moose. #@#!in' mooseburgers, dude. And she's hot. She's, like, a quintuple milf."
Obviously won't happen. The dems don't want to talk about "amnesty" either because the people in general are completely against it. Additionally, if they forced mac into a corner on it, he'd have to make a sincere flipflop--worse, the whole GOP might flipflop, and the leftist program would end.
Remember the Bush/Kerry election? Kerry actually had a position on immigration slightly to the right of Bush. *Once* during the debates, the subject came up, and when Kerry went to answer the question, he spent half of his time refining his answer to a previous, unimportant, question.
[rolls eyes]
No, leftists are much more interested in grand strategy than tactics. That's why they're winning.
Obama can't do that because amnesty is too unpopular. The ironic thing is that both candidates are pro-amnesty and both won't even mention it because it's a losing issue. The amazing thing about amnesty is its persistence in the face of its unpopularity, but as long as both parties support it, neither pays at the polls.
KingM: At the very least, his cautious nature will keep us from blundering into any more land wars in Asia or spending a gajillion dollars that we don't have.
Yeah, kinda like how Obambi and William "Weather Underground" Ayers blew up $160 MILLION in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge:
Behind the Annenberg Gate: Inside the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Records
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
globallabor.blogspot.com
...As I have argued elsewhere on this blog, I do not think that the link made here between the LSC's and "democracy" is, in fact, accurate. I think that such "councils" look eerily similar to efforts by regimes like those in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Venezuela under Chavez to impose control over teachers and their independent unions by an authoritarian regime. Thus, it is not a surprise to me that Bill Ayers has traveled several times in recent years to Venezuela where he has spoken in front of Hugo Chavez and has enthusiastically applauded that regime's efforts to link education policy to the Chavez "revolution"...
"There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement"...
What Lurks in the Ayers-Annenberg Files?
August 29, 2008 - by Clarice Feldman
pajamasmedia.com
...The CAC files show the organization funneled money to activist organizations and did so on ideological grounds, favoring applications that focused on ethnic identity and bilingual education and turning down grant proposals which did not. Thus, CAC funded a Juneteenth effort by the South Shore African Village Collaboration and a peace school but rejected proposals by the Chicago Algebra Project aimed at increasing student achievement and the District 5 Math Science Initiative which was trying to increase the math and science competence of Hispanic youngsters...
This is one of the reasons why I think Obama would be a better president than McCain, in spite of his obvious flaws. At the very least, his cautious nature will keep us from blundering into any more land wars in Asia or spending a gajillion dollars that we don't have.
Don't be so naive. Obama is a tool. John Kass has a great paragraph in his column this morning:
"When Obama is president and the red phone rings at 3 a.m. and Cosmo says that the Russians have put planes in the air, don't worry about it. He'll make a decision. He'll call White House chief of staff Bill Daley. Bill will call Rich. And Rich will call the boss of all the brothers, Michael Daley, the city's top zoning lawyer who'll be running the Justice Department, and a decision will be made. So don't worry."
If you think having a president with Merkin Muffley's cautious nature is less likely to get us into any wars, think again.
Steve, what you and Brimelow, and, more generally, Ron Paul are doing here is really beneath contempt:
Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week
Friday, September 5, 2008
economicpolicyjournal.com
Both Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are expected at the news conference. Barr is the Libertarian presidential nominee and Baldwin is the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party.
Speculation is that that Baldwin and Barr are stepping aside so that Paul can become the nominee of both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties.
Sarah Palin is as close to a true libertarian as you are ever going to see in your lifetime - and, in all seriousness, if she and McCain are elected, then, as they say over at vpilf.com, she would be literally a heartbeat away from becoming the PILF [and that's a cancer-ridden, gook-sodomized 72-year-old heart which very well could give way at any moment].
I mean, good grief - her husband was a secessionist as recently as maybe a decade ago.
And for the ostensibly pro-life Ron Paul to run against a candidate like Sarah Palin - who is clearly the most pro-life politician I have ever seen in my life - is positively satanic [unless he's being too clever by half in thinking that he would peel away more votes from Obama than from Palin].
This Ayn Randian nihilism that you and Brimelow and Paul all harbor is absolutely suicidal - it is consuming you and destroying you, and, to the extent that you are aiding and abetting a tribalist bolshevik like Obama Soetoro, is a treason which is capable of destroying the entire nation.
Because of dysgenic fertility, you will NEVER AGAIN IN YOUR LIFETIME have a libertarian this close to the presidency - in fact, owing to dysgenic fertility, the GOP might not even be able to win another national election after about 2012.
For attempting to destroy her candidacy, you and Brimelow deserve to burn in hell.
And no, I'm not kidding.
Remove this post from iSteve, and remove Brimelow's post from VDare.
You treasonous rat bastards.
Obama is the better choice for immigration. With him as president the repubs in congress will be able to fight tooth and nail against any amnesty bill. If McCain was president, he might be able to twist their arms into stepping out of the way.
The question is, next time amnesty gets proposed, is Tancredo going to be around to defeat it?
I'm not sure this strategy would really help Obama much. Since everyone knows they are both pro-amnesty, everyone will decide on other issues.
Regarding Obama and wars, I'd venture there's more of a chance we'll get in another one with him as President, because there's more chance that foreign threats will try to test someone they perceive is weak and inexperienced than a wingnut like McCain.
- Fred
Not going to happen. Obama wants amnesty just as much McCain does. Brimelow is fool if he thinks Obama would take his advice.
Face it, immigration (legal & illegal) is not going to stop anytime soon. The fix is in.
McCain could could refuse and just respond: 'What are you doing taking your cues from VDare and iSteve?'
1) McCain agrees: Obama loses (or at least draws) because the two become equal on the issue.
2) McCain refuses: Obama loses because McCain galvanizes conservatives.
3) McCain dodges: Obama loses because the assumption is that McCain has seen the light (at least a chink underneath the door).
Didn't really think this through so feel free to rip me a new one.
Excessive caution leads to paralysis. Buchanon dithered and dallied and did nothing while the nation slid to civil war.
Given the challenges of nuclear proliferation, Pakistan's collapse into the Taliban/AQ criminal gangs, Iran's racing to nukes, Russia's playing footsie with Iran and AQ, and Muslim nations demanding extradition of Westerners for execution for cartoons, movies, etc. made in the West, dithering is not a good quality.
Even IF McCain pushes Amnesty (which Obama would do about 2 minutes after being elected with a veto-proof Democratic majority, along with Gun confiscation and legalization of Sharia), that's better than Amnesty plus several major US cities being nuked.
If NYC is vaporized, who's to blame? Pakistan is just a notion not a nation, it's new President has mental problems, is weak and corrupt, and the military and intelligence services are corrupt, factionalized, tribalized, riven by feuds, and so on. And anyone pulling off such a nuking gains men, money, power and prestige inside Pakistan which pretty much guarantees it, absent credible threats.
Obama is a dithering wimp with deep sympathies to Jihadis. Even in the 19th Century that kind of leader was a bad bet. Now that groups within poor nations can kill American cities because of nuclear proliferation (which is not going to stop, either and only get worse) that's an even worse choice.
But Obama won't make Steve's offer -- because he only knows one big thing: smears on opponents. It's why he's focused like a laser on Palin (who clearly enrages him by her existence).
It's a huge mistake. But Obama AND his people all have serious issues with Palin. Note his campaign has made smears on her baby, her daughter, her marriage, etc. instead of going after her image as corruption fighter and populist.
Obama is now saying he can take Palin in a basketball game. Really.
kingm,
We're on track to eat another half trillion with the new Fannie/Freddie bailout. I don't know that either candidate has expressed an opinion.
Come on Steve, where's the post we're all really waiting for, what is Palin's likely IQ and what implication does it have for electing her to an office that gives her the potential for assuming the presidency. I know the issue must have crossed your mind more than once by now, so let's hear it. Razib and Half Sigma have already beat you to broaching the topic.
Giving amnesty to illegal aliens undoubtedly means more to him than, to be frank, amnesty means to me, so I'm willing, if he's willing, to pledge to pass his illegal immigrant legalization bill
Too bad Obama is more willing to grant a broader amnesty than McCain, which is why Obama and many others are against compromise. They don't have to compromise. Time is on their side. The meaning of citizenship and our laws are almost moot.
We are being presented in this election a choice between one man who will lie to us about his concern for securing our border, and another who will not. Neither one wants to talk about the subject, and the media does not ask.
Our media is corrupt and our government is illegitimate. There is no better example than the way open borders have been foisted upon us.
Since TV News empty suit and pantsuit talking mannequins refrain from asking the self deceived, amnesty happy John McCain whether he is aware that even 4th generation Mexican-American voters are 75% Democrat, is it any wonder literate conservatives have overwhelmingly turned to Steve Sailer’s iSteve Blog.
It's not that big a problem: McCain says, as he has before, "yes I proposed that bill, but then I got the message that the American people want the border fixed first. So any discussion of what to do about illegals now here, must await that result."
Cute story:
This afternoon at a birthday party, we were waiting to say the blessing when my kid brother, a Ron Paul voter, said, "Thank you God for Sarah Palin and Ron Paul, Amen". He's a brand new entrepreneur and intellectually gifted for what it's worth. I asked if he knew anything about Palin's admiration for Paul and he said yes and exclaimed how much he loved Ron Paul; he is a true believer.
McCain's response: "Hey man, Sarah Palin eats moose. #@#!in' mooseburgers, dude. And she's hot. She's, like, a quintuple milf."
In McCain's case, wouldn't she be a DILF?
I'm teetering on the brink of an attack of depression right now. How does one keep one's sense of humor in light of America's appalling situation?
We can, and should, do everything we can to right America's incredibly insane immigration policy. But the only thing that will for sure make a difference is for each of us to have more kids, and to encourage our family members to do the same.
The question is, next time amnesty gets proposed, is Tancredo going to be around to defeat it?
Senator Jeff Sessions was the biggest voice against amnesty, and he'll still be around in 2009 (presuming he doesn't die of a heart attack under suspicious circumstances before then).
Even IF McCain pushes Amnesty...that's better than Amnesty plus several major US cities being nuked.
Depends. Which US cities?
McCain could could refuse and just respond: 'What are you doing taking your cues from VDare and iSteve?'
To say that he'd have to acknowledge he knows what's being said on VDare and iSteve. Aha!
Since TV News empty suit and pantsuit talking mannequins refrain from asking...John McCain whether he is aware that even 4th generation Mexican-American voters are 75% Democrat...
John McCain is currently polling 10 points behind President Bush's alleged 40% Hispanic support, something like 70-30. Why do GOP strategists sound like car salesmen - "we're losing money on this sale TO YOU, but we'll make it up on volume!"
The GOP is completely out of the competition in states where they used to be competitive - California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc. Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984 (and could've won 50). Looking at the map these days, do you see the GOP ever doing that again? The Democrats could nominate Osama bin Laden and they'd still get a dozen states, minimum.
Of course the real answer is that guys like McCain and the Bush's never were conservatives anyway. They just wanted power. McCain, I know, is truly sincere about his "putting country first" schtick. He really, honestly, truly believes in the multiculti, "gived me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses willing to work for cheap."
What he doesn't realize and doesn't even come close to grasping is a play on an old saying: NOBODY WASHES A RENTAL COUNTRY.
Nobody will die for WalMart. No one fights for the Middle Eastern Bazaar. When the Mongols bear down they just grab their goods and hightail it.
“Obamas cautious nature will keep us from …or spending a gajillion dollars that we don't have.”
I am sorry, but are you insane?!? Obama is ALREADY suggesting a massive almost 400 billion per year increase in spending, particularly by offering government provided health care, the ultimate entitlement.
He wants to “finance” it by a net tax increase (assuming zero negative impact of higher taxes on the economy) of only 80 billion per year, and “ending the war in Iraq”.
The war in Iraq is a temporary expense, that will end sooner or later with or without Obama. Financing a permanent program by ending a temporary expense is just dumb.
Obama claims his health plan for 40 million Americans will be almost for free, 50-65 billion per year, contrasted by the 700 billion the government annually spends on the existing health programs. The plan relies on assuming savings in “administrative costs” and “health prevention” of over 100 billion dollars. He further assumes the plan will not increase in cost over time, as we all know that’s not what happened to Medicare and Medicaid.
Truly Burkian is what I would say.
LV has a point. It's a difficult decision. On one hand Palin seems like a good type to have near the presidency. On the other, I'd like to see Ron Paul ruin McCain's chances, to punish the GOP.
If Palin or Paul came out strongly against open borders and amnesty, that would make the decision easier.
I know I'd much rather have an Obama presidency due to Ron Paul ruining McCain's chances, than have an Obama presidency due to McCain alone.
To put a finer point on the punishing thing, this would be a good precisely because both parties collude to keep the borders open; if the GOP is made to suffer, they'll change their ways. Otherwise, they won't.
I want to slap "conservative" pundits when they act like there's no choice but to hold our noses and vote for "our guy." What bald-faced L-I-A-R-S.
Exactly right, Thucydides. And that's about all we're going to get: they are both trying to get elected, and this issue is radioactive. For those obsessed with getting a Buchanan, Tancredo, or Ron Paul elected, just dream on: you are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. At least McCain has acknowledged that the public has some sort of say in the matter. I don't think Obama would feel so constrained by the opinions of cynical, bitter people like you.
Lucius Vorenus wrote:
"Sarah Palin is as close to a true libertarian as you are ever going to see in your lifetime..."
A woman is many times less likely than a man to be genuinely interested in politics or to have strong opinions about it. The fact that Sarah Palin has been conservative up till now probably only means that the men in her life (primarily her husband, but father and brothers (if she has them) could have all contributed) are conservative. If she gets to the White House, much smarter, seemingly-more-informed men than her husband (neocons) will start telling her what to think about immigration and about fiscal and foreign policy. A guy like Ron Paul wouldn't be swayed by that. He thinks for himself. This is why they'll never let him anywhere near real power. A woman like Mrs. Palin probably WOULD be swayed. That's why they're OK with letting her be the proverbial heartbeat away.
Sarah Palin is as close to a true libertarian as you are ever going to see in your lifetime
That's a good one! The whole post was hilarious. Are you a writer for the Colbert Report?
I have to second Lucius Vorenus. If Paul comes out as the candidate for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, he is indeed a traitor to the republic. I voted for him in the PA primary out of protest against amnesty and other policies of the Republican party (the outcome of the primary was not in doubt, so I felt no qualms about wasting my vote in protest). However, he lost and I will not support him if he leaves the party. The Republican party is far from ideal. They are rotten and corrupt with special (esp. neocon) interests to the core, however I view them as the slow death of Western civilization in North America, as opposed to the quick death with Obama and the Democrats. To all you frustrated conservatives who think that electing Obama will accelerate the immigration and social crisis we are facing and lead to a comeback for sanity and traditional conservatism, don't count on it. Obama can do a lot of damage, not just with immigration, but in all aspects of racial and social issues. Don't bet that there will be any comeback from it. Lucius is correct. The Republican party is probably demographically doomed sometime in the 2000-teens anyway. Let's not accelerate the process.
-Philly Guy
some autobiography checking:
http://www.analyzethis.net/blog/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/
"Because of dysgenic fertility, you will NEVER AGAIN IN YOUR LIFETIME have a libertarian this close to the presidency..."
We don't now. Palin isn't a libertarian. She's a Republican. If she were a libertarian, she'd be running as Bob Barr's running-mate, and nobody would have ever heard of her.
And by the way, since neither you nor MILLIONS of people seemed to have noticed: she's not running for president. She's running for vice-president. And McCain will probably hold out long enough to wreck this nation, just as Kennedy - defying all expectatations as to the life-span of his liver - has lasted to this day. Only the good die young.
The difference between McCain and Obama is this:
If Obama is president, the republicans in congress might - might, mind you - oppose his plan for amnesty. If McCain is president, the republicans will not. They're not going to go against their only recently elected party leader.
It doesn't really matter if the Democrats succeed in destroying the Republican party. If they don't, McCain will - at least he will destroy it as anything even pretending to be a conservative party (a pretty slim pretense even now).
And, dude, take a pill. Try some thorazine or something. Treason?
"Ferraro was being interviewed within four days of being announced. Dan Quayle gave an interview one day after being selected. We are now on Day Nine for Palin and are told to expect another thirteen before she's ready. This is a pitbull with lipstick? More like a cowering chihuahua."
http://tinyurl.com/6ax49y
http://www.youtube.com/v/QG1vPYbRB7k
Unscripted view of Palin
I've got to agree with Lucius Vorenus here.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. For Brimelow to be slamming Sarah Palin is the height of madness. This is the most nationalistic, socially conservative, libertarian candidate to *EVER* have a chance for high office.
I expect this from Brimelow, who has a justifiable grudge against the neocons. Recall how he attacked Frum *after* Frum started supported immigration reform, or how he slammed Buckley after he died -- while NR was tacking right on immigration? Brimelow has done some incredible work at VDare, but the fact that NR and the neocons viciously excommunicated him has stoked a kind of petulant anger that clouds his mind. Put simply, when others start co-opting the VDare message, that is something to be celebrated -- not attacked!
Steve, I don't expect to change Brimelow's mind, but I do hope you will listen.
Steve, you are the most important conservative writer alive. It is amazing how many people I have met (both on the web and in real life) who read you, surreptitiously or not. Your role is similar to that of the few conservatives who kept the light of free markets alive during the darkest days when socialism seemed triumphant:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30115.html
Reason: You began teaching at the University of Virginia in the late 1950s, and by the early 1960s the administration there was not impressed with the work being done by yourself, Warren Nutter, James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock--four of the most famous and influential economists in the post-war era, two of whom [Coase and Buchanan] went on to win Nobel prizes. Yet the University of Virginia was not happy with what was happening in their economics department.
Coase: They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.
Reason: In 1991, you won the Nobel prize in economics. How has that changed your life?
Steve, like Coase and Conquest, Solzhenitsyn and Chambers, you WILL be vindicated. Others *will* take up your banner and run with it. But you have to let them!
This election is really too important to be snide about Palin's chances. We face a stark choice between a man who will irreversibly pull this nation into darkness and a woman who embodies everything which is great about this country.
Read his speeches. Hear his promises. Know his record. Obama's Service Nation plan will quickly become mandatory, taking collegiate indoctrination to another level by spawning an American division of Red Guards. He has promised to enact a national anti racial profiling law, a law which promises to loose the ghetto dwellers upon an unsuspecting society in much the same way the repeal of the Pass Laws spelled the doom of South Africa. Any criticism of the man will be foreclosed by the race card, and the brainwashing pioneered during the Annenberg Challenges will reach a new level. There is no immigrant too corrupt (Rezko), no black too hateful (Wright), and no leftist too radical (Ayers) for Obama to put in power. If you don't believe me, read Obama's speech at Howard on the Jena Six, or Jim Lindgren's posts on Service Nation.
And remember: when you have a true believer in office who will use the combined power of the presidency and the media to cram something like a national ban on racial profiling down our throats...things can get extremely bad, extremely quickly. The obvious objection to such a law -- namely that blacks/Hispanics commit more crime than whites/Asians -- has been disabled over the years by leftist attacks. By attacking the very ability to draw distinctions, the left has crippled the ability to distinguish self from nonself and compromised America's immune system. In much the same way that an AIDS patient succumbs to diseases that any healthy body would swat aside, an immunocompromised America will be devoured by an incessant intifada of below 85 IQ NAMs.
An Obama presidency will lead not just to Aztlan and the loss of the Southwest, but to the destruction of America as we know it. By contrast, a McCain/Palin administration will be much less likely to push through amnesty, particularly if Palin has a say in matters. I find it unimaginable that an unapologetic American nationalist such as Palin is enthusiastic about reconquista.
Bottom line: Palin is somebody who embodies your theories on citizenism and affordable family formation. She's gained enormous traction with the electorate. Anyone who considers themselves members of the broad right should support the Palin candidacy. It has taken Obama and the media by surprise, not least because Palin's speech drew blood against Obama for the first time ever. It reminded me of nothing so much as the moment in 300:
As Persian archers shoot the remaining Spartans, Leonidas rises and hurls his spear at Xerxes; he had discarded his shield and helmet to improve his balance and vision. Though the spear only cuts Xerxes' cheek, Leonidas has kept his promise to "make the God-King bleed". Xerxes, visibly shaken by this reminder of his own mortality, watches as the remaining Spartans perish beneath the combined might of his army.
Dilios concludes his tale before an audience of attentive Spartans, all assembled on a new battlefield. Declaring that though the Persian army numbers 120,000, they are demoralized after losing thousands to a mere 300 Spartans just a year earlier - and they now face 10,000 Spartans commanding 30,000 Greeks. Praising Leonidas' sacrifice, Dilios leads the assembled Greek army into a fierce charge against the Persian army at the Battle of Plataea.
Palin made the God King bleed, showing that he was mortal. To press the analogy further: it is now time for all Spartans, all Americans to band together against the common enemy -- Xerxes/Obama and his monstrous forces of diversity.
At the very least, his cautious nature will keep us from blundering into any more land wars in Asia or spending a gajillion dollars that we don't have.
You're probably right on the first count. On the second, I'm not so sure.
"Steve, what you and Brimelow, and, more generally, Ron Paul are doing here is really beneath contempt:"
Lucius, I have to say, right now I LOVE YOU, WILL YOU MARRY ME?????
I can only hope you are a lot more accurate then usual, if this happens, I'll have a wet dream. I love Paul the way other black folks love Obama. If Paul is on the ballot in all 40 states, with the level of anger people have at these two incompetent political parties, well, we'll have a real choice.
I can only hope that you are right!
I guess 'a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.'
8 years ago, it was 'a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.'
16 years ago, it was 'a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton.'
28 years ago, it was 'a vote for Anderson is a vote for Carter'.
I guess it's the Demicans turn again next election, and you keep getting herded into the same 1 party 2 branch pen every 4 years.
WILL THE LAST SHEEP INTO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE PLEASE SHUT THE DOOR BEHIND HIM! (lol, lol, lol)
Treason?
Important point: if you are accused of racism, your first instinct is fear and your second instinct is to show by any means available that you are not racist. This is because you know that total social and professional ostracism will occur otherwise.
By contrast, if accused of treason or anti-Americanism, your first instinct is to laugh it off. Why? Because you know there aren't enough people who will be pissed off enough at you. Your career and social prospects are not in danger, so it is not necessary to demonstrate your Americanism beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is things like this which demonstrate the ideological dominance of the left.
I'd like to...ruin McCain's chances, to punish the GOP.
But worse is not better. Worse is WORSE. South Africa is finished, Rhodesia is finished, Brazil is finished. Russia is only now recovering from 70 years of pillaging by the people who ran the White Sea Labor camps and comprised the oligarchs, but they had the "fortune" to suffer from ideological leftism. Immigration, by contrast, is irreversible.
The USA isn't going to become *more* likely to have a right wing renaissance as the fraction of Hispanics increase. Instead you will inevitably have people whose second cousins have decided to marry out, who know "one of the good ones", whose will is blunted by the exceptions which the media makes out to be the rule. The indoctrination will get more and more intense until those who remember what a white society looks like are dead and gone.
There *are* a few examples of right wing reaction in history -- the Nazis prime among them -- but for obvious reasons such movements will face a stiff uphill climb in the future. The left isn't going to be caught napping on that front a second time, no matter how different the movement is from Nazism. They've well and truly barred that door.
So don't count on worse being better, because it won't work that way in the US or the West.
Remember that the only reason there has been any interruption in the left wing ascendancy at all was 9/11. The subsequent need for a partially resurrected American patriotism/military led to the neocon defection and emergence of "right wing PC" which at least partially prevents direct & vitriolic demonization of the military and the US. No doubt this is just a tactical maneuver on the part of Kristol, Shulsky, and co., but the need for a partially preserved US has kept them from completely finishing off the country.
The only exception to "worse is better = worse is worse" would be if the Muslims really do manage to nuke Israel. The collective howl will be felt the world over and the right wing resurgence and overnight reversal will be immediate and merciless.
That's the only "worse is better" event that clear eyed nationalists recognize will cause a reversal of fortunes. An Obama election is not in that category.
nsam:
Andrew "Bareback" Sullivan has obviously let his meds get to him. He's got a crush on Obama -- has confessed as much -- and is no more objective than Michael Moore.
"If Obama is president, the republicans in congress might - might, mind you - oppose his plan for amnesty. If McCain is president, the republicans will not. They're not going to go against their only recently elected party leader."
I have to call Bullshit! The republican congress fought Bush on amnesty when their base went nuts. If McCain tries to push amnesty, this will happen again if Americans remain vigilant.
Apart from the question of whether Obama would be more or less effective in pushing through amnesty than McCain, as others above on this thread have noted, an Obama presidency would likely result in the acceleration in the ongoing process in which the government's treatment of its citizens is increasingly determined by their race.
Also, not all of McCain's instincts are bad. Of course his foreign policy views are to much under neocon control, but he did show some character in initially voting against the Bush tax cuts because they weren't connected with reductions in spending. An instinctual first reaction to not spend what one does not have is not a bad quality in a leader. It is also a rare quality among politicians. This is not to say that McCain will not succumb to party pressure re taxing and spending, but his instincts seem to better than W's.
-Philly Guy
Lucious V is spot on. The time for unity is now, we will probably never ever get this chance again. It is now or never.
Anyone who thinks of voting third party to teach the GOP a lesson, is exactly like the white liberal who votes Democrat to teach white people a lesson.
There are huge difference between the Dems and the GOP on racial/ethnic issues. GOP is the party of white people.
Voting third party only proves you are a Zionist tool, being tricked into failure to support your own racial interests.
And these dolts think they are the whitest of whites for throwing away their political support on third parties. Idiots!
There is actually a hard counter McCain could make were he confronted with this scenario:
"I am for it. I did write it. The American people said very loudly they didn't want it. I work for the American people, therefore I cannot support it."
"Captain Jack Aubrey said...
John McCain is currently polling 10 points behind President Bush's alleged 40% Hispanic support, something like 70-30. Why do GOP strategists sound like car salesmen - "we're losing money on this sale TO YOU, but we'll make it up on volume!""
Well said, Captain Jack - this and everything else you wrote. The Republicans - even that Wiley-Coyote-like Super-Genius Karl Rove - haven't realized that 40% of the hispanic vote is the most they're ever going to get. And that 40% was just what G.W. Bush once got running for governor, and pandering so hard he may as well have offered to change the name of "Houston" to "Santa Ana".
There's a term for a party that consistently gets 40% of the vote.
Losers.
"Svigor said...
To put a finer point on the punishing thing, this would be a good precisely because both parties collude to keep the borders open; if the GOP is made to suffer, they'll change their ways. Otherwise, they won't.
I want to slap "conservative" pundits when they act like there's no choice but to hold our noses and vote for "our guy." What bald-faced L-I-A-R-S."
I agree. The Republicans, and McCain in particular, need to be punished. They need to know that no one who holds us in such contempt, and does what they have done, will ever get elected. Even still they may not get the message. They may be reformable. The Democrats are almost certainly a lost cause.
"Anonymous said...
I expect this from Brimelow, who has a justifiable grudge against the neocons........
..........but the fact that NR and the neocons viciously excommunicated him has stoked a kind of petulant anger that clouds his mind. Put simply, when others start co-opting the VDare message, that is something to be celebrated -- not attacked!"
Perhaps Mr. Brimelow suspects (and fears) that NR and its alumni will do for the immigration issue exactly what they've done for every other conservative issue since the end of the cold war - scuttle it, and surrender.
"Truth said...
I guess 'a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.' 8 years ago, it was 'a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.'"
I suppose even "Truth" and I can agree on some things. If I vote for X, and Y gets elected, it doesn't mean I voted for Y. I voted for X. That Y got elected is the fault of those who voted for Y. A vote for X is a vote for X, not Y or Z (and certainly not W). In fact, I may actually just write in "X". Not "Malcom X" though - I don't agree with "Truth" that much.
"Anonymous said...
"If Obama is president, the republicans in congress might - might, mind you - oppose his plan for amnesty. If McCain is president, the republicans will not. They're not going to go against their only recently elected party leader."
"Anonymous said...
I have to call Bullshit! The republican congress fought Bush on amnesty when their base went nuts. If McCain tries to push amnesty, this will happen again if Americans remain vigilant."
The difference is that Bush only started to push it in the 5th year of his administration. If McCain does it within the first six months, it would be difficult for his own party to go against their newly elected party leader. As I mentioned before, when Ted goes to his great reward (and I hope there's a lot of Chivas Regal in purgatory, and a rickety bridge leading to the pearly gates), look for a big push for comprehensive immigration reform......."for Teddy". You know: "win one for the nipper", and all that.
And finally, you got to hand it to Testing99. Can that guy stay on message, or what? Is he a real person, or some kind of neo-con spam-bot?
Others have said it but I'll say it again: Sarah Palin will be nothing more than another (more genuine) tool of Karl Rove. Hockey mom will be the new Brush clearing.
Bush was an isolationist on the campaign trail in 2000, how'd that work out?
Levi Johnston's Mexican heritage
To the poster who took this name: this has got to be one of the stupidest handles I've ever seen. Hello! Levi Johnston is a handsome white guy who looks nothing like the mestizo day laborers on the corner. Whatever the nominal nationality of Johnston's parents, it's clear that they have European genomes. Really, it's people like you who provide grist for the left's "race is a social construction" BS.
If I vote for X, and Y gets elected, it doesn't mean I voted for Y. I voted for X. That Y got elected is the fault of those who voted for Y. A vote for X is a vote for X, not Y or Z
I'm not sure if you actually don't know math, or whether you're playing dumb. But obviously:
Suppose you prefer Paul to McCain to Obama. Then a vote for Paul will actually result in the victory of your least favorite choice rather than your second favorite choice, as Paul has no chance of winning or having any effect beyond this election. I am sympathetic to Paul but post-Palin this is not the time for shenanigans.
It is only if you have NO preference between Palin and Obama that you would vote for Paul. However, for any conservative to maintain that "McCain/Palin = Obama/Biden" is a juvenile political tantrum that I expect from "idealistic" progressives rather than hard headed realists. Let's look at the issues:
1) Immigration: Obama wants something *even more radical* than McCain. Moreover, Palin is a nationalist and I think that significantly changes the priorities of a McCain/Palin administration, especially if McCain derives his support from Palin.
2) Race: Obama is going to push for reparations (he "hasn't ruled it out"). He's going to push for the national ban on racial profiling. He's going to push for guys like Ayers to be in charge of ethnic education. He is going to be light years worse than McCain on this, and I defy you to provide evidence to the contrary.
3) Crime: Ditto. Aside from the obvious issue of immigration, McCain is a law and order conservative while Obama gains his support from felons (google "latimes felons obama" sometime).
You can go down this list. On issue after issue -- including immigration -- Obama/Biden is way to the left of McCain/Palin. Any quantitative analysis of their voting patterns bears this out -- see Poole's spatial theory of voting.
Moreoever, every position in the Plum Book will be filled by Obama's coterie of leftist agitators if he wins -- thousands and thousands of positions in the Fed Gov filled by the likes of Ayers, Wright, and Rezko.
So I think it is both quantitatively and qualitatively indisputable that Obama is far to the left of McCain.
I expect juvenile reactions denying this distinction from the likes of excitable people like Truth, who should probably be choking on some red pills while looking at pics of Michelle Obama. But serious people and right wingers *know* that tradeoffs are inevitable. McCain/Palin is not perfect, but it's a damned sight better than the alternative. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
About what Lucious said: those of us who live in states that are sure to be won by Obama anyway (I'm in NY, for example) can vote for a protest candidate without taking anything away from McCain. Perhaps those who live in competitive states should listen to Lucious. I said "perhaps" because he's betting on 1) Palin ever becoming president and 2) Palin not being re-educated by the neocons along the way. What are the chances of either of those things coming true, let alone of both of them?
Anything to punish the GOP. Anything.
Obama '08.
Panic buttons are being hit left, right and centre. This is heartening. Punish 'em.
Obama '08.
"Suppose you prefer Paul to McCain to Obama."
Suppose I prefer neither?
"It is only if you have NO preference between Palin and Obama that you would vote for Paul."
For the love of God, man, Palin is NOT running againt Obama, McCain is. We have no idea what kind of influence Palin will have in a McCain whitehouse - she might have about as much influence as Dan Quayle or Hubert Humphery did. She might be handing out ball-point pens at state funerals for the next four years.
McCain crossed a line, if not with McCain-Feingold, than with McCain-Kennedy, last year. He declared himself an enemy of all of us. That means that this American will never vote for him. Not ever. Not even if his opponent is a commie, closet-muslim race-hustler, like Obama. F**k you John McCain - F**k you sideways, is the considered political message I wish to send with my vote.
I recognize that Obama is more left wing than McCain, however his election might wake up what remains of white America. When he starts agitating for reparations, when blacks riot despite his election, people may start to see the folly of our multicultural delusion.
Then again, maybe not. Maybe we're just screwed. In any event, the tactic of voting for the lesser of two evils, if applied consistently, does not lead to the good - it just leads to the second least evil outcome.
You want to vote for McCain? Knock yourself out, Charlie Brown. Just don't be surprised if slips some Spanish into his innauguration speech. Myself, I'll vote for whomever I g*dd*amn please.
Svigor,
You assume that if conservatives vote for Paul and tip the election to Obama that the GOP will turn against amnesty because of the defeat. Why do you assume this? It seems more likely you'd get the worst of both worlds: pro-amnesty Dems controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress and no material change in the GOP's stance on the issue.
- Fred
"We face a stark choice between a man who will irreversibly pull this nation into darkness and a woman who embodies everything which is great about this country."
Sorry, but that is not the choice Americans will have. Sarah Palin is not running for president. She's running for vice-president -- a largely ceremonial position.
McCain may be many things, but he's not stupid. He would not have chosen a running-mate who might clash with him on policy issues.
Don't kid yourselves. If you vote for McCain, that is the person you're voting for.
[McCain should say]: "I am for it. I did write it. The American people said very loudly they didn't want it. I work for the American people, therefore I cannot support it."
With the minor catch there being that he's already backtracked, including in his own commercials. His shifty, "I'm going to secure the borders first" rhetoric gave him massive amounts of wriggle room, and the few of us paying attention knew it.
If Obama is president, the republicans in congress might - might, mind you - oppose his plan for amnesty. If McCain is president, the republicans will not. They're not going to go against their only recently elected party leader. - Martin
1) If McCain's pushing the amnesty, the GOP gets tagged - again - with the open borders label.
2) If Obama's pushing it they're free to oppose - they CAN unify, even if they don't.
3) The mid-term elections almost always go against the party in the White House, and the GOP's gunna lose a lot of seats in congress this fall. Can they afford to lose even more in 2010?
4) The odds of amnesty passing are better under McCain than Obama. Remember, McCain's the amnesty fanatic. Obama is more interested in giving all your money away.
Suppose you prefer Paul to McCain to Obama. Then a vote for Paul will actually result in the victory of your least favorite choice rather than your second favorite choice, as Paul has no chance of winning or having any effect beyond this election.
The intent is to send the message that Republicans aren't satisified with the GOP's position on immigration. Perhaps not enough to determine the outcome of a primary, but enough to make the GOP lose the election. This has actually happened several times in the past: Sen. Spence Abraham lost re-election narrowly in 2000 because of his open borders stand.
But this message, on a nationwide election, will be loud and clear. The GOP has a choice: they can move left to make up for the lost votes, or they can regain the trust of their traditional supporters.
As for me, I'm perfectly happy to see Obama elected and taxes on the top 1% raised. They're the ones who sold us out. It's payback, so far as I'm concerned.
Immigration: Obama wants something *even more radical* than McCain.
Ohhhh, so that's why that amnesty proposal was named "McCain-Kennedy"? Because it was Obama's baby? And that's why McCain is running commercials in Spanish saying 'Barack never supported amnesty.'
Barack did, of course, support amnesty - but never so enthusiastically as McCain. McCain was the crsader - the one willing to write the bill, to take on his own party, to tell GOP Senator Cornyn "F--- You." You know he'll do the same to us, after his election.
McCain has adamantly said that he's not going to deport someone who MIGHT have a son/grandson/third-cousin-twice-removed in Iraq or Afghanistan. We're not talking about Max Boot's "let's make citizens out of anyone who joins." We're talking about something vastly crazier: "let's make citizens out of everyone who joins plus their 10,000 nearest and dearest relatives."
Moreover, Palin is a nationalist and I think that significantly changes the priorities of a McCain/Palin administration, especially if McCain derives his support from Palin.
Palin's a nationalist according to who? No one's managed to find a single thread that points ether way with Palin on immigration, even when the issue did come up in Alaska. Don't you think that a Republican who was FOR enforcement would be shouting it from the rooftops? And even if she is for enforcement, she certainly doesn't seem to feel too strongly about it.
My fear and my guess is that Palin is one of those WWJD conservtaives, who thinks that Jesus would favor amnesty, therefore so should she - especially since it just co-inkeedently happens to go along with the interests of her patrons.
Race: Obama is going to push for reparations (he "hasn't ruled it out"). He's going to push for the national ban on racial profiling. He's going to push for guys like Ayers to be in charge of ethnic education. He is going to be light years worse than McCain on this, and I defy you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Good. Republicans will then have a shot at regaining control of Congress in 2010 - if they stand by their voters.
Moreoever, every position in the Plum Book will be filled by Obama's coterie of leftist agitators if he wins -- thousands and thousands of positions in the Fed Gov filled by the likes of Ayers, Wright, and Rezko.
Imagine the damage the hearings would do to the Democratic Party. The GOP's reputation has been destroyed by a president who is not and never was conservative. The Democrat's reputation will be destroyed by a genuine leftist.
Svigor,
You assume that if conservatives vote for Paul and tip the election to Obama that the GOP will turn against amnesty because of the defeat. Why do you assume this? It seems more likely you'd get the worst of both worlds: pro-amnesty Dems controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress and no material change in the GOP's stance on the issue.
If our goal is changing the GOP's behavior:
A: we reward the GOP for its behavior.
B: we punish the GOP for its behavior.
I don't see how A is a better way to reach our goal than B.
In fact both parties are dancing on a razor's edge. It will be very easy for either side to drop in a "poison pill" to keep the other from ever accepting any legislation. While both sides want mass immigration they want it for different reasons. The Republicans want an unending stream of cheap labor so they will never agree to something that cuts off future supplies of cheap labor. The Democrats on the other hand will never accept anything that changes the family reunification rules. They are worried about Tio Miquel as well.
Bush could have gotten "amnesty" but he got greedy. Meanwhile the E-Verify program marches on threatening to piss on everybody's parade.
". Then a vote for Paul will actually result in the victory of your least favorite choice rather than your second favorite choice, as Paul has no chance of winning or having any effect beyond this election. I am sympathetic to Paul but post-Palin this is not the time for shenanigans."
I smell mutton cooking;
BAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaA!
"Myself, I'll vote for whomever I g*dd*amn please.
Damnit Marty, I knew you had it in you, as your boy Sean Hannity would say;
Martin, You're a great A-Marr-a-Kin!
Ron Paul can't possibly run for President at this late date as the deadlines for getting his name on the ballot have already passed in most states.
What a smelly thread.
Post a Comment